Natural disasters in the European Union
President
I shall begin with some very sad information regarding the floods in Europe. Yet again this year, Europe has been hit by a flood disaster. Recently, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and northern Italy have suffered - at the moment there is flooding in central Italy - as well as the south-west of England and several other countries. Perhaps, when you take the opportunity to speak, because I will open the floor in a moment, you will give other examples, too, of serious floods which have afflicted Europe.
There have been fatalities, as well as material losses valued at many millions. Eight years ago, the European Union Solidarity Fund was established to help countries which have been hit by natural disasters. The money set aside in this fund has so far been used in 33 serious natural disasters. We share, today, the pain of the victims' families and of those from whom the water has taken everything they possessed. We know these are terrible, exceptional events in the life of every person affected.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, over recent weeks, severe floods have struck several European countries, bringing the populations of the affected regions to their knees.
Last week, four Belgian citizens lost their lives in the provinces of Waals-Brabant, Oost-Vlanderen and Henegouwen, on the border between the capital and the northern part of the country. As far as the authorities are concerned, it was the worst flood of the past 50 years. In two days, as much rain fell as normally falls in one month. It was so bad that the army had to intervene to evacuate the hardest hit areas.
Similar situations arose in the western part of France, where many roads were impassable to traffic and caused gridlock to the transport system. Seed could not be sown in autumn due to the continual rain that prevented access to the land.
Twenty days ago, my own country, Italy, was also hard hit in the regions of Veneto, where two deaths occurred, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Liguria and Calabria, with one fatality in each, and the province of Salerno in Campania and Tuscany, where three people died, with dozens of injured people having to be extricated from the mud and rubble and one person who is still missing in Rovigo.
The damage amounts to more than EUR 1 billion for the most immediate work alone, to which must be added the funds necessary for structural works. More than 4 500 homeless, 280 municipalities and more than 500 000 people affected, farming areas devastated and 150 000 dead livestock.
I would like to highlight two aspects. The first is the exceptional mobilisation of the aid machinery and the world of solidarity that sent thousands of volunteers to support the people struck by the first stage of the emergency. They deserve the thanks and appreciation of our institution.
The second aspect is linked to the long-term effects that this catastrophe will trigger. The fabric of the European manufacturing industry is made up of small and medium-sized enterprises that have lost everything: machinery, vehicles and materials. The same applies to the thousands of farms that have seen their crops destroyed but also the tractors, machinery and seeds rendered useless by the mud, with stables and stock farms flooded and thousands of cattle and poultry drowned.
These farms, which were already struggling with the economic crisis, are now destined for bankruptcy. Over time, the floods will lead to the destruction of the productive system, with unemployment and depletion of the affected lands. Europe must therefore play its part as a matter of urgency by assuring the governments of those countries affected of its willingness to mobilise the Solidarity Fund.
Even if it means overriding the strict criteria for fund activation and even without the approval of the 2011 budget, we must respond immediately to our fellow citizens who are still experiencing, even now, the effects of such a great crisis, and who are entitled to feel that Parliament is behind them and the European Union is providing substantial support.
Edite Estrela
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I would like to show our solidarity with all of the regions hit by natural disasters, and give our heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims of the storms. 2010 began with the world in shock at the scale of the tragedy caused by the disaster that struck the autonomous region of Madeira, in Portugal. Shortly afterwards, storm Xynthia buffeted France. Extreme meteorological phenomena also affected Spain, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, causing substantial damage.
In Central Europe, summer floods are becoming increasingly frequent and devastating. Thousands of people have had to flee their homes in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Italy and the United Kingdom, and numerous factories have had to cease operation. Every year, hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest in southern Europe are consumed by fires. It is thought that climate change is exacerbating the situation and that natural disasters which cause terrible damage in terms of loss of lives, environmental damage and reduced economic activity are on the rise. It is vital to prevent, research and properly manage the risk.
According to the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, better urban planning in coastal zones and the preservation of ecosystems can reduce the impact of natural disasters. On the other hand, civil protection mechanisms should be strengthened, the EU's response instruments simplified and the rules for implementing regulations made more flexible. Mr President, you have spoken about the Solidarity Fund. It is incomprehensible that the Council has maintained the block on the new regulation on the Solidarity Fund, which was approved by Parliament. I would also point out that Parliament recently approved the proposal for the creation of a European Drought Observatory as a centre for knowledge, mitigation and monitoring of the effects of drought. Greater investment in prevention and more care in the preparation and training of personnel can also make all the difference.
