Explanations of vote
Written explanations of vote
Nicodim Bulzesc
I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on the role of the European Union in the Middle East as I agree that we need to support the reconstruction plans for the Gaza Strip.
This resolution seeks to grant immediately rapid and unrestricted humanitarian aid, a measure which is a moral obligation. This aid must be provided without any conditions or restrictions. The Israeli authorities are being requested to allow an adequate, continuous flow of humanitarian aid, including all the necessary materials so that the UN agencies such as UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) and international organisations can carry out their activities and tend to the population's needs.
Konstantinos Droutsas
With the European Parliament resolution on humanitarian aid to Gaza, the EU is endeavouring, driven by the principle of treating the slaughtering Israelis on equal terms with the resisting Palestinians, to conceal its huge responsibility for the slaughter of the Palestinian people during the murderous Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip which resulted in over 1 300 dead, the majority of whom were children, women and the elderly, and over 5 000 injured. The complete destruction of thousands of homes and every social infrastructure, in conjunction with the complete economic isolation imposed by Israel, has resulted in the Palestinian population living under tragic and inhumane conditions.
The avoidance of any form of reference to and condemnation of Israel and the causes of the tragic situation of the Palestinian people confirms, once again, the support of the EU for the criminal action by Israel in its effort to upgrade its role in the escalating infighting between the imperialists in the Middle East.
What the heroic Palestinian people need more than anything is not charity from the imperialists. It is the foundation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, in keeping with the UN resolutions on the 1967 borders, and undivided solidarity from other peoples in its struggle.
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) The situation in the Gaza Strip is extremely serious, as the ongoing conflict is depriving the civilian population of food, medicines and fuel. The situation is so serious that immediate external help is required. We have therefore voted in favour of the resolution.
However, we feel that it is extremely regrettable - though unfortunately not particularly surprising - that the European Parliament is once again using a disaster to slowly but surely advance its position.
Pedro Guerreiro
After more than 18 months of an inhumane blockade, the 22 days of brutal Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip have led to the deaths of at least 1 324 people and over 5 000 wounded, most of whom are children. Over 100 000 people have been displaced and more than 15 000 homes have been destroyed. Basic infrastructures and key public services have been destroyed or dismantled, threatening the response to the most basic needs of the Palestinian population.
Faced with this shocking crime, the European Parliament does not have a single word of condemnation for Israel.
There is no doubt that the Palestinian population urgently needs aid. There is no doubt that we must recognise the suffering of the Palestinian population. However, it is also essential to denounce the aggressors and hold them responsible. Instead, the resolution insists on whitewashing the Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip, hiding it behind the term 'conflict'. This aggression is part of the strategy to overcome the legitimate resistance of the Palestinian people to the occupation and to undermine the conditions required for building a Palestinian state.
The EU, which is always so quick to invoke human rights, is 'forgetting' them with regard to Israel which, for more than 40 years, has been colonising the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
Flaviu Călin Rus
I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution of 18 February 2009 on humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, as the civilian population is in great need of aid because of the situation created in this area.
I feel that an assessment must be carried out of the needs of the population in the Gaza Strip and plans for the area's reconstruction must be initiated.


Need for the Convention on Cluster Munitions to come into effect before the end of 2008 (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Council (B6-0481/2008) on the need for the Convention on Cluster Munitions to enter into force before the end of 2008, by Mrs Beer, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Mrs Gomes, on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck and Mrs Lynne, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Mr Kristovskis, on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, Mr Pflüger and Mrs Zimmer, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, and Mr Zappalà on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats (O-0110/2008/rev. 1).
Angelika Beer
author. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 3 December 2008 in Oslo, we will at last reach the point of being able to sign the convention banning cluster munitions. In Dublin, 107 states adopted the convention and promised to sign it. Two weeks before the conference, we would like to call on countries throughout the world to keep their promises, to sign the convention and, above all, to ratify it quickly.
The war in the Caucasus and the use of cluster munitions both by Georgia and by Russia, represent a challenge to us. We must not waste any more time. We have high expectations of the European Commission and the Council. We expect all the Member States of the European Union to sign the convention on 3 December, in particular those European states which are still in doubt, that is Greece, Latvia, Poland, Romania and the Republic of Cyprus.
We expect that the European Union will continue to campaign for a legally binding ban on cluster munitions as part of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). We unanimously condemn the unbelievable attempt by the USA, Russia and China at the last Geneva conference to legalise cluster munitions within the CCW.
We would like, in future, to evaluate the synergies and links between the future Oslo convention and the Ottawa Treaty, which resulted in landmines being banned. Our resolution will act as a call to the Commission to make more funding - significantly more funding - available to protect people in the contaminated areas and to remove the cluster munitions. This applies to Lebanon, the Balkans and all other contaminated regions. We do not have any reliable sources of funding there and this should not be the case. If we are to take this cause seriously, the Commission must find ways of funding it.
I would like to emphasise once again on behalf of my group that our objective is a legally binding ban on the use, stockpiling and production of these inhumane weapons which have, for decades, been a source of suffering for the civilian populations of affected areas.
I would like once more to make it quite clear that the use of these weapons, including in countries where the European Union has police and military forces in operation, such as Afghanistan, Bosnia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, represent just as much of a danger to our mission as to the people themselves.
Ana Maria Gomes
On 3 December, the leaders of the 107 countries which adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions in May of this year will meet in Oslo to sign it. The choice of 3 December is not fortuitous. On this same day in 1997, the Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines was opened for signature in Ottawa. These instruments do not only share their date of signature. Shamefully, neither Convention has the support of countries representing a large part of humanity, such as the United States, China, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Russia and Israel.
The Oslo Convention was negotiated in Dublin and 22 out of the 107 signatories are members of the European Union. We hope that Cyprus, Poland, Romania, Latvia and Greece will shortly abandon their reservations, thus allowing the European Union to present a united front in its opposition to these weapons which kill and maim indiscriminately.
These weapons are not only immoral, they are increasingly useless in military terms. The European Defence Agency itself explains, in its 'Long-Term Vision Report for European Defence Capability and Capacity Needs', that:
'serious thought needs to be given to the future utility of unguided munitions, as well as cluster bombs, mines and other weapons of indiscriminate effect'.
(PT) European military forces, and not just them, are increasingly operating in the midst of civilian populations and the objective is less and less to destroy an easily identifiable enemy. As a result, cluster munitions are not only incompatible with humanitarian law, they are also of limited use. International law, moral imperatives and the most basic military logic agree on the urgent need to eradicate these weapons. It is therefore essential to ensure the universal ratification of the Oslo Convention.
Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck
author. - (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of my group, I supported this oral question in order to express our disapproval of cluster bombs and munitions, for reasons that are entirely evident, and to show our support for the attitude of those Member States who have given their agreement to the convention banning them.
I hope, as do my colleagues, that in the coming weeks, all Member States, without exception, will sign this convention and will adhere to it because, as you well know, it is said that either under the leadership of the United States or inspired by them, some states, several of whom are Member States, plan to get around the convention by, if I may say so, playing with the definition of what constitutes cluster bombs and munitions and their reduced risk of inadvertently injuring people who touch the unexploded fragments.
I hope that this does not occur. My group hopes that this does not occur and I therefore take my opportunity to ask the Council what steps it plans to take to ensure that this convention enters into force.
