Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EC and Denmark and Greenland (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Joop Post, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand C6-0506/2006.
Joe Borg
Mr President, I would first of all like to thank Mr Maat, who started the work on this subject, and the rapporteur, Mr Post, for their excellent work.
As you know, on 2 June 2006, the Commission, on behalf of the Community and Greenland, initialled a new Fisheries Partnership Agreement after three years of long and complex negotiations. The Agreement came into effect as of 1 January 2007 for a period of six years. Currently, a provisional application of the Agreement is in force through a Council decision which was adopted on 21 December 2006.
Before making a short presentation of the new Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland, I would like to outline just a few points relating to the previous agreement, which dated back to 1985 when Greenland had left the Community. Shortly after the Fourth Protocol entered into force on 1 January 2001, the Court of Auditors and Parliament strongly criticised the protocols under the Greenland Fisheries Agreement for including 'paper fish', for not including the ship owners' payment and for not being transparent enough. As a consequence, the Commission emphasised the need for adjustments during the mid-term review of the Fourth Protocol in order to make a clearer distinction between the value for fish and support for the development of Greenland's fisheries sector. The revision of the Fourth Protocol led to a division of funds, under which 25 % of the financial contribution was earmarked for budgetary support to the fisheries sector. 'Paper fish' were removed, real fish quotas and licence fees were introduced and provisions for an annual scientific review of the quotas were incorporated. These important changes were also incorporated into the new agreement. On this basis, during negotiations on the new agreement, the Commission has insisted on obtaining quotas for real fish and eliminating 'paper fish', on maintaining and even increasing the shipowners' payment and on having a clear sectoral policy programme for the fisheries sector to be supported by the Community.
Another outcome of the mid-term review was the Council conclusions of February 2003, in which the Council stated that future cooperation between the Community and Greenland would be based on a two-pillar approach with a broader cooperation arrangement in areas other than fisheries and a fisheries agreement. The broader agreement takes the form of a Council decision including a joint declaration and will provide up to EUR 25 million per year to Greenland on the basis of cooperation in areas other than fisheries. Therefore, one can conclude that the initialling of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement does not merely represent the closure of the negotiations conducted over the past year, but also the closure of what was initialled back in 2003 with the mid-term review of the Fourth Fisheries Protocol and the Council conclusions of February 2003.
Turning now to the new agreement, let me outline the following. The financial contribution of the previous Protocol was EUR 42.8 million per year, making it one of the biggest bilateral fisheries agreements. The value of the new protocol has decreased considerably given the changes to the Community quotas. Some have decreased due to the poor state of the stocks, the needs of Greenland's fishing industry and the rate of utilisation by the Community, while others have increased due to the sound state of the stocks and based on the needs of Community industry. As a result of these changes to the quotas, the Community's financial contribution is now EUR 15.85 million per year. This sum includes a specific sum of EUR 3.26 million to be used for a multiannual fisheries policy programme in Greenland. In addition to this contribution, a payment from ship owners of EUR 2 million in the form of licences is also expected.
With regard to the amendments put forward by Parliament, I would like to stress that the Commission fully shares the concern of the Parliament on each amendment proposed. However, with respect to amendments 1-3, we feel that these are already covered in the Protocol itself and we therefore consider them unnecessary. Furthermore, in relation to amendments 4 and 6 on the reporting requirements to Parliament, I would like to stress that the Commission already complies with the transmission of this information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangement. Moreover, concerning amendment 5 on the Member States' compliance with reporting requirements, it should be stressed that the Commission already examines whether catch reporting is respected. In addition, it is stated in the annex and the appendix to the Protocol that vessels must comply with the reporting requirements of the previous fishing year in order to obtain a licence. On this basis, therefore, the amendment is not necessary.
Finally, on amendment 7, I would like to make it clear that, given the previous criticism put forward by both the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament itself of the Commission's financial management of the external fisheries agreements, the Commission finds it hard to understand this amendment, which, in essence, is no different to the mechanism found under the modified Fourth Protocol and does not make it possible for the Commission to manage the under-utilised fishing opportunities in the best possible way. Therefore, taking the financial responsibility of the Commission into consideration, the Commission cannot accept this amendment.
In conclusion, let me thank Parliament and, in particular, the members of the Committee on Fisheries and the rapporteur for their constructive engagement on this important fight.
Joop Post
- (NL) Madam President, it is unlikely I will need all of the five minutes allocated to me. What the Commissioner said in this introductory speech was clear. The main focus of the report, which is largely the work of my predecessor Mr Maat, is the objective of fisheries policy in general - sustainable fishery, in other words - and, although the term 'sustainable' is clear, its meaning is also obvious from what Mr Borg said a moment ago and from what is stipulated in the agreement and the protocol.
The main objective of the partnership agreement with Greenland is to strengthen relations between it and the EU. Cooperation based on mutual trust is called for, now more than ever. After all, we have all known for some time that the fishing industry is facing drastic changes in the next few years. Due to the reduction in fish stocks and migrating fish stocks - mainly caused by marine warming, cod being a case in point - but also due to the prescribed reduction of catch quotas, the fishing industry will need to operate differently. This has been made clear to the sector, and the sector, having itself also come to realise this, is increasingly taking appropriate action.
To many fishermen, this represents a drastic change in their business operations. New business operations must, in future, eventually - by which I mean in the longer term - lead to an improvement in the fish yield, in other words, to sustainable fishing, where the catches from the sea are proportionate to the production and where, moreover, the industry's impact on the marine environment is minimised.
According to the report, fishermen must become managers of the sea, rather than merely hunting fishing grounds and fish stocks. This requires cooperation, not only mutually, and by that I mean among Member States, but also with partners such as Greenland, particularly with a view to improving the production chain in the longer term.
As rapporteur, I note that the Commission is committed to this, as also is the Commissioner in particular, and I note that our Committee on Fisheries has come to the same conclusion.
I am grateful to my fellow MEPs for the constructive input and would warmly recommend the report for which Mr Maat did most of the groundwork some time ago.
That ends my contribution, and I hope that the report will be adopted at the next plenary meeting.
Helga Trüpel
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, am glad to see that there are to be clear rules for the two pillars, the one being the fisheries agreement with Greenland and the other the broader cooperation agreement, and would like to say, speaking on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, that we are, of course, concerned about whether European taxpayers' money is being spent as properly as we have to want it to be.
On the one hand, that does mean - and this is where I really do want to give you, Commissioner Borg, a lot of encouragement - that there really do have to be very precise checks on what is caught by the individual vessels, and, on the other, that illegal fishing - on which you have declared war - is avoided come what may.
The Committee on Budgets takes the view that no more money should be forthcoming unless and until these two states of affairs are brought about, for we have to be careful that, under fisheries agreements too, European funds are indeed expended in the spirit of those agreements, in other words, that there must be no illegal fishing going on and that fish stocks must be protected, for if they are not, there will be no more work for the fishermen of the future. It is for that reason that combining economy and ecology here is a smart move.
Carmen Fraga Estévez
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Mr President, it is a great pleasure finally to be able to debate a fisheries agreement with Greenland that begins to respect the minimum rules of financial transparency and non-discrimination between shipowners and Member States.
We must acknowledge the progress made since previous agreements, including the mid-term modification of 2003, to bring them into line - as the Commissioner has said quite rightly - with the guidelines of the Council of Ministers and the demands of the Court of Auditors and of this Parliament, which focussed essentially on that lack of budgetary transparency, the worst example of which was the institutionalised custom of paying astronomical sums for 'non-existent fisheries' or paper quotas.
In any event, this Agreement still has too much small print and its content is still too different from other agreements.
So that we do not have to relive past situations, therefore, I would like to ask the Commissioner whether he can commit himself to guaranteeing that we will never again have to hear about paper quotas or see grotesque situations such as that of the fishing of queen crabs - whose quotas, which had been repeatedly requested by Community shipowners, were returned in the end to Greenland unused and having cost a fortune - and whether fishing opportunities not used by the Member States to which they are allocated will be able to be used by those who request them, as happens in the case of the other agreements.
Having said that, Mr President, it only remains for me to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Post, who has had the difficult job of continuing with a report that was begun by another Member, Mr Maat, and who has done a tremendous job.