Dirk Sterckx
Mr President, of course, our first sympathies lie with the victims. In my country, four people have drowned and I hear that in other countries, too, hundreds and thousands of people have suffered enormous financial and emotional losses to their businesses and homes. Our first thoughts go out to them, of course. In recent weeks, months, even years, a large number of Member States have encountered problems with water, that is, with flooding. I have a question for the Commission. Do you think that, in assessing these events, it would be useful to bring together experts from various Member States, from various regions, and give them the opportunity to tell us what their opinions are about what has happened, so that we can get a better insight into the causes? It is a very complicated matter, but, in my view, if we can get to the bottom of the causes, we will also be able to discuss remedies with those experts. In my view, a risk analysis of each river basin, such as those we have carried out for the environment in the Water Directive, would be appropriate. We also need to consult them about preventative measures. How can we prevent such a disaster happening again? Because, we are still expecting some heavy rain and it will be concentrated in particular areas; that has, after all, been the cause of the flooding. Finally, if we then experience a new emergency, we will need to ensure that we are able to take better coordinated measures to improve water disposal. I would like to ask the Commission to bring experts together so that we can properly assess the recent disasters.
Isabelle Durant
Mr President, I, too, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, should like to offer my condolences to all the families and all the people who have been affected by these tragic floods, to all those who have lost loved ones, and to all those who have sustained material losses. However, I should also like to mention and thank all the fire-fighters, rescue workers and volunteers who have been very active over the last few weeks in all the affected regions.
The victims will have to be assisted and compensated not only in the very short term, but also in the months to come. We will also have to come up with a consistent and innovative policy that tackles the root causes of the problem, and I propose three types of measure to the Commission.
Firstly, we must carry out renovation and construction projects to make the soil less impermeable, because every time an industrial site, shopping centre or housing estate is built, it must be designed in such a way as to prevent the soil from becoming slightly more impermeable. This provision does not just apply to flood zones.
Secondly, we must review our agricultural practices. Intensive agricultural policies have made the land more vulnerable to sudden changes in the weather. We should therefore strengthen all agri-environmental measures along these lines.
Lastly, there is the matter of alerting and coordinating towns so that they can prepare for and deal with such incidents when they occur. We feel that communication and mobilisation have not been fast enough at times, and thought will no doubt have to be given to more active procedures for coordinating the dissemination of weather warnings.
I therefore propose that the European Union should review all of its policies - prevention policies and active policies in all other areas - and should develop ones that can be of help in this matter, otherwise, when the next rather extreme weather events occur in a few months' time, we will find ourselves back here offering our condolences to the victims - to people, families and businesses. I believe we should avoid that, and we can do so in all of our policies.
Julie Girling
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, my group also extends its sincere condolences to those affected. I have very personal experience of this; indeed, it was the flooding in my own region which first brought me into contact with the European Parliament and indeed inspired me to become a Member eventually, so the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund in that event was certainly a big event for me. Only this week, we have had further flooding in Cornwall, which is in my region.
My point has already been made by Mr Sterckx, but I think it bears repetition. I think that early warnings are important, but we all know how quickly the weather moves and how quickly the weather changes. I wonder if it is really a good use of money to put a lot into early warnings on weather, which are already really there. It is about what you do when you get the warnings. As Mr Sterckx has said, Europe could certainly add a great deal of value by having a situation in which we could learn from each other.
I know in the case of Gloucestershire, where I came from, we were greatly helped after the floods by connections most particularly with Austrian regions, where they had major experience of flooding in highly elevated areas. We did not have that.
I think it would be a very good idea for the Commission to focus on setting up some regional connections so that we can learn from each other about how we cope with this, because it clearly is not going to go away.
Lothar Bisky
Mr President, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, I would like to express my sympathy for the victims and for those affected. All the groups in Parliament are in agreement on this. We also agree that we must provide aid quickly. A lot of sensible things have already been said. It is not necessary for me to repeat them, but I do fully support them. There is one further aspect that I would like to highlight and that is the long-term damage. We must not forget that many of the consequences will have a more lasting impact on the natural environment than we may currently anticipate. Therefore, it seems important to me for the Solidarity Fund and the measures that we are taking to be targeted at these long-term consequences of natural destruction.
I would like to make one last point. We can sit here and discuss this issue, but the most important thing for us to do is to provide support, so that people can begin to organise help for themselves, because they have a better understanding of the local conditions than we do here in Parliament.
Mara Bizzotto
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group, I would like to express my solidarity with all citizens affected by the flood. I would nevertheless like to talk about my own region, a region of 5 million inhabitants where 500 000 people were struck by the flood, with 131 municipalities involved, 7 000 inhabitants displaced, 140 km2 flooded, three hospitals and medical facilities evacuated and two deaths. Farming was hard hit, and 23% of the enterprise system of the Veneto also felt the full impact. This is just to give you an idea of the size of this catastrophe.
Europe must do more. Europe must mobilise the Solidarity Fund and we know that if the budget is not approved, the fund cannot be mobilised. It is all very well for us to sit here talking about great strategies, development plans and mythical programmes: Europe should also invest more in the research and prevention of hydrogeological risk, promote responsible land planning and provide incentives for the use and development of early warning systems.