Finally, turning to another matter, Minister, I read that in the near future, you may be moving on to new challenges, as we say. Should that be the case, my best wishes and those of my group go out to you.
Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis
Mr President, representatives of the Commission, representatives of the Presidency, first of all, I would like to say that I was defence minister in my country for nearly six years, during the period leading up to our accession to NATO. Therefore, I can say that I understand very well what it means to look after one's country through defence measures, through the requisite weaponry and ordnance. However, on my own behalf and also on behalf of the UEN group, I have supported all the measures which the European Parliament has taken, including this issue regarding the prohibition on cluster munitions. In my view, everything has already been said here. It is clear to all that this weapon is not accurate enough and that to date, as we can see, it has mainly struck civilians and has wounded children.
I would therefore like to say that the European Parliament and I myself believe that the EU Member States ought to come together in a united position and use their joint forces to unite on banning this kind of weapon. On the other hand, I would also like to advocate the use of this requirement in bilateral talks with countries such as Russia, the United States of America and China, who are the main holders of this type of weapon. I believe that this is very important, when we recall that quite recently, during the war between Georgia and Russia, unfortunately Russia used this type of cluster munitions against Georgian civilians. This confirms that the argument for retaining this munition in our arsenals, namely, the argument that it is a defence tool, does not withstand criticism. Unfortunately, as we see, this instrument is used in other countries as an offensive tool against civilians.
Luisa Morgantini
author. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, cluster munitions are, to all intents and purposes, weapons of mass destruction, inhumane devices, if it is possible for a humane device to exist in a war.
A US army publication, Field Artillery, states: 'Unexploded bomblets are a problem for innocent civilians and our light forces, our dismounted infantry, who come after the bombardment of an urban area', and nonetheless they continue to be produced and used and land polluted with unexploded devices continues to sow death year after year, as we have also seen in Georgia.
In Oslo, at the conference to combat the use, production and stockpiling of cluster munitions, a young Lebanese man aged 24, Ibrahim, whose body had been devastated by wounds, and who had an amputated leg, introduced himself, saying: 'Pleased to meet you, I am a survivor'. I would have wanted to die, and instead I just embraced him. I went to meet him in his village, in the south of Lebanon, and I saw in the yards of the houses, the schools, in the grass, under the trees, unexploded bombs, launched from Israeli planes. They launched over 1 400 000 of them, and they launched them in recent days, when the truce and ceasefire had already been declared. This was pure cruelty, and I met many children, men and women in Afghanistan in the emergency hospitals, with mutilated bodies; there are thousands of children in the world mutilated because they played with fragments of cluster bombs, attracted by the coloured objects.
In Dublin, 109 countries undertook, after 10 days of debate, to sign the prohibition on the deadly weapons, to provide assistance to victims and to provide financial help to the areas involved, but the agreement also stipulates that all the arsenals must be destroyed within eight years. They will certainly not do this unless there is strong pressure from all the signatory countries of the United Nations and the countries which are responsible for crimes against civilian populations countries such as Israel, the United States, Russia, China, India and Pakistan, which did not go to Dublin and which have refused to ban cluster munitions.
Robert Gates, Defence secretary, has attempted to explain US resistance: cluster munitions are an effective weapon against many different objectives. The dead in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in the former Yugoslavia have certainly tested this. Once again, Europe is showing its sensibilities, with the 22 countries that have signed and acceded to the Dublin Convention, but concrete action is needed.
On 2 and 3 December, the treaty will be officially signed in Oslo, but it will have to be ratified. We must do so quickly and block any attempt to get round the treaty, and I believe that the Council will really have to lay down effective political and financial instruments to ensure that the treaty is implemented and that there are no more deaths of this kind, namely deaths caused by weapons of destruction.
Stefano Zappalà
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is just a point of information for the Presidency of the Council, if you, as current President, can pass it on to your predecessor: Earlier it was said that here, in this Chamber, there are three people who were born on the same day as Neil Armstrong. In fact, a European astronaut of Italian origin was a Member of this Parliament between 1994 and 1999; and during this legislature, there is also a European astronaut in this Parliament, again an Italian.
In any case, coming back to cluster munitions, on behalf of my group, I joined the initiative on this subject because I believe it to be a matter that goes to the heart of civilisation and humanity. My fellow Member was minister of defence in one of the Member States, and I also come from the military world. I believe this plan to ban cluster munitions globally to be a matter, as I was saying, that goes to the heart of civilisation and humanity.
Why is this? It is because civilisation and humanity are two of the many constituent principles of the European Union; they form part of the foundation of our treaties and I therefore believe that we must not merely take this matter as a starting point, but we must make it our serious business to consider what the EU's attitude ought to be as a whole with regard to munitions of this type.
What these weapons and munitions give rise to around the world is, however, clear. In all forms of war, the facts are what they are, but the most serious point is that it does not all finish with the end of the war, but continues afterwards because the land is contaminated, and continues to be so. Unfortunately, another point is that war also takes place in countries that certainly do not have a very advanced level of civilisation, and therefore there remains that readiness, including at the local level, to use objects found on the land and which are then the cause of the majority of disfigurements that happen in childhood to young people. Many films have been submitted to us and continue to be sent to us from around the world showing the results of using these weapons.
I therefore call upon the Council, on behalf of my group, and upon the European Parliament, to persist with this issue. I hope that all this work will translate into the ratification of this convention which I believe is one of the most important aspects, in fact, of civilisation and humanity that the European Union can act upon.
Jean-Pierre Jouyet
Mr President, honourable Members, Mrs Beer, Mrs Gomes, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, whom I thank personally for her kind wishes, Mrs Morgantini, Mr Kristovskis and Mr Zappalà, you are all profoundly correct: as Mr Zappalà said, it is a question of civilisation and humanity.
All Member States of the European Union share the humanitarian concerns raised by cluster munitions. The European Union supports the adoption of an international instrument prohibiting cluster munitions, which cause unacceptable harm to civilian populations. It was for this reason that all the Member States of the European Union attended the conference in Dublin, either as stakeholders - like the large majority of Member States - or as observers. It is, of course, the European Union that is the stakeholder; that is what one must understand from this rather complicated phrase.
With regard to the decision to sign or ratify, this is a sovereign decision that falls upon each Member State, but like Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, I regret that they will not all have signed by this December.
The vast majority of Member States of the Union have announced their intention to sign the convention in the coming weeks, I would like to point this out and say that Mrs Morgantini is right; we need to take practical steps before the convention enters into force. In this spirit, France, the country that I know the best, decided, in May 2008, to withdraw from service 90% of its stock of cluster munitions, without delay.
As you know, however, a number of Member States have yet to take such a decision. As far as the French Presidency is concerned, it announced in May, following the Dublin Conference, that it will sign the convention in early December. The Presidency wishes to draw the attention of all Members to the on-going negotiations on cluster munitions within the context of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) which is the only convention that the largest military powers - the United States, Russia, China and India, or countries such as Georgia - agree to participate in, which is not the case for the Oslo convention. I would point out that these countries have not expressed an intention to sign this convention.
All Member States of the European Union are party to this convention and are calling for the adoption of a protocol on cluster munitions. It is also through commitments made in this arena, and Mr Kristovskis is entirely right to emphasise this, that it will be possible to achieve changes on the ground. Furthermore, the deaths caused by cluster munitions, such as we have seen in Georgia, could be avoided in the future if the negotiations taken within the framework of this universal convention are successful.