Mr President, since I have a few seconds left, I would like once again to protest about the fact that, in this House, fisheries reports are always debated at the end of a night sitting. I would ask you, as a Vice-President and a Spaniard, to try to do something to ensure that this does not happen again in the future.
President
Mrs Fraga, the advantage of debating at this time is that only women Members speak, because it appears that only women work at this time of night, apart from the rapporteur and the President.
Rosa Miguélez Ramos
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, in one minute I would simply like to say that I am absolutely delighted with what Commissioner Borg has said about this Agreement.
Just this afternoon I was looking back over my speeches on Greenland in the plenary of Parliament, in 2003 and also in 2002, and I believe that we are getting closer to what we were saying at that time and to what we have been saying since: that we want the Fisheries Agreement with Greenland to be as similar as possible to any other fisheries agreement signed by the Community.
In this regard, I can only express my pleasure at the fact that there is finally now a balanced distribution of its cost between shipowners and the Community budget. I can only express my delight at the fact that the financial payments have been brought into line with the real fishing opportunities offered by Greenland and, of course, I entirely agree with the Commissioner that Amendment 7 should be rejected, because fleets without quotas must be able to take advantage of fisheries opportunities that are not used.
Elspeth Attwooll
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, Commissioner, the ALDE Group welcomes the fisheries partnership agreement with Greenland. We take this opportunity to repeat our thanks to the home rule government for the very fruitful discussions on this and other issues that a delegation from the group had with them when it visited Greenland last autumn. We are clear that the agreement is a matter of mutual benefit.
However, we have serious concerns about one aspect of the regulation, namely Article 3(2). This would allow the Commission to reallocate licences between Member States in cases where fishing opportunities have not been fully taken up. We understand the Commission's wish to ensure full value for sums expended by the Community, but we do not believe that the same procedure can be used in the case of agreements where access to resources is based on vessels and tonnage.
The Greenland agreement is based on the purchase of quota. It also differs from other agreements in allowing for quota exchanges with Norway, Iceland and the Faeroes for which there is no monetary compensation.
In addition, the parent regulation for the setting of quota entitlements allows only for Member States to exchange quota with other parties. Article 3(2) is therefore of dubious legality. It also undermines the principle of relative stability. Amendment 7 offers an alternative mechanism to achieve the optimal use of fishing opportunities and one that does not give rise to such problems.
We hope that the Commission will accept that the grounds for concern are justified and that Parliament will give its support to the amendment.
Catherine Stihler
Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur.
In Article 3(2) of the proposal the Commission has suggested that, should quotas be under-utilised, the Commission could reallocate Member States' licences to other Member States. This appears to be legally questionable, a point underlined by the Council's Legal Service in a recent working group. As uptake is already high, it is also unnecessary and would undermine the principle of relative stability and remove the opportunity for Member States to swap quota with other Member States rather than seeing the Commission reallocate it.
I want to keep the current mechanism, which brought about much higher rates of utilisation and preserved the respective rights and responsibilities of each party. The concept of relative stability is vital to the Scottish fleet and gives our fishermen the historic rights that they have enjoyed for centuries. Undermining this amendment puts all of this at risk and ignores the basic differences between southern fisheries agreements, where fishing licences are at stake, and northern agreements, where quota is at stake. I urge colleagues to support Amendment 7, which upholds the principle of relative stability and historic fishing rights.
Joe Borg
Member of the Commission. Mr President, first of all, thank you all for your comments and for your overall support of the Commission's proposal for a revised agreement with Greenland, which is an important part of the network of fisheries partnership agreements that are currently in place.
As I have already stated, the review was necessary for two primary reasons. First, we needed to ensure value for our money through better and full utilisation of fishing possibilities and second, further to a critical assessment by the Court of Auditors and by this Parliament, the Commission is obliged to inject transparency into the agreement, and we hope to have managed to do so.
I agree that there will be scrupulous checking of the use of the fishing possibilities under this agreement and the use of the funds provided. I would like to stress that, regarding the financial contribution to be paid under the protocol, the Commission cannot guarantee sound financial management without having the legal basis. This means, in other words, that there is a need for a transfer mechanism which habilitates the Commission in case of under-utilisation and with due respect to the principle of relative stability and to Article 25 of the basic regulation to transfer in due time unutilised fishing opportunities to ensure their optimum utilisation.
I would also underline that the new mechanism of the agreement provided in Article 3(2) is specifically to make possible maximum utilisation of fishing possibilities and to eliminate 'paper fish'. On the question of relative stability, raised by Ms Attwooll and by Ms Stihler, the temporary transfer of fishing possibilities from one Member State to another by the Commission is not contrary to the principle of relative stability, which, in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, governs the allocation of fishing possibilities amongst Member States. Such a transfer will not have any effect on the allocation of fishing possibilities between the Member States in Greenland's waters in the future. Each year the allocation will be done on the basis of the allocation keys - that is, on the basis of relative stability.
The intention behind Article 3(2) is to ensure the highest possible utilisation without affecting relative stability. This article exists and is implemented in all other third country agreements with financial compensation. The only agreement which does not have this article is the current Greenland agreement. As the new FPA is an agreement with financial compensation and involves a significant amount of public funding, it is crucial that the Commission has the legal means to act.
I would also like to underline that, notwithstanding the improvements that have been achieved under the existing agreement, the rate of utilisation is still not the optimum. Taking into account the transfers to Norway, it ranks at around 80 %. If one eliminates the transfers to Norway, it will go down to about 65 % utilisation, and I think that we owe it to the public to achieve much better results than that. Indeed, this article is subject to discussions in the Council and will be debated in the Council and decided upon, hopefully, on 11 June. Admittedly, the wording could be clearer and improved upon, maintaining the principle of relative stability while ensuring the highest utilisation of possibilities.
So, we will do our utmost to achieve an agreement in the Council whereby we will polish the wording so that, without prejudicing the principle of relative stability, we will ensure the maximum utilisation of the fishing possibilities under this new agreement.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 22 May.


6. Situation in Iran (
- Before the vote:
José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra
(ES) Mr President, before we vote on this draft resolution on Iran, I merely wish to inform the Chamber that there has been an attempt to storm the Italian Embassy in Tehran and that similar incidents have also taken place at the embassies of other Member States, such as Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
Mr President, in Paragraph 24, this draft resolution calls for a European Union delegation to be established in Iran; my group would not want the adoption of this paragraph, which has been used in other European Parliament resolutions, to be taken as a sign of complacency with regard to these events. I would therefore ask Mr Füle to tell Mrs Ashton that the circumstances I have just mentioned should be borne in mind during the application of this resolution's mandate. I believe Mr Gahler is going to request the addition of an oral amendment to the resolution text so that the diplomatic interests of Member States can be protected in Iran.
Michael Gahler
(DE) Mr President, this has been discussed with the groups. I will read the text out briefly in English:
'Is concerned about the nature of demonstrations held in front of EU embassies in Tehran on 9 February as being orchestrated by the Basij militia, and calls on the Iranian authorities to guarantee the safety of diplomatic missions'.
Lena Kolarska-Bobińska
Mr President, on behalf of the authors of the resolution just adopted on Iran, I would like to request that the parliamentary services translate this text into Farsi so that the Iranian regime and people can fully understand the clear message sent today by the European Parliament.
(Applause)
President
Thank you for this valuable suggestion which we will forward to the appropriate department.


European international investment policy (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Arif, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the future European international investment policy -.
Kader Arif
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by sincerely thanking all those with whom I have had the opportunity to work on this issue.
All the contributions have helped in the drafting of this report and, thanks to the cooperation of all the political groups, and I am especially grateful to the shadow rapporteurs, we have on the table today a consistent text that sends out a powerful message.
Indeed, we are at a turning point in European investment policy and at a time when we have to seize the new power conferred on us by the Treaty of Lisbon in order to meet a dual challenge. Firstly, that of providing European businesses with the tools they need for high quality foreign investment that is protected by a legal framework providing long-term support.
Secondly, Europe must strengthen its position as the world's leading beneficiary of foreign direct investment and give itself the means to control that investment so as to encourage sustainable development that creates high quality employment.