It should invest more in hydraulic defence works, because our rivers are at risk and they continue to endanger the health of our citizens. I therefore hope wholeheartedly that Europe, for once, will come up with a response and let its voice be heard, because it is often accused of being too far removed from its citizens.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Olga Sehnalová
Both natural disasters and industrial disasters, as we have seen from the recent tragedy of the toxic sludge spill in Hungary, are, unfortunately, a relatively frequent occurrence in Europe. The credibility of the European Union as an organisation showing solidarity in need depends on an ability to provide effective and particularly rapid assistance to affected areas and their citizens. The most important issue here is time. The rules governing any assistance should therefore be as flexible as possible, especially in the case of disasters of a cross-border nature. The condition of achieving a defined expected level of damage, regardless of the size of the affected territory and the intensity of the damage, seems unsatisfactory. It is actually impossible to predict everything. I therefore fully support changes aimed at the effective and rapid mobilisation of resources. Being able to help our own citizens is, in my view, a significant positive element in the perception of the EU. How better to prove that Europe is here for its citizens?


Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
Miroslav Mikolášik
- (SK) According to government archives and available literature, the Communist regime in Slovakia sentenced 71 168 people in the years 1948 - 1989 for alleged political crimes.
There is no better way to honour the memory of those political prisoners and prisoners of conscience than to work actively to promote the expansion of freedom and democracy where it is deemed an unattainable luxury. The European Union's appeals have so far been met with no response. However, I am deeply concerned about the situation of political prisoners in Cuba and I therefore urge the Council and the Commission to take effective measures necessary for the release of political prisoners and to support and ensure their work as protectors of human rights. To the citizens of Cuba...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Filip Kaczmarek
(PL) Mr President, I endorsed adoption of the motion for a resolution on Cuba. Frankly speaking, I do not understand why Fidel Castro's European friends are so doggedly defending the idea of a bankrupt and demoralised revolution. Does it have to be the case that only the fatal victims of what considers itself to be a progressive regime will make people aware of the need for change in Cuba? Sometimes individual sacrifices contribute to historic changes. I hope this will also be the case this time. At the same time, I would not like there to be more victims caused by the dogmatism of the authorities or their inability to analyse their own position and change.
Neither can I accept the fact that many of the ACP countries take an entirely uncritical view of the character and significance of the social and political system which has been built in Cuba. I am profoundly convinced that this is an erroneous understanding of solidarity. It would be more honest to acknowledge what has been achieved in Cuba, but at the same time to condemn that which has not been a success and is anti-social, inhuman and destructive.
Ramón Jáuregui Atondo
(ES) Mr President, I would like to speak on behalf of Mrs Muñiz to explain why the Spanish delegation within the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has voted against Amendment 2 tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, even though the amendment requested that the Spanish Presidency be supported in its dealings with Cuba.
Firstly, may I bring to mind the fact that we cannot support amendments tabled by a group that has sought to distance itself from the resolution as a whole, and that our commitment to all the political groups who have signed the resolution would not allow us to support a partial amendment of the document.
Secondly, Amendment 2 tabled by the GUE/NGL Group is not in line with the position taken by the Spanish Presidency, which is looking to establish a consensus in the European Union in order to renew our framework for relations with Cuba, but not for a complete break with the Common Position, which is what the amendment was calling for.
That is our reason for rejecting the amendment.
Zuzana Roithová
- (CS) It was an honour for me today to support the resolution on prisoners of conscience in Cuba, not only as a Member from a former totalitarian communist state, but also because I have personally met Cuban dissidents in the past, in particular the physician Dr Darsí Ferrer, who has been imprisoned with others since July last year.
Following my return I informed Parliament about the sad situation in the health sector and I would like to emphasise again that people who are not Communist Party members and who do not have dollars, have no access to medicines. Dr Darsí Ferrer was a significant personality in Havana, who was helping dissidents to obtain medicines. Now he is behind bars.
I am delighted that we have adopted this resolution, which is a very strong resolution, and which also clearly challenges European authorities to continue their efforts for democratic change in Cuba.
Daniel Hannan
- Mr President, who would have thought 20 years ago, when the air of Europe was thick with the brick dust of falling walls and with cries of freedom, that the red flag would still today be flying over Havana and that Fidel Castro would be dying peacefully in bed on that sultry Caribbean island.
Sola mors tyrannicida est, says my countryman, Sir Thomas More: death is the only way to get rid of tyrants.
Two things have kept the Communist regime in place in Cuba. First, the wrong-headed American blockade, which has allowed Castro and his regime to blame all the privations of their countrymen on foreign imperialism rather than on the economic mismanagement of Communism; and secondly the indulgence of some in Europe, including some in this House, who have a disgusting double standard whereby they excuse human rights abuses and the denial of democracy in Cuba on the grounds that it is good at producing doctors and ballerinas.
I hope that this House will grow up and that some in this House will see beyond their days as students wearing Che Guevara T-shirts. The time has come for constructive engagement with the democratic forces in Cuba. History will absolve us.
Philip Claeys
- (NL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Cuba resolution because it is, on the whole, fairly critical of the totalitarian regime in Havana. At the same time, I would like to use this opportunity to call on the Council to bring to an end its attempts at normalising its relations with Cuba while we are still dealing with a communist dictatorship which violates human rights in a flagrant manner.