Honourable Members, as you can see, cluster munitions are an issue that presses the European Union to act, and it must continue to press at an international level for the adoption of a universal instrument. It is, in any case, with this aim in mind that the French Presidency is going to great lengths to convince all its partners, and will continue to do so.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I am no pacifist - anybody in this Chamber who knows me well would say that - but there is much about warfare and the arms trade which we must regret. Cluster munitions to me are one of the most horrible ways of waging war which should always, of course, only occur as a very last resort.
There is much evidence to suggest that these weapons disproportionately affect civilian populations, who must be protected above all in international law. Cluster bombs can fall across a huge area and remain unexploded for very long periods of time, posing a lethal threat to civilians who could be killed or maimed long after a conflict has ended.
They are also costly to locate and remove and cannot be formally mapped in the same way that a minefield can. Sometimes children have picked these things up, thinking of them as toys, and losing limbs or perhaps even their lives as a result. As a father of very young children myself, few things could be more horrendous to think about.
If we are serious about creating a European Union of common values and sharing those values with the world, we must take a common position to promote an eventual ban on these terrifying and terrible arms, which are very blunt in their effect on the battlefield.
We must also use all diplomatic means at our disposal to persuade others to do the same. We, as the European Parliament, can rightly be proud of what we have done to try to rid the world of the scourge of anti-personnel land mines. We must approach this issue of cluster bombs with equal vigour and commitment, in order to build a better, more humane world and not see innocent civilians suffer in the aftermath of armed conflict.
Richard Howitt
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, today we are appealing to the EU countries who are not currently planning to sign the Convention against cluster munitions to do so. Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, alongside EU aspirants Serbia and Turkey, please join the other EU countries and more than a hundred states worldwide in signing this Convention.
For whom are we making this appeal? For Suraj Ghulam Habib of Herat in Afghanistan who, when six years old, lost both his legs when he found a cluster bomb he thought was a kind of food. He now finds it almost impossible to get to school or to play with his friends from within his wheelchair. For Mrs Chanhthava of Sepone District in Laos, who lost a leg and damaged her sight after she accidentally struck a cluster bomb while working to gather food for her family in the rice fields. She now has to send her daughter out to the same dangerous fields to collect the rice. For the 13-year-old Georgian boy, Beka Giorgishvili, who, this year, whilst at a friend's house, became one of the newest victims as he was helping to pump up his friend's new bicycle tyre. Beka lost part of his skull and shrapnel remains inside.
It is hypocrisy for EU countries to condemn Russian aggression in Georgia, yet fail to condemn the means of that aggression, which causes excessive harm to civilians wherever cluster munitions are used. It is also a hollow excuse for countries to seek to justify stockpiling cluster bombs as part of adhering to the landmines ban, when cluster munitions are equally deadly and have caused even greater humanitarian damage in the world.
My own Member State, the UK, has already started the destruction of some 30 million explosives, changed its export control regulations and directly contributed to the clearing of ordnance, including cluster munitions in Georgia. Europe is where these weapons were first used by German and Soviet forces in the Second World War, Europe currently stockpiles an estimated one billion bomblets, and it is Europe which should take the lead in the world in securing their obliteration.
Elizabeth Lynne
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, as many people have said, civilians, many of them children, are indiscriminately killed or injured by cluster bombs every day. Many of those child victims are disabled by cluster munitions and have to live with that disability for the rest of their lives. Yet the shocking fact is that cluster munitions are stockpiled in over 15 EU Member States. Horrifyingly, there is evidence that at least seven EU Member States are still producing these weapons. In my view, these countries, as well as those that have used them - including the UK, my country - have blood on their hands.
Banning the production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions will save many lives. This Convention will also ensure the provision of much needed resources, such as medical care and rehabilitation to aid victims of cluster bombs. I urge all EU Member States to sign and ratify this Convention and not to try to redefine what we mean by cluster munitions so as to wriggle out of their responsibilities, as certain Member States are trying to do.
Seán Ó Neachtain
Mr President, I strongly support the proposal requesting that the Convention to ban cluster bombs be implemented from the end of this year onwards.
All of the governments which implement the Oslo Declaration of 2007 are willing to draft a legal document before the end of 2008 that would stop the use of cluster bombs; and that would put a system in place to encourage cooperation and help for those who fled from these kinds of attacks until now and that would destroy any stocks of cluster bombs still in existence.
I am very proud that it was in Ireland - in Dublin in my own country - that the settlement under this Treaty was reached during an international convention that took place there earlier this year. All those who took part were very clear about what they wanted to achieve at this convention - that cluster bombs would be banned from now on. And, just as my colleagues have already asked in the House today, I would ask that the other countries which have not signed it yet would sign it now.
We must put an end to these terrible weapons once and for all.
Satu Hassi
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is an excellent thing that the Convention on Cluster Munitions has been introduced. It is very important that all the EU countries join the Convention, including Finland, Greece and Poland, otherwise, we will be giving other countries an all too easy excuse to continue using these inhumane weapons.
I greatly regret that my own country, Finland, intends to remain outside the Convention. The justification for this is that cluster munitions have been acquired to take the place of another type of inhumane weapon, the anti-personnel mine. This, however, is like using Beelzebub to cast out the Devil. At the end of the 1990s, when the Finnish government of the time decided to phase out anti-personnel mines, the army did not say it was going to replace them with that other killer of civilians, cluster munitions.
The EU and all the EU countries must now show consistency in their opposition to cluster munitions and also refuse to engage in any military operations in which they are used. As many as 98% of the victims of cluster bombs are said to be civilians. We have well over 20 years of experience with these weapons, showing that they indiscriminately kill civilians, including children. It is now time we put a stop to this.
Jean-Pierre Jouyet
Mr President, honourable Members, solemnly and seriously, I have to tell you that I was truly proud to participate in the debate that we have just had on cluster munitions and, on behalf of the Presidency, I join all those who have called for the ratification of the convention.
The European Union has already recognised, in 2007, the urgency with which these humanitarian concerns about cluster munitions must be addressed. I know that the Member States of the Union have played an active role both in the Oslo process and within the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. In our view, this Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Oslo process are mutually reinforcing, and it is to the credit of your House, and to those who have taken the floor, to have reminded us of the values that Europeans believe in. We call on all Member States to act for those reasons that you have, better than I, movingly set out during the course of this debate.
President
I have received two motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Proinsias De Rossa
in writing. - I urgently call upon all EU Member States to immediately ratify and implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Cluster Munitions visit unspeakable and indiscriminate horror on civilian populations worldwide, most recently in the Georgian conflict.
The Convention on Cluster Munitions prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of Cluster Munitions. The Convention was adopted by 107 states at a conference in Dublin in May this year. However, the Convention will not enter into force until at least 30 states have also ratified it.
It beggars belief that eight EU Member States have no immediate plans to sign the Convention. Thus the EU, the most successful peace project ever, a community founded on the very principles of respect for human rights and the rule of law, fails to endorse the extension of international humanitarian law to ban one of the most insidious anti-civilian weapons in use today.
I call on Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions without delay and help bring an end to the use of cluster bombs.
Kelam, Tunne
in writing. - We should take into account that cluster munitions are one of the most damaging weapons, which do not see a difference between military and civilian targets.