By voting on this report, the first official expression of our institution since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, Parliament is fully assuming its role as a new colegislator in trade regulatory matters and is voicing its priorities at a time when the first investment protection negotiations are about to begin. This expression is essential, because it is intended to relay the concerns of the citizens, who are showing a growing interest in trade matters and whom we must support.
In a world, today, where conflicts also take place in a trade context, protecting those businesses of ours that invest abroad must become a priority. International agreements have been created to protect investors from harsh, unjustified expropriations and hidden laws aimed simply at eliminating them from this or that market. This primary objective must be maintained.
Although Europe is one of the most open markets in the world, a balance must be restored with our main partners so that European businesses can benefit from a level playing field. This is the proposal made in this report, which stresses the need for future agreements to include standards relating to non-discrimination, fair and equitable treatment, and protection against direct and indirect expropriation.
However, those standards must be defined in such a way as to prevent any misinterpretation. Some businesses have, in fact, used the vague wording in first-generation investment agreements to protect their interests beyond what is legitimate, for example, by attacking new social and environmental laws that harm their interests. Appearing before international arbitrators and with no transparency or possibility of appeal, they have demanded considerable compensation by claiming that those laws are on a par with indirect expropriation. Europe, which, in the future, will receive ever more investment, particularly from emerging countries, must guard against such abuses.
That is the idea behind the reforms undertaken by the United States and Canada, two countries whose governments and authorities have suffered several setbacks in international arbitration cases and which have radically overhauled their investment agreement model.
By proposing new definitions of protection standards, the report strikes a fair balance between the protection of investors' rights and the right of public authorities to regulate. This also means including in all future agreements specific clauses laying down the possibility for public authorities to legislate and regulate in the areas of national security, the environment, public health, workers' and consumers' rights, industrial policy and cultural diversity.
Lastly, increased protection for investors must be accompanied by more responsible behaviour, particularly in developing countries, where the social and environmental laws are less binding. That is why the report mentions that social and environmental clauses should be included in all free trade agreements signed by the Union. Furthermore, we must go beyond naming and shaming and include in all future agreements a set of clear corporate social responsibility rules with which businesses must comply and which are based on guidelines set by the OECD.
If our aim here really is to shape the contours of a new European investment policy, then I call in this report for it to be exemplary and to promote investment which is sustainable, respects the environment and encourages good quality working conditions in Europe and in third countries alike. That is why this report, by the power vested in it by Wednesday's vote, must serve as a reference for all future negotiations conducted by the Commission.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Madam President, according to Articles 206 and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, foreign direct investment is an exclusive competence of the EU. The Commission has already compiled a list of countries which will be privileged partners for the negotiation of the first investment agreements: Canada, China, India, Mercosur, Russia and Singapore.
We call on the Commission, Parliament and Member States to devise an integrated and coherent investment policy which will promote high quality investments and make a positive contribution to economic progress and sustainable development worldwide. We call for the European Union's future policy to promote sustainable investments which respect the environment and encourage suitable working conditions in the businesses targeted by investment. We urge the Commission to ensure reciprocity when negotiating market access with its main trade partners from the developed countries and the major emerging economies.
Madam President, as rapporteur for air transport agreements between the European Union and third countries, such as Canada and Brazil, I would like to ask the rapporteur and the Commissioner how the link will be ensured between gradual access to the market and airlines and these international investment agreements.
Jaroslav Paška
(SK) Madam President, in the report on future European international investment policy, the rapporteur has drawn attention to many open questions regarding potential EU agreements. The first job of the EU is to protect the public interest of EU citizens, whom it represents in the areas entrusted to it by the Member States. However, the state-protected public interest often collides with the interests of aggressive foreign investors, who are frequently more skilful in international arbitration than the countries defending the interests of their citizens. The examples mentioned in the report of Argentina, the US and Canada provide concrete proof of this.
There is, therefore, a real need to define the principles of protection precisely in order to prevent them from being interpreted incorrectly by various investors. However, this important and as yet unresolved question continues to be the international responsibility of the EU, particularly from a financial perspective, as it is not clear who would bear the financial burden of a judicial dispute lost by the EU. The Council of the European Union has not yet given a proper answer to this question.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission welcomes Parliament's report on the future European international investment policy. It is an important step that paves the way for the implementation of the new EU exclusive competence on investment.
As you know, investment is a new frontier for the common commercial policy. We should seize the opportunity - we are in absolute agreement with Parliament on this - to build together an integrated and coherent investment policy that promotes investments and makes a positive contribution both to economic growth and sustainable development.
The Commission also fully shares Parliament's statement that investor protection should remain the first priority of the European investment policy. We believe that the new policy should serve the purpose of assuring all European investors that they are able to operate in an open and properly and fairly regulated business environment, not only within the internal market, but also when operating in third countries.
I also take note of Parliament's recommendation that the EU should draw on Member States' best practices found in their bilateral investment treaties. Indeed, the thrust of the Union's action in this area should be to deliver better results than those obtained by Member States individually.
While aiming at high levels of protection for our investors, we should not compromise other objectives, such as the public capacity to regulate or coherence with other EU policies. The right of states and of the EU to take the measures necessary to achieve legitimate public policy objectives is a standing rule of the common commercial policy. It will equally apply to our investment policy.
The dispute settlement regime and the related financial responsibility are also very important issues and we need to further reflect on them. Our objective, as mentioned in the communication, is to ensure transparency, consistency of rulings and make the system as productive as possible. We also need to address a number of issues which arise because of the EU's status under international law. We will take into account Parliament's views, as expressed in the report, when we analyse possible options and further ideas for a comprehensive approach to these issues.
We will carefully consider all recommendations put forward in Parliament's report, while progressively developing and implementing our investment policy. The Commission has already tabled proposals for investment negotiating directives for Canada, India and Singapore. We want to seize opportunities for ongoing wider trade negotiations and to engage in comprehensive investment negotiations with those countries. Parliament's opinion is therefore very timely, to guide the Commission and the Council when we define final respective negotiation directives.
Last but not least, I would like to assure you that, as the development of a comprehensive European investment policy is now a joint responsibility of all the institutions, the Commission will stand ready to cooperate with Parliament and the Council while respecting the division of competences among all the institutions involved.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 6 April 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Tokia Saïfi
The enlargement, by the Treaty of Lisbon, of the EU's sphere of competence to include foreign direct investment means that a true European policy on this matter can finally be envisaged. At this stage of developing the policy, the priority is to provide as much certainty as possible both to investments and to investors. Therefore, the shift from a national competence to a European one should not, under any circumstances, disrupt the proper implementation of the 1 200 or so agreements in force between the Member States and third countries. Again, for the sake of legal certainty and predictability, the EU must now devise an effective, transparent dispute settlement mechanism that is accessible to all investors, including the smallest ones (SMEs for example). The mechanisms integrated into the most recent bilateral trade agreements are a good foundation, but they only concern disputes between a state and the EU. Provisions suitable for a potential dispute between the EU and a company must be established. Lastly, the EU must seize this opportunity to go further: it must include in future agreements not only clauses facilitating the establishment of investors in these countries, but also basic provisions relating to social and environmental standards.


Trade in raw materials and commodities (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Holm, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on trade in raw materials and commodities.
Jens Holm
rapporteur. - (SV) Ladies and gentlemen, first a big thank you to all the shadow rapporteurs for their close cooperation.
We have all seen pictures of the scenes precipitated by the recent food shortages. Agricultural prices, not least for foods, have shot up over a very short period. This has come as a mortal blow to many developing countries which are heavily dependent on food imports and were already living on the margins. Let us hope that this report on international trade in raw materials will help to remedy some of these problems. After all we have committed ourselves to eradicating hunger and poverty in signing up to the so-called Millennium Goals. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently warned that the increased food prices were jeopardising the most important objective of the Millennium Goals, namely to halve poverty in the world. So it is high time that urgent measures were taken.
In particular, the recent food crisis has shown that food is not just any raw material. If such an elementary requirement as to ensure that people are fed cannot even be met, the rhetoric on development is not worth much. We should therefore be careful in making food an international trade commodity like any other. The world's developing countries have even been forced to deregulate their food policy and switch from production for national needs to export production. This is the policy of the IMF, the World Bank, the USA and the EU as well, which have all imposed these demands. By abolishing protective tariffs and subsidies many developing countries have become extremely vulnerable to heavy fluctuations in food and raw material prices. Take Haiti, for example, which was previously self-sufficient in rice. In 1995 the International Monetary Fund forced that country to reduce its rice tariffs. State-subsidised rice from the USA flooded in, and local production collapsed. Today three quarters of all rice consumed in Haiti is imported from the USA.