I would also urge the new High Representative not to follow the line taken by the Commission in previous legislation. Here I refer, for example, to Mr Louis Michel, who has visited Cuba on repeated occasions without levelling any criticism whatsoever at the state of human rights and democracy there. It is totally unacceptable for the European Union to curry favour with the communist regime in Cuba.
Jarosław Kalinowski
(PL) Mr President, in endorsing the motion for a resolution, I wanted to express support for investment in the development of low-emission technologies. The SET Plan can be effective and credible only if it is properly financed, and this includes finance from private sources. Arguments in favour of the necessity of such measures are, principally, the current economic situation in which Europe finds itself, dangerous climate changes and threats to energy security. Thanks to the latest research and technologies, an opportunity to overcome the crisis has arisen, which at the same time supports measures related to climate change. It is also an opportunity for European agriculture, a way to create new jobs in rural areas in the non-agricultural sector, especially in the area of creating sources of renewable energy.
Jan Březina
(CS) I too have voted for the motion for a resolution on investment in the development of low-carbon technologies (the SET-Plan), because in my opinion it is a key instrument for transforming the Union into an innovatory economy, capable of fulfilling demanding objectives. In this regard I consider it essential that the Commission, in close cooperation with the European Investment Bank, submits an overall proposal on an instrument for investing in energy from renewable sources, energy-efficiency projects and the development of intelligent networks no later than 2011. Hand in hand with this there should be a strengthening of the role of the European Investment Bank in financing projects in the area of energy, and especially projects with higher levels of risk.
I categorically reject the exploitation of the topic of low-carbon technologies for below-the-belt attacks on nuclear energy in the presentations of Members from the left side of the political spectrum. I maintain that nuclear energy is a clean energy which contributes to sustainable development.
Marek Józef Gróbarczyk
(PL) I could not support the resolution, although it is extremely important for the European economy. It should be noted that the resolution provides for a huge concentration of money only in certain areas, only in certain branches of the energy industry - the 'green' areas. This clashes with the notion of energy solidarity with countries which rely mainly on coal. Poland's energy needs are based on coal, so a smooth transition to a green economy is extremely important for us. As a result of such measures in Poland, instead of creating jobs we would have to close them. During a crisis this is extremely difficult, and would be harmful to Poland.
Sophie Auconie
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 27 and 28 February storm Xynthia assailed France. Almost 60 people died, and hundreds of thousands of people sustained considerable damage.
The European Union must set an example in the face of this tragedy. That is why I personally had a hand in drafting this resolution calling on the European Commission to be extremely responsive. We expect it to provide financial aid to the disaster areas by means of the EU Solidarity Fund.
If, as a result of this tragedy, the regions of Poitou-Charentes, Charente-Maritime, Pays de la Loire and Brittany request a change to their allocation of expenditure cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund, the European Commission will have to examine these requests extremely favourably and very quickly.
Leaving this resolution aside, I, like my colleagues from the Union for a Presidential Majority, am convinced that it is time to create a true European civil protection force. It alone will be able to provide vital additional aid in the context of a disaster such as this.
President
Mr Kelly, although you have not registered to speak before the first explanation of vote, you may do so by way of exception. Next time please remember to register.
Seán Kelly
- Mr President, I just want to say that I think it is time that we had a conclusive paper on nuclear energy to outline the progress and the safety measures that have been brought to bear on it and how that will transpose itself in future into research that will be undertaken so that citizens can make up their minds.
There is a lot of scepticism about it - a lot of doubt - and that needs to be clarified, which will take a lot of the difficulties out of this debate on low-carbon technology.
Finally if I may say, on this, the anniversary of the declaration of independence of Lithuania and Estonia, I congratulate those countries on 20 years of independence.
Written explanations of vote
John Stuart Agnew, Marta Andreasen, Gerard Batten, John Bufton and Mike Nattrass
in writing. - While we recognise that Cuba is a Communist tyranny and while we want to see Cuba transformed to a peaceful democratic state, we do not recognise the EU in this process.
Charalampos Angourakis
The resolution by the European Parliament, the pretext for which is the death of the Cuban prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who died following a hunger strike, despite the efforts of the Cuban health services to restore his health, is a provocative and unacceptable attack on the socialist government and people of Cuba and forms part of the anti-communist strategy being directed by the EU and led by the European Parliament in a bid to overturn the socialist regime. We condemn the hypocrisy and provocative effort on the part of the centre right, centre left and Green representatives of capital in the European Parliament to exploit this event.
The Greek Communist Party condemns and voted against the European Parliament resolution. It calls on the peoples to express their solidarity with the government and people of Cuba. To call for the common position against Cuba to be revoked. To condemn efforts by the EU to use human rights as a pretext for exerting imperialist pressure and coercion on the people of Cuba and its government. To demand that the criminal US embargo against Cuba be lifted immediately. To demand the immediate release of the 5 Cubans being held in US prisons. To defend socialist Cuba.
Sebastian Valentin Bodu
The European Union is the most democratic structure in the world and the fundamental value on which it has been built has been respect for human rights. This is why I find it laudable and encouraging that all the groups in Parliament have been united in their condemnation of the abuses committed by the Cuban authorities against human rights, not to mention the constructive approach, receptive to dialogue, which the EU has decided to adopt towards Cuba.