Today, in the 21st century, making war can no longer be led by the idea of ravaging or by the idea of maximum damage. Targeted attacks with a minimum effect on civilians can be the only way to act in a war situation. Therefore using cluster munitions has to be clearly rejected and forbidden.
I call upon the European Union and its Member States first of all to urge other states in the world to sign this convention on 3 December this year. Furthermore I call upon the EU and its Member States to commit ourselves to pursuing the implementation of this convention efficiently and as fast as possible. I also call upon the EU and its Member States not only to tackle the technical parts of the Convention, but to seriously dedicate themselves to helping in the areas where cluster munitions have been used, to assist the societies concerned and to provide effective and tailored help to those civilians affected by the harm caused by cluster munitions.


European Union Solidarity Fund: obstacles for its reform (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the European Union Solidarity Fund: obstacles for its reform - B6-0472/2008).
Gerardo Galeote
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again we are dedicating a debate in plenary to the reform of the European Union Solidarity Fund which, as we all know, is intended to alleviate the damage caused by a major natural disaster within the Union territory.
This Fund very quickly proved to be ineffective in meeting its set objectives and, as a result, in 2005, the European Commission presented a proposal modifying the regulation governing this instrument of solidarity. The aim was to improve not only its operability, but also access to it and its coverage in the event of a major natural disaster.
The European Parliament, as can be easily proven, worked promptly and intensively on this proposal so that in May 2006 our institution had finished its first reading. At that time we all thought and believed that the Council would do the same, given that this was a regulation under the codecision procedure. However, as we now all know, that was not the case. Contrary to expectations, the Council put a hold on the process due to its inaction.
During this period, in addition to serious flooding, the European Union has suffered serious fires, which in some cases have resulted in deaths, and also major droughts. However, the Council has remained impassive. The proposal to improve the regulation is still sitting on the Council's table, despite calls from the European institutions and social forces.
Today we want to once again call on the Council to act and remind it that modifying this regulation will not require one additional euro from the Community budget: our demands have no financial consequences and aim solely at rectifying the operational problems that have arisen since this instrument of solidarity was created.
We simply want to improve its operability and agility, always in line with the subsidiarity principle. We note that, as this instrument currently stands, access to it is very difficult, restrictive and inflexible, as we have unfortunately witnessed over the nearly seven years of its operation.
I therefore want to ask whether this inability of the delegations forming the Council to reach a common position has any real explanation, and whether anyone can tell us who and what arguments are blocking reform of this regulation. We should like the European Commission to drive forward the reform of this fund, to tell us what actions it plans to take, and to clearly set out the possible alternatives that it is considering in order to help unblock this matter. If the Commission does have any alternatives, we should of course like to know what they are and what their time horizon is.
I believe it is appropriate to remind those present, in particular the French Presidency, that this instrument was set up with a laudable objective: to promptly, adequately and visibly show the Union's solidarity with its citizens.
To end, Mr President, I want to make another call, this time specifically to the French Presidency, on a matter closely linked to this one: the creation of a European civil protection force, on which Michel Barnier, a former Commissioner as you all know, presented a report to the European Council in 2006.
I am ending. The Fund was created in particular as a symbolic expression of solidarity between the European Union and its citizens. My final plea is that, if we manage, after so much time and effort, to make this operative in any degree, our first thought and action should be directed towards those who have died in these disasters in the European Union.
Danuta Hübner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the European Parliament, and in particular the members of the Committee on Regional Development, for their continued interest in, and support for, the Solidarity Fund.
It is an important instrument to promote the European Union's strategic objective of solidarity and, since its creation in 2002, 61 applications have been received and the fund has intervened in 33 cases in 20 different countries. The total amount committed so far is EUR 1 523 million. According to the recent special report by the Court of Auditors, the fund is well managed and delivers quick, efficient and flexible assistance.
However, this fund has its limitations. The threshold for mobilising the European Union Solidarity Fund is extremely high. As a result, the fund is not well equipped for certain types of disasters, typically involving lower eligible expenditure, such as forest fires, and more than two thirds of all applications for the fund assistance presented so far were based on an exception for so-called 'extraordinary regional disasters'.
Moreover, with all the existing Community instruments, it is extremely difficult, or indeed impossible, for us to react to man-made disasters, as illustrated by industrial accidents, such as the Prestige oil spill, or terrorist acts, such as the Madrid bombing of March 2004. Likewise, it is not possible at present to provide assistance from the European Union Solidarity Fund in the event of a serious public health crisis.
For these reasons, in April 2005 the Commission adopted a proposal for a revision of the Regulation. Despite joint efforts with successive presidencies since 2005, the Council has so far not been able to reach agreement on this proposal. One reason is that the large majority of Member States consider that the fund works very well under the present scheme and they do not consider it necessary or appropriate to expand it to cover additional situations, fearing in particular the budgetary consequences of such an expansion.
The Council has not formally specified the position of each Member State, although the Council opinions are supported by quasi-unanimity. In addition, it was not indicated where areas of compromise could be found in order to reach an agreement on the Commission proposal.
The Commission remains convinced that revision of the Solidarity Fund Regulation is necessary to increase the Union's capacity to react quickly in case of major disasters which are currently not covered. Therefore, it will adopt a report to take stock of the six years of implementing the fund and to identify Solidarity Fund limitations and any room for improvement. We hope that the report will relaunch discussions in the Council and in the European Parliament on a revision of the current Solidarity Fund Regulation. The report should be ready towards the end of the first quarter of 2009.
With regard to civil protection, the Commission has begun to identify gaps in civil protection response resources on the basis of scenarios for major disasters, and assess options to fill identified gaps. In this context, the Commission will explore innovative arrangements with the Member States for reinforcing the overall EU disaster-response capacity in the framework of the pilot project and the preparatory action included in the 2008 budget.
On the basis of this work, the Commission may propose to fill the gaps through the development of civil protection modules available for deployment at any time or through additional reserve capacities designed to complement national responses to major disasters, including in the area of fighting wild fires.
Rolf Berend
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking in my capacity as rapporteur for the Social Fund, the 2002 Solidarity Fund and the expanded and improved version from 2006.
This report, which the European Parliament adopted by a huge majority, has been on ice for over two years, because it is being blocked by the Council, despite the fact that citizens are calling increasingly loudly for European solidarity against the background of the ever more frequent occurrence of natural disasters. The Solidarity Fund, which was hastily cobbled together following the devastating floods of 2002 to provide urgently needed assistance, was an instrument that promised immediate aid in the event of disaster. Over time, however, it has emerged that - as you quite rightly said, Commissioner - that the currently available instrument makes it extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to respond appropriately to large-scale crises at EU level.
Moreover, the current threshold for mobilising the fund is, as you said, Mrs Hübner, extremely high, which means that the derogations are getting out of hand. The revised version of the Disaster Relief Fund, however, provides a clear response to this. The European Parliament therefore feels that it is even more important for this effective instrument to be made available to the people affected by disasters, hence, once again, the specific question: why can the Council not reach a common position on an issue that is so vital to suffering citizens of the European Union? Which Member States support the improved Treaty, and which reject it? You in the Commission have indicated that it might be a possibility at the start of 2009. We hope so, but we also want to push for it once again here, because one cannot simply disregard the vote of this Parliament as the various Presidencies have done previously.