I hope that this report can give us tools to deal with the problems and challenges posed by the uncertain trade in raw materials. The matters we focus on in the report include support to the developing countries in diversifying their economies, so that they can break free from a situation in which they only export one or two raw materials and move towards more advanced production patterns involving more highly processed products. We also highlight the importance of flexibility in development policy. It must allow scope for these countries to develop possibilities and economic policy instruments, for example, to support the development of their domestic agriculture. We also demand that the European Commission review the finance scheme FLEX, the purpose of which is to stabilise prices of raw materials. We also address the equality dimension in raw materials trade, or rather the lack of one. It is immensely important that we always take account of the gender issue in the negotiation of international trade agreements.
This report also takes account of fair trade. Fair trade can be used as a tool in supporting small-scale producers in developing countries and in stepping up pressure for the raising of social and environmental standards in these countries. We call on all the EU's institutions to apply the principle of fair trade in their public tenders and purchasing policies.
We also take issue with the growing consumption of animal products, i.e. increasing demand for meat and dairy products, which is in turn boosting demand for grain to feed animals instead of human beings.
A great many other matters are also covered. Finally I have to say that this work has exposed the true face of the EU. While on our side we have sought to address the needs and circumstances of the developing countries, European industry, with help from its representatives in the European Parliament, has endeavoured to switch the focus to the short-term commercial interest of business organisations in having stable access to cheap raw materials.
I urge everyone to approve the amendments tabled by the Left, Socialist and Green Groups. Amendments 20 and 21 are particularly important. In that way we can balance the report so that we get a stronger development dimension.
Janez Potočnik
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank Parliament for giving us the opportunity to discuss access to raw materials, which is an issue that is high on the European Union agenda, especially in the light of our competitiveness agenda. Let me first thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the report, which embraces numerous areas such as climate change, poverty alleviation and development.
Development is indeed a key issue in this context. I will therefore briefly touch on development issues, before addressing our concerns and actions regarding the proliferation of measures restricting access to raw materials.
The fight for poverty alleviation and development, as well as food security, is high on the Commission's agenda. You are well aware that the European Union is the world's largest donor of development funding. Also in the specific field of raw materials, the Commission has undertaken several development-oriented programmes: for instance, through FLEX, the Commission supports developing countries' national budgets, where there has been a drop in export-related fiscal revenue.
The Commission also promotes the transparent management of tax revenues generated by the exploitation of raw materials and natural resources through several initiatives such as EITI, the Kimberley Process and the FLEGT programme. Let me also refer to our Everything But Arms programme, which grants duty-free access to imports of all products from least developed countries (except arms), allowing them to diversify their exports.
Let me now turn to our key concern, which is from the trade perspective. It takes two to trade. We need to import and we need to export. It is therefore critical to ensure that access to raw materials in third countries is free from unjustified distortions such as quotas, export duties and export bans.
Today, unfortunately, this is not the case. On the contrary, third countries' appetite to impose export restrictions is increasing. Our specific concerns are those imposed by some key emerging economies as part of their aggressive industrial policy objectives. Let me underline that we are not focusing on poorer developing economies but rather on large emerging economies.
Measures imposed by these countries result in distorted competition at global level which damages European industry. Unfortunately, the size of the problem is growing. By now at least 20 countries have put in place measures affecting exports of importance to the European Union. We have counted over 450 restrictions affecting various raw materials. Most, if not all, European industrial sectors are concerned, directly or indirectly.
What can be done? The work carried out so far shows that there is no quick-fix solution even if the elimination of export restrictions is high on our agenda already, be it in bilateral free trade agreements or in the World Trade Organisation, but we will do more.
First, it will be important to develop an overall strategy for access to raw materials. In this respect, the Commission is working on a communication which will include an important trade component. Any such strategy evidently should fully and coherently take up all policy areas, including critical issues such as food security, development and the environment.
All means will have to be used to their maximum. A sustainable and coherent policy on access to raw materials would therefore combine: firstly, negotiations securing international commitments in the WTO and bilateral context; secondly, enforcement of WTO rules and existing agreements; and thirdly soft measures such as dialogue and alliance-building. While none of these elements is new, it is their combination and their coherent use which will determine their strength. This will be discussed at a conference with stakeholders later this year.
Considering the importance of access to raw materials, the Commission welcomes the discussions in Parliament on this issue. The Commission particularly welcomes the amendments to the first draft of the report. The report now highlights more clearly the significance of this issue. It proposes ways to tackle this issue in a constructive manner, such as enforcement of agreements and negotiations with partner countries. We stand ready to fully cooperate with Parliament in designing and implementing our further strategy.
Daniel Caspary
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I am pleased that you have made yourself available today, Mr Potočnik. Commissioner Mandelson, we note, has once again opted to travel to some important conference in another part of the world instead of discussing key issues for European industry policy with us in Parliament. Imagine my delight, then, at hearing you present the subject far better and with far greater clarity and vision than our Trade Commissioner could ever have done.
I am very pleased with the outcome of our deliberations in committee, for I am afraid that the rapporteur, in his original draft, for all the good points he made about the developing countries, entirely lost sight of the interests of European industry. In the Committee on International Trade we inserted a new first part of the report dealing with the interests of our industry policy. The nature of those interests, indeed, has become crystal-clear. We must focus sharply on securing the supply of raw materials to European industry. As the Commissioner rightly said, we are experiencing major difficulties in this respect.
In the WTO framework we urgently need better rules designed to outlaw, as far as possible, trade-distorting measures such as export duties. We need free access to raw materials in the world market. It is intolerable that countries such as China should misuse raw materials as a political tool.
We must do everything possible, not only in multilateral negotiations but also in our bilateral negotiations, to safeguard genuine open access to markets in raw materials. The fact that the Commission gave way in the talks on Ukraine's accession to the WTO and accepted a degree of leeway for the imposition of export duties is intolerable and sets a bad example. Our acceptance of dual pricing in connection with Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO, an arrangement that has caused severe difficulties for our European petrochemical industry, was also intolerable. Nor am I very hopeful when I see what is happening at the present time with regard to Russia's accession to the WTO, and I would like the Commission to take great care to ensure that no more trade-distorting measures are introduced.
May I reiterate my sincere thanks to all my fellow committee members for this report. I hope that we do not change it too much in tomorrow's plenary vote.
Francisco Assis
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur. The problems currently arising in access to raw materials are largely a result of a structural change in their respective markets which is related to changes in the international economy.
The raw materials market used to develop in a cyclical manner, going from periods of extreme shortage to periods of scarcity, and sometimes achieving a balance. We now seem to be facing a new situation of structural shortage which is largely the result of a sudden increase in demand triggered by rapid progress in industrialisation and urbanisation in several emerging countries.
It is clear that efforts must be made in the appropriate fora, particularly the World Trade Organisation, to achieve consensus with a view to facilitating access to raw materials. This must not allow us to lose sight of another essential issue, however: we now have a new situation in these markets which arises in both foodstuffs and energy. In the European Union, therefore, we major raw materials importers have to view this issue with special concern. On the one hand we have to consider the impact it may have throughout the world, since it could lead to excessive pressure on raw materials consumption with very negative environmental and economic and social organisation consequences in the developing countries, while on the other we also have to look at our own situation and understand our own difficulties.
This raises two seemingly fundamental questions. One is linked to the need for us to review our own economic development model, because it is incompatible with a situation in which raw materials are over-exploited. The other suggests that we should lay greater stress on applied scientific research to ensure greater innovation, to promote the recycling of raw materials and to find new answers for the new problems this structural shortage is creating for us.
Zbigniew Zaleski
(PL) Nature has distributed its riches - the raw materials under the ground, the foodstuffs and trees on the earth's surface and the fish in the waters - unevenly across the globe. Human needs are the same, but meeting those needs requires solidarity in the exploitation of resources and in their distribution through international trade. The Holm report has much to say on the subject. I wish to stress a few points, following on from Mr Caspary.