We are living in the 21st century and crimes of opinion and conscience should be erased from the values of every state in the world, no matter how long its history of totalitarianism and dictatorship might be. Conducting international dialogue rather than imposing sanctions can be used to change attitudes so that anyone who disagrees with their own authorities will not suffer abuses and injustices typical of regimes which lack respect for human beings.
Tragedies such as the one which has befallen Cuban dissident Orlando Zapata Tamayo, 'guilty' of a crime of conscience, must never be repeated. There are now other political prisoners too in Cuba who are in danger. As a guarantor of respect for human rights, the EU must get involved and take prompt action diplomatically so that the Zapata tragedy will never be repeated in Cuba, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
Andrew Henry William Brons
in writing. - I condemn unreservedly the ill-treatment of people in Cuba (or anywhere else). However, I abstained in the resolution, as a whole, against Cuba. One reason was that the resolution purported to give authority to the European Union and its functionaries to speak and act on behalf of Member States. The other reason was that many Member States of the European Union prosecute and imprison people for exercising non-violent freedom of expression, the holding of heretical opinions or taking part in dissenting activity. It is utterly hypocritical for parties that favour political repression in Europe to point the finger at states such as Cuba that share their repressive and anti-democratic opinions and activities.
Edite Estrela
in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the situation of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Cuba. We reiterate the need for the immediate release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. We believe that the detention of Cuban dissidents due to their ideals and to their peaceful political activity constitutes a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund
in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats share the opinion presented in the amendment that the blockade against Cuba should be lifted. However, we do not believe that the statement belongs in this motion for a resolution, as it concerns prisoners of conscience.
Diogo Feio
in writing. - (PT) Orlando Zapata Tamayo died of starvation because he demanded to be treated as what he was: a political prisoner persecuted by a regime that, despite the changes in leadership, continues to rule over its citizens with an iron fist and prohibits them from associating or freely expressing themselves.
The tragic circumstances of this death should put us all to shame. Especially the political decision makers who, following the lead of Mr Zapatero and Ambassador Moratinos, have changed European policy towards Cuba.
All the European Union has achieved with its tentative attempt at appeasement has been to increase the feeling of impunity, whilst making the democrats - who deserved much more from us - feel more isolated.
I hope for a return to the firm democratic policy that has only recently softened. I want the European Union to finally acknowledge that this change of policy has been a complete failure. I also want Oswaldo Payá and the Ladies in White to be able to travel to Europe freely to reveal the circumstances surrounding the events that have been taking place in Cuba.
Ilda Figueiredo
We voted against this resolution due to the political exploitation by the majority in Parliament of the death of Zapata Tamayo, following a hunger strike in a Cuban prison, despite having received medical treatment. They want to thwart the intentions publicly expressed by the Spanish Presidency to end the common position on Cuba. Once again they are attacking Cuba and its people, by seeking to meddle in its independence and sovereignty, its economic and social successes and its exemplary internationalist solidarity.
Capitalism is not the future of humanity. Cuba continues to be an example that it is possible to construct a society without exploiters or exploited, a socialist society. The representatives of capitalism in the European Parliament do not accept that fact. They try to prevent a comprehensive political dialogue with the Cuban Government on the basis of the same criteria that the EU applies to all countries with which it has relations.
They do not condemn the US embargo on Cuba, the immediate lifting of which has been sought on 18 occasions by the General Assembly of the United Nations. They say nothing about the situation of five Cuban citizens jailed in the United States since 1998, without a fair trial, and they ignore that the US continues to shelter a Cuban citizen who was the instigator of the bomb attack against an airliner in which 76 people perished.
Jacek Olgierd Kurski
in writing. - (PL) In the vote, today, I endorsed the resolution on the situation of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Cuba. As the European Parliament, we must unequivocally condemn the practices of the regime in Havana and speak up for the rights of independent journalists, peaceful dissidents and human rights defenders. In the resolution which has been adopted we have expressed profound solidarity with all Cubans and have endorsed their efforts at achieving democracy as well as respect for and protection of fundamental rights. I come from a country in which a popular movement arose in opposition to the Communist regime - the Solidarity movement. Although Poland and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, which today belong to the European Union, have now put their painful experiences of Communist regimes behind them, all the more we cannot forget those who are imprisoned and persecuted because they so much want democracy, liberty and freedom of speech.
Nuno Melo
The EU cannot have a romantic vision of the political regime in Cuba, which is a genuine communist dictatorship, based on the logic of a single party that violates human rights, oppresses its citizens, persecutes and eliminates political adversaries and imprisons countless people simply for the offence of having an opinion.
The death of Orlando Zapata was just one more case to shock the world that the European Parliament must condemn firmly, without hesitation and false justifications. That is why I reject the attempts of some members of the far left to dress up this appalling crime in political terms, which are only intended to legitimise a regime that is neither tolerable nor acceptable.