Iratxe García Pérez
Mr President, Commissioner, as stated by my fellow Members, in 2006 we debated in this House the modification of the Solidarity Fund Regulation with a view to adapting it so that it could become a rapid and effective instrument of response. However, today this issue is still on the table.
It was not easy to achieve the very broad agreement that was reached in this House, given that both the various political groups and the interests of certain countries put forward very different ideas as to how to modify this regulation.
However, I feel that we all made a major effort to reach agreement and allow this regulation to be amended. I feel that Parliament set an example of what we all now have to make an effort to achieve: the consensual modification of the regulation.
The European Commission must make every possible effort to foster this agreement and achieve the set objective. I am pleased at the response given today by the Commissioner, who has said that a study will be carried out in order to determine the objectives that we must now set with regard to the modification of the regulation, not least so that we can ensure future agreement by the Council.
We must ensure that, through the modification of this regulation, a rapid and effective response can be given to those disasters which the Member States are unable to tackle on their own, by extending the current eligibility to industrial disasters, acts of terrorism and public health emergencies, not forgetting such an important issue as the severe droughts which are occurring increasingly often, particularly in certain Mediterranean areas.
In addition, we must be firm in proposing to lower the threshold for mobilising the fund from EUR 3 000 to 1 000 million in damage caused, not forgetting the regional component. This instrument must respond with financial aid to situations of extreme drought, fire and flooding, not forgetting under any circumstances the victims who need immediate help and assistance.
The Solidarity Fund is a political instrument for solving problems, which is why I must once again stress the need to make every effort to take this fundamental issue forward, but we must do so with the necessary changes that are appropriate to today's reality.
Jean Marie Beaupuy
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, my fellow Members have already cited some examples. I should like to refer to some of them in order to introduce this subject, since we need to combat natural disasters. Who remembers what took place just a century ago, in 1908, in Messina, where 100 000 people died? Everyone obviously remembers Chernobyl, but if we focus on the last 10 years or so, there were the storms and the sinkings of 1999, the floods in Central Europe already cited just now, not to mention 11 September in New York, the terrorist attacks of March 2004, the problematic disease, chikungunya, and so on.
We do not know what the next disaster will be or on what scale it will be, but we are sure of one thing, and that is that there will soon be another disaster again.
When that time comes, our fellow citizens, who for 50 years have been used to seeing a supposedly united Europe being built - and a number of reports on which we have voted this week are testimony to this - will turn round and ask us the same question that they have been asking us regarding the current financial crisis: 'but what have you done?'
Over the past few weeks some of you may have heard the former director of the International Monetary Fund explain in a previous report, from three or four years ago: 'We said at the IMF that the crisis was going to happen, and we explained how to prevent it'.
So, Commissioner, this evening you have come to listen to us, and we hope that you will be able to hear us and to ensure that, unlike what is happening with regard to the current financial crisis, Europe will not be behind if a disaster occurs.
For my part I should like to make a twin proposal. Firstly, a proposal concerning the type of action to take. You said this in your closing remarks, Commissioner, you referred to the report by Michel Barnier.
We cannot have two separate actions, even though you yourself, like each of us, in particular within the Committee on Regional Development, are forever saying that we need integrated approaches. We cannot have development of the Solidarity Fund, on the one hand, and a prevention policy, on the other. The two should be linked, not least in order to convince these infamous ministers of finance, who explain to us that perhaps even if the Solidarity Fund criteria were adapted - and you spoke about this - it would cost more. They should draw inspiration from the Barnier report and they would understand that if, at the same time, we conducted a prevention policy by pooling the means of action and pooling accident and natural disaster prevention, then, we would save money.
Therefore, it is clearly a question not only of saving money and averting disasters, but above all of saving human lives - that really is the priority.
That is why, Commissioner, I, along with all my fellow Members, urge you to do your utmost to ensure that, at the end of the French Presidency and during the Czech Presidency, you obtain a genuine guarantee from the Swedish Presidency that the action plan will not just be studied, but launched.
We are counting on your determination. We need it. You know that Parliament is behind you - this evening it has said so loud and clear. We shall now wait to receive results for a year's time, without fail.
Elisabeth Schroedter
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Council is not present, but it is the institution that is creating the blockage, and it is to the Council that this discussion should be addressed. After all, who is it that submits the applications when the fires or the floodwaters are spreading? The Member States - and they attach all sorts of special requests. They want generous aid, and it is not always used appropriately: we have just had the example of the United Kingdom.
Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to express another concern to the Commission. Originally, the Commission, under Mr Bernier, was very committed to the area of prevention, because it understood that natural disasters can only really be combated through preventive action. Today, this aspect is not being given sufficient attention. I would welcome it if the Commission could draw up guidelines for the implementation of the Solidarity Fund that really focused on prevention.
I would once again point out that the Commission already has opportunities to put greater emphasis on prevention, for example as part of the ERDF programme, but what are they doing in that connection? So far, little has come across, and little investment has been made to prevent the occurrence of natural disasters. There has been no investment in natural flows, and there has not been enough insistence that reforestation should involve a natural mixture, for example in Greece, where it is the pine forests that burn particularly easily.
I expect the Commission to act with greater commitment on the current applications, and to keep an eye on what the money is being spent on, in order to ensure that disasters do not recur, and to enable investments can really be in harmony with nature. I have seen no sign of this commitment, and in that respect the Commission needs to shoulder a portion of the blame. Although we talk about natural disasters, the majority of natural disasters are to a large extent man-made, due firstly to the inadequacy of our fight against climate change and secondly to building on flood plains and planting monoculture forests. In this connection, the Commission needs to commit now, and not wait.
Pedro Guerreiro
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (PT) During the debate on modifying the Solidarity Fund Regulation, held on 18 May 2006, in which we actively participated by tabling a series of proposals, we underlined our disagreement with the position adopted by a majority in Parliament. In particular, we disagreed with the failure to maintain the eligibility of regional disasters - which are the kind that occur most - as provided for in the current regulation. We also disagreed with the rejection of the possibility of greater financial assistance for the cohesion countries and convergence regions and we disagreed with the reduction in the threshold for mobilising the Fund, so that it is the European Union countries with the highest gross domestic product which will clearly benefit most.
In line with everything we have done to date, in addition to amending the issues highlighted above, we will continue to fight for the following aspects, inter alia: recognition of the specific nature of Mediterranean natural disasters; adaptation of the Solidarity Fund in terms of time limits (having witnessed unjustifiable and unacceptable delays in its mobilisation and the delivery of Community funds to victims); adaptation of the Solidarity Fund in terms of eligible actions, particularly with regard to the specific nature of various natural disasters such as drought and fire; inclusion within the eligible actions of support for re-establishing productive activity in areas affected by disasters, and also operations to provide emergency land-based and airborne equipment for fighting forest fires.
With regard to all initiatives in the area of civil protection, we consider that the priority should be promoting prevention and improving the civil protection resources of each Member State, and also their coordination.
Lambert van Nistelrooij
(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, there is the expectation of Europe to be pro-active. Citizens in affected areas cannot understand why it should take months before Europe, caught up in its own procedures, can grant clarity.