First, rational exploitation of limited resources. I repeat: limited resources.
Second, protection of raw materials against confiscation, against the neo-colonial expropriation of poor countries, especially in Africa. We have no transparency regarding the trade in such materials engaged in by China and certain other countries.
Third, the purpose of trade in such raw materials should be the development of poor countries. That is our main aim. The benefits must go to the inhabitants, not just to representatives of the authorities or big international companies.
Fourth, EU raw materials policy must ensure that the Union does not become a hostage, for example, to Russia in the case of gas, and perhaps in future to Brazil in the case of sugar.
Fifth, all partners share absolute responsibility with regard to the exploitation of maritime resources. As we know, several species of fish are threatened with extinction, just like the forests of Asia and Amazonia.
In conclusion, Madam President, the watchword for free and fair trade must be responsibility in the exploitation of limited natural resources, so that future generations can have access to the raw materials necessary for human existence. Similarly, poor countries must be helped to develop the technology required for the production of basic foodstuffs. And in that respect Europe can do a great deal.
Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva
(BG) Madam President, Commissioner, bearing in mind the role played by trade in our globalizing world, we need to support the efforts to promote fair trade, and all initiatives which contribute to sustainable economic development.
Prices of raw materials affect market developments and in a number of cases have an aggravating effect on economic development, particularly in countries where deposits of raw materials are scarce. This affects the overall market situation, and the availability of raw materials.
The expected high oil and electricity prices can and should be dealt with through effective technologies in both extraction and processing of raw materials. This effectiveness and the implementation of innovations, as well as maintaining a strong research sector determine the level of success in improving the market situation and strength, in enhancing diversification and energy security.
In terms of agricultural trade, attention should focus on relaxing the pressure on producers caused by the imbalance between farmgate purchase prices of agricultural produce and their retail price levels. This distorts the market but it also indicates that the market has its social cost.
Glyn Ford
Madam President, it is a pleasure to speak on Mr Holm's report on trade in raw materials and commodities. Last month I had the privilege of attending, on behalf of Parliament, the UNCTAD XII Conference in Accra. From that conference there came a cry for help for the world's poor.
Escalating food prices are increasingly leading to rioting on the streets, and we need a fresh approach if we are to deal with this situation. The new crisis threatens to kill more in a day than have died from terrorism in the six years since 9/11. Politicians and governments may not yet have noticed, but the world's poor are seeing their children increasingly go hungry. The impact will be particularly acute in Africa, where commodity prices have more than doubled in the last 12 months and continue to soar owing to speculation, shortages and changing patterns of production. The root causes are growing demand from East Asia and the supply consequences of a failure to invest in agriculture. Climate change, written in the language of floods, droughts and record-breaking temperatures, is only making the situation worse, particularly for the world's poorest. It is therefore my hope that we adopt this resolution.
Georgios Papastamkos
(EL) Madam President, access to raw materials is of truly vital importance for the European economy and competitiveness. This is especially so because the EU depends to a large extent on imports of raw materials from third countries.
Pulling down the barriers that third countries have placed in the way of EU access to raw materials markets must be a priority. This is true of the current WTO negotiations and in those under way for bilateral free-trade agreements.
Lastly, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that support mechanisms and a transfer of know-how to the developing countries are necessary in order to enable viable, transparent management of the use of raw materials and natural resources.
Stavros Arnaoutakis
(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, it goes without saying that the competitiveness of our European businesses depends to a large extent on the supply of raw materials. We therefore need an integrated strategy today to ensure access to world markets. This will help to secure international cooperation, legitimate competition, fair trade and respect for restrictions based on serious development incentives in less-developed countries. It will also help to promote investment in environmentally friendly technology research and development and in recycling.
Our aim must be the sustainable development of the EU, as well as solidarity with the world's poorest countries.
Brian Crowley
Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work he has done on this report. There are three key elements that I see.
First of all there is global competition for the raw materials and commodities. We have to realise at European level that we have to be better placed to do bilateral agreements and bilateral deals if we want to succeed in getting access to these commodities.
Obviously the issue of the world trade talks is very important with regard to the long-term developments, but further leverage can be gained through our economic partnerships with the developing world. I would also caution that the giving-up of certain rights under the world trade talks for short-term access to raw materials and commodities could be to the detriment of a lot of our industry in the European Union and in particular to our agriculture.
Finally, as our previous colleague said, fairness is the most important consideration of all. We have to invest now in the developing-world countries to allow them to succeed - not just this year and next year because of the high price of oil and gas, but in 20 years' time. That should be linked to investment in their countries in education and health care for their people, to stop further problems all along the line.
Janez Potočnik
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for their interventions. They have been quite clear on the challenges we face. It is also quite clear, on the one hand, that we have to ensure the balanced development of our work, thus focusing especially on the poorer countries and establishing the fairness that Mr Crowley talked about; on the other hand, we also have to secure fair trade rules for access by our industry to raw materials. It is a fact that the European Union is a net importer of raw materials and that it will remain so.
We are now facing stronger competition on our supply markets, as well as rising prices owing to heightened competition from a number of emerging economies. At the same time, those emerging economies are raising barriers to access to their raw materials, thereby distorting competition. Fair access to raw materials under transparent conditions is therefore an essential part of the equation in our global competitiveness strategy.
The Commission's intention in the years to come is to use all the available instruments to maintain a sustainable supply of raw materials for our industries. In doing so, it will pursue a comprehensive and balanced strategy. As Parliament rightly emphasises, that strategy must take into account not only the interests of our industries and our competitiveness, but also the interests of the poorer countries.
As regards the development angle, we must, and will, make a distinction between, on the one hand, justified measures maintained by poorer developing countries, such as export taxes, which are indispensable for those countries' budgets and, on the other hand, measures imposed by emerging economies as part of their industrial policy and which distort competition on world markets.
I appreciate Mr Assis' comment on R&D commitments, which also need to be increased in this connection. I would like to thank Parliament for supporting us on this policy. We will keep you informed on the further implementation of our strategy.
Jens Holm
rapporteur. - (SV) Commissioner Potočnik, we look forward to the communication from the Commission and the conference. It is good that you intend to take up the issues of food security, development and the environment.
Francisco Assis, I entirely agree with you that we need to review our model of economic development.
Zbigniew Zaleski, I agree that trade must not amount to a kind of neocolonial theft of raw materials from developing countries. I therefore call on Zbigniew Zaleski and everyone else to be sure to back Amendments 20 and 21. Please study them carefully.
Look as well at Amendment 26, which deals with biofuels. In that, we call for environmental and social standards to be imposed in respect of biofuels. It is a major problem that more and more grain is used to produce meat, in other words we are feeding grain to animals, but at the same time more and more grain is being used to produce fuel for our cars.
This is a call to the Commission - we want measures to reduce private motoring and meat consumption so that we have more grain to feed people!
In the report we demand urgent measures to deal with climate change. Trade must also bear its responsibility. We must reduce all unnecessary emissions and reduce transport. A considerable amount of trade involves products which could just as easily be produced locally. We need to facilitate trade in 'green goods' and smart environmental technology. If we do not do so and trade does not bear its responsibility, we shall soon have no raw materials left to trade with and we shall then have no food left to eat either. It is immensely important that we take our climate responsibility seriously!
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 20 May 2008.


4. Adaptation of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure to the Lisbon Treaty (
Bruno Gollnisch
(FR) Mr President, my machine is not working, but that is not the main thing that I wanted to say.
This report, Mr President, included an amendment that has been withdrawn, Amendment 86. My point of order is based on Rule 24(2) of our Rules of Procedure. As I have had the honour of explaining to you on behalf of a number of my colleagues, this Rule provides for the non-attached Members to appoint one of their own as a delegate to the Conference of Presidents. Following the blocking by the administration, this obligation has not been met since July.
However, it was envisaged, under this Amendment 86, that this provision would be changed in order to let you decide which of the representatives of the non-attached Members should sit in the Conference of Presidents. This, Mr President, is a real disgrace, and I choose my words carefully. It is seen as such by all our colleagues. It would seem that we are the only ones to have the appointment of our representative to the Conference of Presidents imposed on us.