Willy Meyer
I voted against Resolution on Cuba because I believe it constitutes an act of interference that violates international law. With my vote I have expressed my condemnation of this exercise in political manipulation whose only aim is to express disapproval of the Government of Cuba. The Members who voted in favour of this text are those who time and again refused to table a resolution in this Parliament condemning the coup that took place in Honduras. This resolution urges the European Union to show unreserved support for the change of political regime in the Republic of Cuba and also proposes the use of European cooperation mechanisms in order to achieve that aim, which constitutes an unacceptable act of interference that contravenes international law. For more than 50 years, the United States of America has maintained an economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba, in flagrant violation of international law and with severe repercussions for the economy and living conditions of Cubans. In spite of that, the Cuban Government has continued to guarantee its citizens universal access to healthcare and education.
Andreas Mölzer
in writing. - (DE) I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on Cuba, as it is important for the EU, too, to clearly express the idea that there is an urgent need for democratisation in the country, which is still under Communist rule. The incarceration of dissidents and political opponents is a typical feature of Communist States, but it is excessively practised in Cuba. The fact that the authorities are not even permitting the family of a prisoner who has died as a result of a hunger strike to organise a burial is a particular scandal.
It is to be hoped that a change of political system on the island will be achieved as soon as possible. Irrespective of that, however, it is important for the EU and also the United States to apply the same standards everywhere. It is unacceptable for the US to grant Cubans who are embroiled in bomb attacks 'political asylum'. You can only express effective criticism if you yourself meet the criteria set.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
in writing. - (ES) I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on Cuba because, as I said in the debate yesterday, regardless of our respective positions with regard to Cuba, the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo is a regrettable occurrence in itself.
I also insist that we need to demand the freedom of all the political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, in Cuba and the rest of the world, but I nevertheless advise against taking action that has already proved to be a failure for Cuba's progression towards democracy and liberalisation, such as the embargo and the blockade. It is clear that changes are urgently needed on the island, and the European Union should monitor these so that the transition to democracy will benefit the Cuban people.
Alf Svensson
in writing. - (SV) The USA has had a trade embargo against Cuba for 48 years. The embargo affects the Cuban population and is a constant and recurring excuse for the shortcomings of the Castro regime. Everything is said to be the fault of the American embargo and, as a result, the people of Cuba cannot lay the blame clearly at the door of the Communist regime and distance themselves from it. The democratic opposition in Cuba wants the embargo to be lifted. On 29 October 2009, 187 of the UN member states voted to lift the embargo. Three voted for it to remain in place and two abstained. None of the EU Member States voted in favour of keeping the embargo. In the past the European Parliament has condemned the embargo against Cuba and called for it to be ended immediately, in line with the demands made by the UN General Assembly on numerous occasions. (P5_TA(2003)0374) The European Parliament has also stated that the embargo defeats its own object. (P6_TA(2004)0061) The current resolution refers to the situation of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Cuba. During the debate before the vote, I tabled a proposal that Cuba should be presented with an ultimatum. The embargo will be lifted and within six months all prisoners of conscience must be released and reforms must be introduced. If the regime does not comply with these terms, the USA, the EU and Canada will bring in new and more intelligent sanctions which are aimed at the Cuban leadership, such as a ban on travelling to the country and a freeze on Cuban assets and on foreign investment.
Sebastian Valentin Bodu
The EU has undertaken to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, to reduce energy consumption by 20% and to generate at least 20% of the energy consumed from renewable sources by 2020. Furthermore, the EU is aiming to set an example globally in saving resources and protecting the environment.
These ambitious targets can only be achieved if the EU as a whole and each of the Member States individually make clear commitments to deadlines. Investments in low carbon energy technologies are key to meeting the targets proposed for 2020, which is not as far away as it seems. Attaining these targets requires a considerable financial effort: EUR 58 billion, according to some meticulous calculations, from both public and private sources.
However, this financial, logistical and administrative effort will turn the EU into a global leader in innovation and will have a positive impact on its economy by creating jobs and opening up new prospects in the field of research, which has been unjustly underfunded for decades. The investments in developing low carbon energy sources will yield results in the medium and long term, making a positive impact across the whole European Union.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho
It is vital to insist on a radical change in society based on the sustainability of cities, decentralised energy production and industrial competitiveness. This is an essential policy for a prosperous and sustainable society that is prepared for the challenges of climate change, secure energy supply and globalisation, with global leadership in the area of clean technologies. The SET Plan intends to contribute specifically to the development of clean technologies. I welcome the fundamental guidelines that the communication presents on how to organise the logic of intervention between the public and private sectors and between Community, national and regional financing. However, it is essential to increase public funding of scientific research in the area of clean technologies. Europe still has to create conditions for there to be more private investment in scientific research, in technological development and demonstration in the energy field. It is vital to move beyond words to action. The next EU financial perspective and the 8th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development should prioritise energy security, the fight against climate change and the environment. Only in this way will it be possible to maintain the competitiveness of our industry, promote economic growth and job creation.