How does it work? Something happens somewhere and a few hours later, you can watch it all on TV and you find yourself thinking, this area needs our help and solidarity. This is followed by a deafening silence. We are then caught between the national state and European offices. What is frustrating is that there is no communication at that point. It is stuck in the Council, and has been for the past two years, but surely we should be able to find out what the reason is for the obstruction and hear alternatives. This is the big issue. Shortly, in six months' time, Parliament will be outgoing. When we will have a new Parliament, we will be expected to hand over this dossier, without having achieved our goals, with sound proposals on the table.
The French Presidency is involved in everything other than this dossier. Nothing has happened with it, and we should particularly like to hear why that should be. I should like to congratulate the European Commission though. Mrs Hübner and her colleagues have definitely made some headway with it, and it should be possible to remove the obstruction completely by joining forces. In a naming and shaming exercise, we have to say that the Council and the French Presidency have failed on this score.
Wolfgang Bulfon
(DE) Mr President, when do citizens need the solidarity of Europe? When do Member States need the solidarity of the European Union? Primarily, of course, in the event of disaster. This is precisely the question that I asked in connection with the vote on the fourth cohesion report this spring.
Mr President, today we are discussing revising the Solidarity Fund to arm ourselves better for future challenges and to allow us to provide rapid and effective aid. The Commission and Parliament are, according to their resolutions, of one mind concerning the objectives of this legislative initiative. In July this year, I asked the Council about the status of this procedure. It informed me that, unlike Parliament, it saw no need for an initiative at the current time. In view of the fact that a former French Commissioner and minister stressed the need for revision in his report, I find the Council's attitude incomprehensible. I therefore could not ask for a better committee chairman than Mr Galeote, who is not prepared to accept Parliament decisions being disregarded. I would like to thank him quite specifically for that. I would call on the French Presidency, as a matter of urgency, to reconsider their attitude towards the citizens of Europe.
Agnes Schierhuber
(DE) Mr President, this is long overdue, and I would like to thank the rapporteur most warmly.
I think this is one of the core issues that holds Europe together, and it is also a question of solidarity. It is high time for the Member States to take action in this area. The EU must provide financial support for those organisations that help us in crisis situations. Many Member States have suffered devastating natural disasters in recent years: I am thinking of the forest fires that repeatedly occur in Greece, including within the last year, and the floods in Central Europe in 2002, which also badly affected Austria.
Disasters like these pull the economic rug from under people's feet. In such situations, exceptional resources are needed, Mr President, because it is not just about emergency aid, but also about rebuilding centuries of infrastructure. One Member State on its own does not have those resources. It should also be borne in mind that, unfortunately, certain States are more prone to these national disasters, and here, too, I am thinking of Austria. The people of Austria are still talking, with considerable gratitude, about how quickly the EU helped them. The European Solidarity Fund should not only help to fund reconstruction, but also support emergency organisations. The work of the voluntary fire service, the Red Cross and other voluntary organisations is priceless: one cannot begin to imagine how much it would cost if such services were not provided on a voluntary basis. These organisations always help in emergencies and are an indispensable part of the social structure in rural areas.
We therefore urgently need to take action to maintain and expand these aid structures. I hope that we will reach agreement here quickly, so that we do not regret it when another disaster occurs and we cannot act quickly enough.
Evgeni Kirilov
(BG) As the rapporteur Mr Galeote and a number of other Members pointed out, the Solidarity Fund is a necessary instrument whose very name and purpose is to fulfil one of the most important principles of the European Union - that of solidarity among the Member States. During the time the Fund has been in use, omissions and failings have become evident, and for this reason reform is required to remedy these failings, and to respond to the dangers that face us. As has been mentioned, there is a reform mechanism and the European Parliament has stated its position. The important thing is to account for all potential problems that the Fund may encounter so that it can become an instrument that is genuinely useful and people feel that something is getting done. Nobody needs a useless instrument which has the potential to be used, but which in practice hardly works at all. At the same time, let us state quite clearly, that the greatest effect is achieved through quick response. We are still very far from achieving an effective system. The smaller Member States do not have the resources of the larger ones, while cooperation and coordination at European level is something we can only dream of. And, as has been pointed out, it does not always necessarily mean more cash.
This summer in my country, Bulgaria, there was a huge fire in the Rila Mountains, the most picturesque and inaccessible mountains in the country, which we were only able to contain with the help of French firefighting helicopters, and we are deeply grateful for them. But organising and coordinating the operation cost too much valuable time. The citizens of the European Union are impatient for effective decisions, and not necessarily large amounts of funding. Effective decisions, which as Mr Beaupuy said, could even save us money.
James Nicholson
Mr President, we are all aware that the background and the origins of the European Solidarity Fund lie in the devastating floods in Central Eastern Europe in 2002; its necessity was further cemented by other natural disasters such as the forest fires in Greece. And recently the flooding in my own constituency in Northern Ireland brought it home to me how important this is.
Despite widespread support and enthusiasm for the Fund expressed by Parliament and the Commission and among EU citizens, the Council's reluctance to cooperate is hindering its full implementation. Surely the European Union wishes to grant assistance to Member States which have experienced natural disaster. This aid must be administered in a swift and responsive manner in order to have any chance of being effective. However, the Council is currently placing obstacles in the way which are preventing the smooth operation of the Fund. I am glad therefore that the tabling of this oral question and its urgency is a matter which is highlighted by the Committee.
Furthermore I would like to stress the part of the question posed by the Committee, which asked which Member States are opposed to the Fund, and please tell us why. The Solidarity Fund is an extremely important mechanism for the European Union to have at its disposal. However, problems of its implementation have dragged on for far too long and in my opinion this needs to be resolved as soon as possible.
It matters nothing whether it is floods or forest fires, when people are in trouble they need help and assistance and above all they require financial support, upfront and speedily; not like the present system that has taken months and years and has been stifled totally by bureaucracy. If you really want to do something positive, this is it and will bring you more credit to Europe than any of your other proposals or all of them put together.
I want to make it very clear to the Council. The Council disagreed because, in my opinion - and it is only my opinion - they do not want Parliament, and more importantly, they do not want the Members of this Parliament in the local region, where we are more important than you, the Commission or they, the Council. Because when something happens the people look to the Members. They do not look to the Commission and they do not look to the Council and they do not know who you are. You are an untouchable, faceless, bureaucratic body in Brussels. So it is the Members - so do not run away from it - we, the Parliament, are the people who are out there with the people all the time and we need that support. I have never heard such feeble excuses in all my life; it is time to get this done.
Stavros Arnaoutakis
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, we usually say that we are a Union whose basic principle is solidarity. Today our citizens need a Union which can put this principle into practice. They need actions, not just words. Today we call on the Council to take account of the citizens' expectations and show that it is up to the job as far as the Solidarity Fund is concerned.
All of us in our countries have experienced the effects of what are frequently occurring natural disasters. We have all witnessed the despair of our fellow citizens who have been affected and we all know and understand how important it is for these citizens to feel that the European Union is standing by them. In May 2006, the European Parliament adopted the European Commission's plan for a new Solidarity Fund, a new, faster and more flexible and effective fund, which it was planning to implement in the period 2007-2013, but which has so far been collecting dust on the Council's desk.
I honestly cannot understand how we can possibly have such a good instrument and yet not implement it. The European Union needs the new Solidarity Fund now more than ever.