I hope, Mr President, that you will be intent on refusing this option afforded to you by the Socialist Group and the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) to which you belong.
President
I understand what you are saying. Would the rapporteur like to say something about this? May I ask the rapporteur to comment?
David Martin
rapporteur. - Mr President, we do not have to spend a lot of time on this because the Non-Inscrits are not worth spending a lot of time on. We are not voting on this. If they bothered to turn up at the committees to which they are entitled to turn up, they would know that we are not voting on this today but we are going to vote on this in January. I will be sticking to my recommendation that you, Mr President, invite a Non-Inscrit to attend the Conference of Presidents.


EU framework for coordinating national Roma integration strategies (debate)
President
The next item is the declaration by the Commission on the EU framework for coordinating national Roma integration strategies.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I am presenting, together with my colleague, László Andor, the decision which the Commission has taken to present a new framework for national Roma integration strategies.
The EU framework comes at a moment when the situation of Roma has become a real focus of attention in Europe. The EU has made available to the Member States a range of legal, policy and financial instruments to address the situation of the Roma. We also have a whole legal framework based on non-discrimination, free movement of people and the enlargement strategy. However it is very clear that the economic and social marginalisation of the Roma persists, and this is neither acceptable nor sustainable in the European Union of the 21st century.
Parliament, with support from across the whole political spectrum - and I would like to underline this - has drawn attention to the urgency of promoting the integration of Roma, through its recently adopted resolution on the EU Roma strategy. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Járóka, for her excellent work.
Determined action is needed, both at national and at European level. We need to join forces and step up our efforts to end discrimination against Roma and make sure they enjoy the same rights as any other European citizens, because that is what they are. When I say that, I of course have in mind a two-way process which requires a change in the mindset of the majority of our European citizens and of members of the Roma communities.
We all agree that there is a need for effective policy planning and implementation as well as for a strategic common approach. We all know that the primary responsibility for the integration of Roma lies with the Member States. We also acknowledge that the situation of the Roma varies greatly from one Member State to another. That is why the Commission decided to present an EU framework to enable the Member States to take action commensurate with the challenge they have to overcome.
The Roma task force which was set up in September last year, and reported in December, showed clearly that, very often, not enough is being done. The EUR 26.5 billion which are available under the Structural Funds are not being utilised as they should be. Only EUR 100 million of this money was earmarked for specific Roma activities, while 70% of the means for technical assistance, which would have been necessary in most Member States, was simply not used. So the measures in place so far are not adequate. It is now time to ensure that national, regional and local policies focus on Roma needs in a clear and specific way.
In our framework we concentrate on four main issues: education, employment, health and housing. We want the EU and the 27 Member States to commit themselves to closing the gaps and to concentrate on the common goals in those four areas with targeted actions and sufficient funds to deliver them. We want all Member States to build these goals into their existing Roma strategy, if they have one, or to develop a Roma strategy if they do not have one, for the period up to 2020.
In order to check whether these efforts achieve their objectives, we need regular monitoring. Therefore the EU framework lays the foundations for a robust monitoring mechanism to ensure concrete results for the Roma. This monitoring mechanism will ensure that the national Roma strategies are implemented, that money intended for Roma integration reaches its final beneficiaries, and that there is progress towards achieving the Roma integration goals.
The Commission will report annually on progress made towards integrating the Roma population in the Member States. The EU framework provides an opportunity for all stakeholders, at all levels, to join forces with the EU population in general and the Roma population in particular in order to put an end to the exclusion of more than 10 million European citizens, which we can no longer afford for the future.
László Andor
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, Honourable Members, the socio-economic situation of Roma is at the top of the EU agenda. Last month this House adopted the Járóka Report on an EU strategy on Roma inclusion. And today, the Commission adopted a Communication on an EU Framework for national Roma integration strategies.
Both documents make significant contributions to the wider debate on Roma, and will feed into the conclusions to be adopted at the next Council meeting of Employment and Social Affairs Ministers on 19 May, which will be exclusively devoted to the integration of Roma.
Those documents articulate the EU's political determination to address the situation of millions of Roma who are suffering from economic and social exclusion. I would like to make three key points here.
Firstly, the Commission has set out an EU framework for national Roma integration strategies. It acknowledges the Member States' prime responsibility for designing and implementing Roma integration strategies. It also reaffirms the Commission's deep conviction that the European Union cannot tolerate any form of racism, xenophobia, discrimination or social exclusion of Roma. The Union has a moral and political obligation to support the Member States in their efforts with all the policies and instruments at its disposal.
Secondly, as you know, the Union has agreed on a comprehensive strategy for developing the European economic and social model in a balanced way. The Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth is the right policy context for addressing the multifaceted problems facing Roma. We must harness Europe 2020's objectives, targets, flagship initiatives and reporting structures for the cause of the Roma.
The key message is that excluding millions of EU citizens from economic and social life is not smart, is not sustainable and is certainly not inclusive. In short, there is no excuse for Roma exclusion to continue in the Europe we want to live in.
In particular, the Europe 2020 headline targets for employment, poverty reduction and education are key benchmarks for measuring progress in Roma integration policies. The Commission's Communication on Roma identifies four areas that are of strategic importance to overcome Roma exclusion. These are as follows.
Access to employment: the big gap between Roma and non-Roma employment rates has to be addressed. We will not achieve our Europe 2020 targets if we do not do it.
Access to education: all Roma children should have access to quality education and not face discrimination or segregation. As a minimum, all Roma children should complete primary school.
Access to healthcare: reducing the gap in health between Roma and non-Roma. Member States should provide access to quality healthcare under the same conditions as for the rest of the population.
Access to housing and essential services: where the situation of the Roma people is indeed much worse than that of the rest of the population, for example where access to water, electricity and other services are concerned.
The lack of an integrated approach has a negative impact on the overall integration of Roma people in society and leaves them in poverty.
Thirdly, the Union must put its money where its mouth is. The Commission is currently drawing up a proposal for the multi-annual financial framework, which will be followed by specific proposals on the Structural Funds. To my mind, the Structural Funds need to be brought into line with the Europe 2020 Strategy. This applies to the policy areas for which I am responsible in general - employment and social inclusion - and it certainly applies to the socio-economic integration of Roma. Making our financial instruments more effective is a key objective for me.
Let me stop at this point, so I can listen to your views and answer any questions.
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - The Hungarian Presidency welcomes the Commission communication on the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies. I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation not only for the work done, but also for the personal dedication of Commissioner Reding, Commissioner Andor and all those who have cooperated on this truly significant achievement.
With the presentation of this strategic document, we have moved a giant step closer to the realisation of one of the chief priorities of the Hungarian Presidency. I am convinced that it will prove to be an important contribution to the improvement of the economic and social situation of the Roma in Europe, together with the recently adopted resolution of the European Parliament on an EU strategy for Roma inclusion based on the report by Lívia Járóka.
Extreme poverty, discrimination and marginalisation continue to affect large numbers of Roma throughout Europe, so it is high time for improvement. We cannot afford to say that it is their problem, and not ours. Moreover, people must never be considered as a problem, but rather as a chance, an opportunity. Given the current economic and demographic situation in Europe, the improvement of the economic and social status of the Roma can open up new human resources, thus contributing to economic growth in the long run.
The Hungarian Presidency has always believed that, besides the necessary fight against discrimination, a new policy mix is necessary, with three key elements: employment, education and housing. If followed up properly by the Member States, integrated policy action in these three fields, complemented by adequate monitoring as proposed by the Commission, will make a difference. The Member States will also have to make an effort to reach the goals of the EU 2020 Strategy. Measures for the social inclusion of the Roma can be mainstreamed in various policy fields. It is now widely recognised that measures inspired and coordinated at EU level can create synergy and added value.
What is next? The Hungarian Presidency intends to present and discuss the communication with the two Commissioners during the next Roma platform on 7 April in Budapest, to which I invite all who are interested. The Council will deal with it in a horizontal manner. Firstly, the April Justice and Home Affairs Council will discuss it on 12 April. Then it will be the turn of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council on 9 May, with the adoption of Council conclusions. The Education Council will also receive the document, on 20 May, before the Hungarian Presidency presents its report on the results of the discussions to the General Affairs Council on 23 May.