Edite Estrela
in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on investment in the development of low carbon technologies (SET Plan), because, in order to effectively tackle the economic crisis, investing in those new technologies that have the greatest potential for job creation should be a priority. I believe that these investments could create new opportunities for the development of the EU's economy and competitiveness.
Diogo Feio
The SET Plan presented by the Commission proposes investment in R&D to develop efficient and sustainable clean energy technologies with low carbon emissions, making it possible to ensure the necessary reduction of emissions without jeopardising European industries, thus making a commitment, which we believe to be serious, to sustainable development.
New energy policies, particularly within the context of the general crisis, must not lose sight of economic efficiency and must not, in any way, jeopardise the economic sustainability of European nations, without this meaning poorer environmental performance.
For this reason I urge a new approach on energy policy, one that is based on clean energy, more efficient use of the natural resources at our disposal and heavy investment in research and more environmentally-friendly technologies so that we can maintain European competitiveness and allow job creation within a framework of an innovative and sustainable economy.
José Manuel Fernandes
I welcome the objectives of the SET Plan (Strategic Energy Technology Plan), which insist on the development of a low-carbon society. The SET Plan seeks to accelerate the development and roll-out of low-carbon technologies. This plan includes measures relating to planning, implementation, resources and international cooperation in the area of innovative technologies in the energy sector. Several studies estimate that promoting the European target of 20% renewable energy penetration will result in millions of new jobs by 2020. Furthermore, roughly two thirds of these jobs will be created in small and medium-sized enterprises. The solution requires the development of green technologies. Therefore, we need more funding for the SET Plan, which I advocate should be provided in the next review of the financial perspective. We also need to promote green technologies and skilled labour through investment in education and research. The sooner we begin to achieve a low-carbon society, the sooner we will emerge from the crisis.
João Ferreira
The development and implementation of low-carbon technologies is extremely important not only for environmental reasons - which include the need to reduce atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide - but also for energy reasons, considering the inevitable gradual shortage and eventual depletion of fossil fuel reserves, on which humanity is highly dependent.
Unfortunately, both the SET Plan and the resolution just adopted, do not just offer an incomplete approach to the problem - both in terms of the technologies and energy sources to be considered, and of the necessity to reduce consumption - but, above all, they still consider this investment as another good business opportunity (in which some, a select few, will earn a great deal, to the detriment of many) rather than an environmental and energetic imperative to safeguard the common good of humanity.
It is significant and revealing that in the vote on the amendments to the resolution, instead of promoting 'ambitious reduction targets' of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions, the choice was made 'to promote world-wide carbon emission trading'.
Ilda Figueiredo
The use of low-carbon technologies which naturally produce less carbon dioxide is positive and desirable.
However, we cannot accept that, at the expense of technological development and strengthening of the so-called SET Plan, yet another excuse is being sought to weaken national energy policies.
Reading the words of the Commission that 'the SET Plan is the technology pillar of the EU's energy and climate policy', leaves no doubt as to the real intentions of the European Commission to weaken the sovereignty of Member States in such an important area as national energy strategies.
The motion for a resolution contains aspects, in more detail, with which we cannot agree, particularly the promotion of 'world-wide carbon emission trading', given that this solution has already shown not to offer advantages in reducing carbon emissions, as well as the creation of more public-private partnerships, emphasising a 'substantive increase in the portion of public investment', thus using public money to serve private interests and profit.
Our group therefore voted against.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
in writing. - Mr President, Sustainable and effective low-carbon technologies are the core essentials in the huge task of decarbonisation we in the EU, and globally, are facing. It is due to this fact that I welcomed the rapid process in which Parliament drafted a resolution on the topic, giving a clear indication to the commission and the council that the SET Plan is timely and important. If we are serious with our mission, it is evident that we need all forms of low-carbon technologies, including sustainable nuclear power. Therefore I am happy that we managed to delete the wording on recital i, which is yet another attempt to put nuclear in a light it nowadays does not deserve. This recital may have had negative implications on the concept of 'sustainable low-carbon technologies' suggesting that nuclear is not part of that. The fact however is that we in the EU cannot afford not to use it if we want to take climate change seriously. Until renewable energies really can deliver effective results and secure constant energy flow, it is such low-carbon technologies which we must rely on.
Nuno Melo
Investment in low-carbon technologies must be a priority, since it is one of the most effective ways to tackle climate change, preparing the EU for a green economy. Intelligent low-carbon solutions should therefore receive special attention, not least with regard to their Community funding, to achieve the environmental targets set by the EU for 2020.