Oldřich Vlasák
- (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the Committee of the Regions I had a chance to see with my own eyes the storm-damaged forests in the Slovakia's High Tatra mountains, the fires in Portugal and the floods in the Czech Republic. In discussions with local people I fully realised how the use of European funds to repair the damage and regenerate the Tatra national park was strongly felt to be a concrete manifestation of European solidarity. The solidarity fund is able in certain crisis situations to assist individual states and thereby to give a major boost to the sense of belonging to a wider Europe. Unfortunately, the actual administration of this fund is not very efficient, so help often arrives after many months of delay. Therefore the European Parliament has been trying for a long time to change the legal framework in order for the law to be able to consider fresh needs when using these financial resources and enabling the provision of rapid and effective help in a shorter period of time.
In view of global climate changes it can be expected that catastrophes involving floods, droughts, storms and fires will become more frequent on our old continent. There are also new threats in the form of terrorist attacks and health pandemics. In reality individual states are attempting on a bilateral basis to cooperate and are organising joint exercises and events for their emergency services. They are thus indirectly supporting some of the ideas on civil defence outlined by Michel Barnier in 2006. Unfortunately, that discussion has yet to be continued.
Ladies and gentlemen, rapid responses, the more effective use of the Solidarity Fund and international cooperation in preventing and attempting to counter the effects of catastrophes are very hot topics, particularly ahead of the forthcoming European elections. I therefore fully understand the questions that have been submitted and I call on the European Commission and the Council to resolve the situation quickly.
Gábor Harangozó
(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Community created the Solidarity Fund with the stated purpose of enabling it to respond in a rapid, efficient and flexible manner in cases of dire emergencies. It cannot be said, however, that promptness and efficiency characterise the Council when it comes to formulating a common stand.
Unfortunately, the greatest natural disasters do not wait for the formulation of a common stand. In spite of positive results obtained since the existence of the Solidarity Fund, further improvements are needed in order to be able to deliver aid more rapidly and efficiently to those in need. There are enormous challenges facing us, and for this reason I cannot understand why the years go by without the Council taking any decision. Our citizens' understanding will be even harder to gain than mine.
We must not allow further delay, but need to strive for a debate that leads to results, and come to an agreement as soon as possible in order to meet the challenges posed by more and more frequent natural catastrophes. Thank you for your attention.
Rumiana Jeleva
- (BG) In recent years we have had to face increasing numbers of disasters, both natural and man-made. These disasters have resulted not just in serious financial, but unfortunately also in human, losses. Over the past few years we have had to deal with floods, drought and forest fires in Bulgaria. This weekend Bulgaria experienced an earthquake, which fortunately was not very strong. Although little consolation, it does confirm the need for an effective European Solidarity Fund.
I would like to point out that we are not the only country in Europe to suffer from such disasters. Neighbouring Greece, for example, had to deal with devastating forest fires in 2007. This means we have to do more to deal with the consequences of these disasters. It is clear that we need changes in the regulations to provide more flexible tools. As Mr Berend correctly concluded in his report in 2006, we have to speed up the delivery of aid and decrease the amount of red tape involved. We must ensure that the aid reaches citizens when it is needed, and not days or even weeks afterwards. That is why I welcome the reduction in the threshold and the implementation of new fast-track payments which are an expression of real solidarity. Another aspect that is very important is that the new revised proposal also covers industrial disasters. If in Bulgaria, for example, we have an oil pipeline explosion or a shipping accident, this would also qualify for aid from the Solidarity Fund.
And finally I would like to put forward an idea about funding. We could in the long term think of financing instruments such as the Solidarity Fund by using part of the monies that are lost under the 'N+2' and 'N+3' rules. For the time being, though, we need to concentrate on real change, and that is why I urge the Commission, and in particular the Council, to support the modification of the European Solidarity Fund.
Emmanouil Angelakas
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the Solidarity Fund is an important tool for the exercise of social policy in Member States hit by natural disasters. It is a practical expression of solidarity with European citizens affected by such disasters and it is through such procedures that we do justice to the vision of active support by the European Union for its citizens.
The important contribution of the Fund in dealing with major disasters was demonstrated during the floods in central Europe, the earthquakes in Italy and the fires in Portugal and in my country, Greece, in 2007, and it is telling that a large number of Member States have used appropriations from the Fund. At the same time, with the current regulation and the existing resources, the European Union cannot respond to other such crises which are not due solely to natural causes, such as industrial pollution, a pandemic in Europe, droughts and such like.
The proposed reform of the regulation covers broader requirements, speeds up procedures, introduces the innovation of advance payments and generally takes practical and positive measures. This being so and given that the European Parliament has adopted the Commission's proposal, I fail to see the reasons and causes for the delay in ratifying the regulation.
It is comforting, Commissioner, that you made clear your support for our views in your stand today. This delay is not in keeping with the spirit of solidarity which should govern us. The Council bears a great deal of responsibility and we hope that it will respond to the call by the European Parliament and assume it immediately, even though it is absent today.
Maria Petre
- (RO) Mr President, Commissioner, fellow Members, first of all, I would like to say how happy I am that we are finally having a debate on this topic. I hope that today's debate will also produce the results which the Commissioner has already promised us. We all know that the current procedures for actually accessing the Solidarity Fund take a long time. I am therefore proposing that the Union's budget be amended.
For example, when Romania wanted to obtain aid from the Solidarity Fund following the floods which took place in the spring/summer of 2005, it had to wait around a year to receive the money. The provision of the Regulation stipulates that the application should be submitted no later than ten weeks after the disaster takes place and the total value of the losses must be given, which helps to classify the type of disaster. It is rather difficult to meet these requirements when floods are involved, for instance. In order to evaluate the losses properly, the water needs to be drained off completely. This does not depend in any circumstances on national institutions and authorities. The next procedure is for the Commission to verify compliance with the conditions, primarily those of a major disaster. This requires a good deal of time, including additional information and clarifications. Finally, after the amended budget has been approved, the Commission prepares and approves the decisions for awarding the grants. This is ultimately followed by the transfer of funds, which must be spent within a year at the latest. In practical terms, this money reimburses the expenses already paid out by the beneficiary state following the disaster it has been through. On the basis of these conditions, we all ask ourselves whether this is really emergency aid.
I would like to conclude by saying that rejecting the Commission's proposal to modify the Regulation after discussing it in the Working Group of the Financial Counsellors, without consulting the 'Structure Action' group, may lead to the conclusion that, in practical terms, the finance ministers were not in agreement. This conclusion creates numerous problems for us, especially in the current climate with so many problems and at Member State level too.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, some of the best questions are raised late in the evening and this is one of them, although there is an element of 'the dialogue of the deaf' because we do not have the Council here to hear this debate.
There are two words which we talk about a great deal in Europe: one is 'subsidiarity' and the other, 'solidarity'. Subsidiarity is about respecting the Member States and their rights and solidarity, in my view, reflects the commonality of the European Union and our support for each other. So, why does this fund not work to do that? Indeed, one of the dangers and the damage as a result of its failure to work is that we make announcements about funding being available and then fail to deliver because the system is complex, bureaucratic and very unwieldy for communities and for individuals to work with.
It is, I presume, about budget and about money, ultimately. I listened very carefully to the comments of the Commissioner responsible for Financial Programming and Budget last week about many things, from the common agricultural policy to other issues but, in particular, calling for a more flexible budget, a budget to react swiftly to world events rather than the European Union running after events.