The final moment of this itinerary will, hopefully, be an endorsement in the June European Council. It will, of course, just be a new beginning for coordinated action at EU and national level for helping this truly European minority.
László Tőkés
Madam President, Commissioners, State Secretary, based on Mrs Járóka's report, and in conjunction with it, we are glad to progress further towards the implementation of the Roma strategy. The reason for this is that 8 April is International Roma Day. Incidentally, the fifth meeting of the European Roma Platform happens to take place on this very same day in Hungary. Through these we can take a significant new step towards a joint action plan that is EU-coordinated yet can take into account local characteristics. The European People's Party has urged EU action on the issue of the Roma's social integration for years. Moreover, we hope that the European Roma strategy can really get under way at the Summit of Heads of State or Government on 24 June.
By doing this, an answer can be given at European level to address the European Union's most serious human rights problem. It is first and foremost the Member States' responsibility to guarantee that basic human rights are enforced for their citizens. The European Union can provide only frameworks for this, but it is up to each Member State to give substance to these frameworks. The European Roma strategy can be a type of professional minimum. However, I firmly believe that a long-term action plan that spans parties and cycles will be prepared through this which can effectively remedy the poverty and social exclusion affecting the Roma. A few important points regarding the content of the strategy are that its target group is defined on an economic and not an ethnic basis; it fosters the enforcement of the full spectrum of human rights and strengthens the principle of equal opportunity; it takes into account the regional nature of exclusion, and alleviates the disadvantages concentrated in underdeveloped microregions.
For the strategy to succeed, the stakeholders, namely the EU institutions, the Member States, non-governmental organisations and Roma communities, need to make long-term, determined joint efforts. For precisely this reason, this issue must not be used to foment opposition or for party political attacks. Neither is collective labelling permissible. It is impermissible to juxtapose the collective guilt of the Roma and the collective responsibility of the majority, the oppressors. A solution to the Roma issue is a priority of the Hungarian EU Presidency. I hope that the European Council adopts the planned strategy in June. I ask for the support of the European Parliament in this matter.
Monika Flašíková Beňová
Madam President, Commissioner Reding, Commissioner Andor, I would like to begin by congratulating you on the presentation. I am pleased that, after many repeated calls by Parliament, the Commission is today finally presenting this European framework strategy. In my opinion, it is also high time this happened, as the situation is starting to grow more serious. Many Roma in the Union are faced not only with undignified living conditions, but also increasing terror. Saturday's torch march against the Roma in Hungary is the latest evidence of this, and I would hereby like to call on the Hungarian Government to draw the conclusions from this.
I would like to make some criticisms of the presented framework. The situation is urgent, but even so we cannot accept the Commission's decision to draft the framework without public consultations with the parties involved. It is strange that, on the one hand, you emphasise in the framework itself the importance of cooperating with civil society, but in the actual drafting of this key document you have ignored both the Roma as well as voluntary organisations, international organisations and the like. Such a closed approach to the framework does not add to its legitimacy; rather the opposite.
However, I consider the actual content of the presented framework to be successful on the whole. The Commission has correctly defined the competences for solving this Europe-wide problem. However, the key competences continue to be at the Member State level. I consider it extremely important, however, for the EU to take on the task of coordinating national strategies and supervising them, with the aim of ensuring the quickest possible genuine integration of the Roma.
In this context, it is also vital to mention the importance of monitoring the compliance of national strategies with the submitted framework, and monitoring the effectiveness of their implementation. However, the Commission's position seems to me rather unambitious in this direction. The Commission should get tough, especially concerning its expectations of the Member States. The framework correctly defines four key areas for Roma integration: access to education, availability of employment, access to health care and the availability of decent housing and basic services. Together with members of our group, I have had the opportunity, during numerous visits to Roma communities all over Europe, to confirm that these really are the key areas where the Roma often face poor conditions. It should be emphasised, however, that similarly formulated objectives also appeared in the Decade of Roma Inclusion programme. It is now essential to ensure that they are fulfilled.
In addition to these four areas, I would like to add one more which is missing from the framework, and this is specifically the fight not only against discrimination, but also against verbal or physical expressions of racism.
Last but not least, I would like to draw attention to the question of financing the inclusion measures. The Commission working group revealed at the end of last year that Member States have significant gaps in their use of EU funds. The Commission should therefore focus on three things: that the drawdown of funds is not excessively demanding administratively, that the Commission takes effective measures to ensure that the funds released really do fulfil their purpose, and that the use of funds for practices involving segregation is restricted.
I would like to end by thanking and congratulating you, Commissioner Reding and Commissioner Andor, once again, and now it is up to the Member States to proceed effectively with Roma inclusion on the basis of this at the national level.
(The speaker agreed to answer a question indicated through the raising of a Blue Card (Rule 149 paragraph 8 of the Rules of Procedure).
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Madam President, thank you, Mrs Flašíková, for taking my question. You are obviously very familiar with this report and will certainly be aware that it also requires the Member States to pay penalties if they are found not to be in compliance or if strategies are not adhered to. How do you stand on the fact that a Member State would also be liable to pay a penalty if the obligatory primary school attendance requirement is not met? Primary school attendance is mandatory in all countries. Thus, if Roma children fail to attend primary school, is the relevant country liable to penalties? Do you not think that the parents have some responsibility in ensuring that their children go to school?
Monika Flašíková Beňová
- (SK) Madam President, I would like to say one thing on this topic: I am an unequivocal supporter of the view that when we establish rights, obligations must also be complied with. It is also naturally the role of parents to ensure that all the rights of children are observed. However, in my opinion, the EU Member States have enough instruments to establish such a space, and they will not be punished if parents do not comply with their obligations.
Stanimir Ilchev
Madam President, I too wish to thank the rapporteur Mrs Járóka, as well as the representatives of the Commission, Council and Hungarian Presidency, because they have made many serious promises before us and assumed very important commitments.
When talking about Roma integration, we should not forget that we are talking about the most specific and, perhaps, the most complicated issue in Europe and the European Union. This is an issue which cannot be resolved through funding alone, anti-discrimination legislation alone or by launching education programmes alone. The solution to this problem can only lie in a combination of all these approaches and, actually, as part of a common political will.
At the moment, the Union is dealing on its own, more than ever, with its 12 million Roma. Some still do not realise that these people are not simply just Bulgarian, Romanian or Slovak Roma, but are citizens of the European Union with identical rights and obligations, while also having limited prospects.
The situation, as we can see, is fairly complicated. The greater the level of integration among the actions, initiatives and policies implemented by Member States and all the European institutions, the greater the success the European Union's Roma integration strategy will enjoy.
Improvised and unilateral actions may even cause harm rather than good. This is where I should mention that in some Member States knowledge about the Roma is inadequate and, in some cases, even wrong. As a result, the Roma issue in Europe must be actively explored and its progress professionally monitored. Otherwise, there is a danger that, instead of defusing the ticking bomb, we will only move it from one location to another on the map of the Old Continent.
A huge effort to provide education to the Roma must be at the heart of our ambitious strategy. This means complete integration of their children into the education system, basic qualifications for young people and adult literacy provision.
The main aim must be to increase steadily in the coming years the proportion of Roma who are trained for the labour market and have an enlightened attitude towards the institutions and the rule of law. This is the sole guarantee that in future the Roma's life will cease to evolve, like it does now, as a wretched existence on quicksand which has needlessly swallowed up European taxpayers' money.
Hélène Flautre
Madam President, it is of course good news that we now have a concrete European framework that is going to place an obligation on every Member State to present its national Roma integration strategy. Between now and the end of the year, the Commission will assess these strategies and then in roughly one year's time we will need to debate the issue again. Today, we are therefore in effect setting out a road map which should allow parliamentarians, public bodies and civil society to exercise ongoing, extreme vigilance in the very important areas you have mentioned.
I note that the Commission communication takes on board some of the points we set out in the parliamentary report. I am talking for instance about the involvement of the Fundamental Rights Agency in the assessment of the strategies. I believe the Agency has proven its competence in this area. I am also talking about developing cooperation with the Council of Europe on training mediators from the Roma community. This is an important strategic factor for the success of the projects at all levels, as is the attention devoted to Roma who are nationals of third countries and the enlargement aspect, which is taken into consideration in this report. Lastly, I think that establishing common indicators to support the monitoring system is very much to be welcomed.