I am sorry that she did not speak about the need for flexibility to react to events in the European Union because I think that is what we are talking about here this evening. I come from a country which has said 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty, where we talk increasingly about trying to bring citizens closer to the European Union, and the best way to do that is to see Europe in action rather than in words. I am afraid that there are too many announcements about things in the European Union and too little action on the ground where people see it working.
On a positive note there was a survey this morning in the papers which suggests that the Irish public are looking perhaps at changing their minds on Lisbon. So I would hate you to leave the Chamber despondent.
Sérgio Marques
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this oral question put to the European Commission by Gerardo Galeote, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, is totally justified and relevant. The reasons why the Council has blocked reform of the Solidarity Fund, given its inability to reach agreement on a common position that would allow the legislative process to continue, should be spelt out.
It is difficult to see what reasons there might be for the Council's position, except perhaps mean financial reasons. Does the Council not want a more agile and immediate response to the natural disasters that occur? Does the Council not want this type of speedy response to be available for any other type of disaster, such as major industrial disasters, acts of terrorism or public health emergencies?
It is vital that a clear answer is given to these questions, just as it is also vital to clarify what the European Commission thinks about this situation and whether it intends to take any steps to unblock the legislative process.
The value of solidarity must also be fully ensured in this area. Citizens really would not understand if this did not happen.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, this fund is one by which citizens often judge the European Union. In recent years we have observed a growing number of natural disasters, which have been increasingly violent in nature. Time and again we hear of floods, droughts, fires or storms in various Member States. They are not the only problems. We need to make it possible to get aid in events like chemical spillages, explosions, industrial fires or accidents at nuclear power stations.
We also have to be prepared for new challenges, such as countering terrorist attacks and dealing with their aftermath. Neither should we forget crisis situations concerning the health of our citizens, or animal diseases. In the face of such threats, the cost of drugs, vaccinations and equipment are a great obstacle to dealing with these situations. The Fund must be elastic so it can adequately respond to situations, and do so comprehensively. The procedure for applying for aid also has to be as simple as possible.
Mieczysław Edmund Janowski
(PL) Mr President, today Commissioner Hübner finds herself in a very difficult situation. She has to reply on behalf of the Council, which has no representatives present. During the Danish presidency in 2002, when there was a flash flood, they managed to mobilise themselves and prepare the relevant documents in a matter of weeks. Today we should accuse the four presidencies for this sluggishness in reforming the Solidarity Fund. We need this Fund. The aid from it should not just be a token of our solidarity, but needs to be fast and effective, with a minimum of red tape.
I believe that we need to address two issues here. One is how the Solidarity Fund should be managed, and in what situations, and the other is how to use other resources, from other funds, such as the Cohesion Fund, for long-term disaster prevention activities. But this is a separate subject. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commissioner a question. At one time the question was discussed of setting up a 'rapid reaction instrument' and of readiness for major disasters, with a budget for this eventuality of approximately EUR 200 million. I do not know what is happening with this project, which is also related to the issue under discussion.
Rolf Berend
(DE) Mr President, it is unusual to be given the floor again under the 'catch the eye' procedure, but I just wanted to reiterate at the end of the debate that the criticisms expressed this evening are for the most part not directed at the Commission at all.
The Commission has continually helped us in drafting the revisions to this Treaty, and it has always been on Parliament's side in the efforts to implement them. It is the Council that is at fault, and we wanted to phrase this question so that we could express our criticisms to the Council. The fact that it is not present shows contempt for Parliament, and we should not put up with being fobbed off like this.
Mrs Hübner, you have our full support in all your dealings with the Council attempting to get this revised fund off the ground.
Danuta Hübner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I have three explanations to present to you. This is not an emergency aid solidarity fund; it is a fund which is based on reimbursement of specific costs for emergency operations after disasters, allowing for a return to normal living conditions. The Commission proposes; Parliament and the Council decide.
Secondly, in the Regulation amendment we propose to enlarge the scope, we propose to lower the threshold and we propose to change the procedure allowing specifically for the advance payment.
Thirdly, the list of my interventions, and those of President Barroso, with seven presidencies is a very long list; it takes practically two pages, the list of all the meetings and letters. None of the seven presidencies, although some of them initially presented positive attitudes, managed to get agreement in the Council for approving the amendment to the Regulation. I refused to withdraw the proposal from the Council, hoping that with the new report that we will produce and adopt as the Commission early next year we will have a new debate which will allow us to go on with amendments; maybe we are now also having new ideas, maybe a broader scope of amendments to this Fund. In that regard, I hope very much that you will be present and participate in this debate and will support the proposal of the Commission.
Briefly on another issue, prevention, we will adopt at the end of this year a communication 'Towards a comprehensive new approach to preventing disasters'. We have already completed the two exploratory studies, we have also completed consultations and the impact assessment is currently in preparation. Also, cohesion policy - somebody, I think Mr Janowski, suggested involving cohesion policy in prevention actions - has as one of its priorities precisely preventive actions, especially in the area of environment.
That is all, Mr President. I hope that we will continue to work together with a view to getting this Fund amended in such a way that it will be more important and more responsive to the needs of European citizens.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Margie Sudre
Parliament and the Commission reached an agreement over two years ago to extend the scope of the Solidarity Fund so that it covers not just natural disasters but also industrial accidents, terrorist attacks and major public health crises.
The agreement specifies that particular attention will be paid to the outermost regions even if they do not meet the eligibility criteria in full, so that they receive emergency aid in the case of unforeseen happenings.
However, this reform has still not come into force, as the Council has not managed to reach a decision, with the result that the adoption of a common position has been delayed even further.
In spite of the fact that this Fund has recently been harnessed to help Réunion following Cyclone Gamede, and Martinique and Guadeloupe, both victims of Hurricane Dean, uncertainty remains about the admissibility of each request, because the Council did not take a swift decision on this reform.
The Commission should also review its proposals with the aim of strengthening the Union's civil protection capacity, in order to exploit the expertise and geographical location of the outermost regions and the OCTs, which aspire to be support points in the event of intervention outside Europe.
On both these issues, the outermost regions expect an ambitious response from the EU in order to guarantee their security.


10. Lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation - 'Education and Training 2010 work programme' (
- Before the vote:
Ljudmila Novak
rapporteur. - (SL) It is clear from the joint report of the Council and the Commission for 2008 that some progress has been made as regards lifelong learning, but we cannot be satisfied with the achievements so far.
Some of the greatest challenges are students dropping out of education at an early age, poor participation in lifelong learning amongst older and low-skilled workers and poor skills levels amongst migrant workers. However, a knowledge-based economy will need an increasingly better skilled labour force.
I have stressed in my report that we need to improve the quality of education on all levels so that it can equip children and young people for autonomous, creative and innovative thinking and learning. Curricula need to be continuously modernised and the use of information technology increased amongst older people.
Lifelong learning programmes must be related to the economy and support entrepreneurship, enabling citizens to acquire the kind of knowledge that will help them establish, run and develop their own businesses. It is important to take into account local and regional needs, potentials and characteristics.
I call on the governments of the Member States and the institutions of the European Union not to cut resources for education at this time of financial crisis, because high-quality education that is available to all sections of the population is the best weapon against poverty and the best tool for finding a solution to the crisis.
Thank you to all my fellow Members and to the Bureau for your cooperation.
(Applause)