Nevertheless, I must emphasise certain failings in this communication. I believe it is not sufficiently strong and insistent in its reference to the necessary participation of Roma at all levels, that is to say at the levels of preparing the projects, implementing the projects and evaluating them. The communication talks about information and consultation, but the involvement of the Roma community itself is vital. There is ample experience to prove this, because there have actually been good experiences in Europe as well. I find this a weakness in the communication.
A second weakness in the communication is that it deals with the issue of non-discrimination as a cross-cutting theme in each of the four areas. However, I think it is very important, or would have been very important, to have a special paragraph devoted to combating discrimination and violence and to access to justice for the Roma. This anti-discrimination, fundamental rights, access to justice component is not included as a specific component in its own right. I find this another weakness in the Commission document.
I think we also talked about the subject of mediators, a programme that was launched by the Council of Europe. It is good that it is mentioned in this communication. We could have mentioned, and you also could have mentioned the guidelines that have already been drawn up by the Council of Europe, so that we do not somehow end up with two strategies, or two types of framework for assessing the national strategies. I feel this would have been a plus in this communication.
Finally, I think that the Commission's work is not yet finished, and that the task force should continue its work, in order to ensure that Member States are constantly aware of the pressure on them from the Commission, civil society and local bodies to actually implement these guidelines.
Timothy Kirkhope
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, this proposal is an opportunity to better integrate the Roma people within Member States and to find ways to provide the Roma people with the full, equal opportunities and rights afforded to all EU citizens. The main aim of the programme should be to achieve basic universal rights for all those people.
I fear, however, that once again this heavily burdened and complicated agenda, like previous programmes, may have to be cut back. The competences of Member States in the areas of education, health and housing must be respected and, from what I have read so far, I fear the Commission may be acting ultra vires in a manner that is detrimental to the rights of Member States to determine their own policies in these areas. However, I hope that this new strategy marks a new era in the way the EU addresses the issue by firstly listening to the Roma people.
For too long programmes have been too complicated and have simply not reached the people who need help most. In nearly ten years little of substance has been achieved on the ground. I hope the Commission will now focus on how best to simplify the procedures for accessing EU funds and how to better monitor, assess and implement its programmes. If the EU is spending money in this area then it needs to be spent now in a better way.
Cornelia Ernst
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a good thing that we are now to have a general strategy for the Roma, but I am afraid that that not everything in the garden is rosy. That is because the overall proposals that the Commission has placed on the table are far behind the many years of discussions with representatives of the Roma, some of which were held in this House.
For years, representatives of the Roma community, both with and without a framework strategy, have been pointing out the need for targeted measures and clear, specific requirements. We do not even have clear sanctions should this strategy not be adhered to. Although there have been some proposals in this direction, no actual sanctions exist, so that the system is more full of holes than a Swiss cheese.
The strategy on the Roma must take account of all the significant areas. This is what was agreed. However, what does the Commission have to offer other than the four key points? There is no provision in the structures for the participation and inclusion of the Roma communities in all the decisions that relate to them. There are no structures for the specific implementation of targets. There is no gender perspective. Something that also really irritates me and that I believe to be a scandal is the fact that you are unwilling to undertake any explicit action to combat discrimination against the Roma community.
You complain that the EU structural funds for the Roma are not used. I would like to ask you quite openly: Is it not the case that discrimination against the Roma is also one of the reasons why the community has not made use of such EU funds to date? I think so.
We, as members of the GUE/NGL Group, are highly critical of this communication. We do not believe it to be adequate and I expect the appropriate amendments to be made.
Mario Borghezio
on behalf of the EFD Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, despite being a Eurosceptic, I could be in favour of a plan, in view of the 2020 Strategy, to eliminate discrimination, difficulty and marginalisation if we were really being offered incisive action by the European Commission to control the behaviour of Member States.
What we have, however, are these speeches about a great future, about great control, spoken by a European Commissioner who still cannot explain to me how it is that in her country, in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, these travellers are forbidden to set up camp whereas they can instead instal themselves close to my home, in Italy and in France. Thus we talk of giving a home to travellers, whilst in some European countries, specifically that of Mrs Reding, these people cannot even set up camp.
In today's edition of the main newspaper in my country, Il Corriere della Sera, there is an article on a parent, who does not deserve to be called a parent, a traveller, who was arrested in Italy for selling her own little girl to traffickers who wanted to sell her into prostitution. She sold her own little girl. Others send them to do other things. Often it is they who do not to send them to school, despite pressure and attention from the authorities, mediators and charities.
Do we want to talk about these problems as well? Do we want to do away with these salami slices of idiotic do-goodery and realise that many of the Roma's problems are exclusively and principally of their own making?
President
The debate is closed.
Written Statements (Rule 149)
Cătălin Sorin Ivan
in writing. - (RO) The new European Roma inclusion strategy only serves to rehash old objectives which have proved impossible to achieve over the years. They were credible at the time when the Decade of Roma Inclusion was launched in 2005. However, at the moment, when extremist behaviour and violence against the Roma are on the rise in the EU, we would have needed a strategy offering far more specific measures. Tensions are rising in Hungary and the actions of the police are becoming increasingly heavy-handed. If a firm stance is not taken, the situation will deteriorate. Consequently, it is perplexing why the Commission has not tried to come up with proper solutions which will tackle specific problems, especially as it also had the resolution adopted in the European Parliament at its disposal.
Marian-Jean Marinescu
The new strategy for coordinating national Roma strategies presented today by the Commission marks an important step for the EU. The creation of national contact points for Roma integration, simplification of funding procedures, the assessment of national plans by EU institutions and verification of progress on Roma integration in Member States are measures which will help improve the economic and social situation of the Roma population in Europe. Member States must scrutinise this strategy closely and set up as soon as possible an administrative body tasked with the strategy's implementation and coordination with the other Member States. I hope that, from this summer, the Commission will take on the lead role in coordinating the strategy in terms of developments in key areas such as the promotion of civic education, vocational guidance and employment. I find it regrettable that the new strategy fails to make clear recommendations as to the types of programmes which will be developed and implemented for Roma in a similar manner in all Member States, with certain variations. I call on the Council and Member States to come up with such recommendations for types of programme which the Commission will handle centrally. Without such types of programmes, adapted to the nomadic nature of the Roma lifestyle, the European Union will never be able to make a full contribution to increasing the value added at EU level.
Rovana Plumb
in writing. - The EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies provides an opportunity to join forces at all levels and with all stakeholders to put an end to the exclusion of the Roma. The goals set up at EU level, covering four important areas for Roma integration - access to education, employment, healthcare and housing - will only be reached if there is a clear commitment from Member States. It is now crucial to step up a gear and ensure that national, regional and local integration policies target Roma in a clear and specific way and that explicit measures address the needs of the Roma to prevent and compensate for the disadvantages they face. The Member States should ensure that all Roma children have access to quality education and establish a concrete target for raising Roma employment rates within the context of Europe 2020, increasing the proportion of Roma households with access to water, sanitation and electricity, and promoting non-discriminatory access to housing, including social housing. The Member States should establish concrete targets with concrete timelines for raising the life expectancy of Roma, raising child vaccination rates to the level of the non-Roma population, and lowering infant and maternal mortality rates to the level of the non-Roma population.
Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid
At last, the Commission has given us some ambitious goals for Roma integration in Europe: guaranteeing at least a primary level of education for all Roma children, reducing child mortality and closing life expectancy gaps. However, these ambitions still need to be put into practice. One year on from the European Parliament's adoption of an amendment to the ERDF Regulation aimed at investing in housing for marginalised communities, projects are having trouble getting off the ground. It is important that Member States should invest and should report back on their actions in areas such as employment, education, health and housing for Roma people, but also that the Commission should ensure that it is rigorously monitoring use of existing European programmes. Lastly, Roma people must seize this opportunity to take control of their own destiny, knowing that they can count on Europe's support. A wait-and-see attitude and hollow words will only feed the extreme right and mistrust among communities. International Roma Day will be celebrated next Friday, 8 April. I hope that on 8 April 2012 we will be able to celebrate the progress that has been made.