Andreas Mölzer
in writing. - (DE) I abstained from the vote on the motion for a resolution on 'Investing in Low-Carbon Technologies' as, although it contained a number of reasonable approaches, it supports the further development of nuclear energy, which is something that I reject due to the major risks associated with it. The motion for a resolution rightly points out that research has had too little funding hitherto. However, so that Europe remains competitive in respect of other global players, the funding of research projects must be massively expanded, especially in the field of the new energy sources. The development of new, low-carbon technologies in the energy sector will, I hope, not only safeguard the existing jobs in this field but will also create many additional highly qualified jobs. However, I believe that, in this respect, the investment should be made in the fields of solar energy and carbon capture and storage. Given the potential for grave consequences, the investments in nuclear energy must be re-thought and redeployed. This new policy direction in energy issues will also improve the security of energy supplies within the EU and institute a more robust independence from foreign suppliers.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
in writing. - (ES) Like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I have voted against the motion for a resolution on investing in the development of low-carbon technologies (SET Plan) for a number of reasons; in particular, because the amendment requesting the deletion of recital I - which was key for us - was accepted; in that paragraph it was suggested that the sixth European Industrial Initiative on 'Sustainable Nuclear Energy' should be renamed simply 'Nuclear Energy'. We consider that the concept of 'sustainable nuclear energy' is meaningless because, in the best of cases, it is possible to reduce the threat to the environment and to people's health, and the risks of proliferation that stem from the development and use of nuclear energy, but not eliminate them.
Luís Paulo Alves
I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution, to express my grief for the victims and my solidarity with their families and friends in both natural catastrophes. These severely affected several Member States and regions.
I would therefore state that it is imperative for Europe to make a prompt response to these events, namely activation of the European Solidarity Fund, thus showing the EU's solidarity with all those affected.
At this time it is important to have special consideration for the island and outermost regions which, in addition to their permanent obstacles, are now confronted with devastated infrastructure and personal, commercial and agricultural property, and, in many cases, not being able to resume normal activities immediately, particularly in the regions that depend almost exclusively on tourism, as the media portrayal of the events could deter potential visitors.
It is therefore necessary to call on the Commission and the Council to take prompt action, so that the Council reassesses the proposal to make implementation of the European Solidarity Fund simpler, quicker and more flexible.
Similarly, it is important to review with the respective Member States the European programmes and structural, agricultural and social funds, so as to improve the response to the needs arising from these catastrophes.
Elena Băsescu
in writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the major natural disasters which have taken place in the autonomous region of Madeira and the effects of the storm Xynthia in Europe. I believe that the European Union must show solidarity to those who suffer as a result of these natural disasters. They have hit regions in Portugal, western France, various regions in Spain, in particular the Canary Islands and Andalusia, as well as Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. In western France the storm caused the death of roughly 60 people and the disappearance of a number of people, not to mention the destruction of several thousand homes. The European Commission can provide financial support to the affected regions through the European Union's Solidarity Fund. It is of paramount importance that there is a sense of solidarity between Member States in the event of major natural disasters. There must be coordination between the authorities at local, national and European level in their efforts to rebuild the affected areas. Effective prevention policies must not be overlooked either. We must ensure, both in this case and for the future, that European funds will reach the affected regions as quickly as possible in order to help those affected by natural disasters.
Regina Bastos
On 20 February, a unique meteorological phenomenon occurred on Madeira causing, at least, 42 deaths, with 32 people missing, 370 homeless and around 70 injured.
On 27-28 February, in western France on the Atlantic coast (Poitou-Charentes and Pays de la Loire), another phenomenon caused 60 deaths, with 10 people missing and more than 2 000 homeless. This storm also isolated several regions in Spain, particularly in the Canary Islands and Andalusia.
Besides the human and psychological suffering, these meteorological phenomena caused a scene of widespread destruction with an extremely serious social and economic impact on the economic activities of these regions, as many people lost all they had.
I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution, calling on the Commission to immediately take all action necessary to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), in the most urgent and flexible way and to the maximum possible amount to help the victims.
I would emphasise the need to draft a new EUSF regulation based on the Commission's proposal, in order to deal with the problems caused by natural disasters in a more flexible and effective way.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho
The storm that devastated Madeira on 20 February caused enormous human and material losses in the region of Madeira. The role of the EU is vitally important, as it has mechanisms and instruments at its disposal, such as the Solidarity Fund, the Structural Funds - the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund - and the Cohesion Fund, which need to be activated and applied in a quick, flexible and simplified manner. I welcome the motion for a resolution in which the European Commission is asked, as soon as it receives a request from the Portuguese Government, to initiate the action necessary to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) in the most urgent and flexible way and to the greatest possible extent. I call on the solidarity of the institutions of the European Union towards the swift and flexible application of the Cohesion Fund, bearing in mind Madeira's special status as an insular and outermost region of the EU. I appeal to the good will of the European Commission as regards negotiating the revision of the regional operational programmes INTERVIR+ (ERDF) and RUMOS (ESF), as well as the section on Madeira of the Thematic Territorial Enhancement Operational Programme (Cohesion Fund).
Nessa Childers
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report and was very happy that it was passed by the parliament. Following similar if less severe weather circumstances in Ireland involving flooding and the recent snow, I know how deeply these tragedies affect families and citizens of the EU, and it is important that this house acts to help in any way that it can.
Carlos Coelho
The natural disaster that affected Madeira on 20 February has left a desolate scene, human suffering and widespread destruction, with devastating consequences for the respective economic and production structures.
One week later, another natural disaster - storm Xynthia - had devastating consequences on a region in western France and several regions of Spain.
I would like to join with the feeling of grief and express my solidarity with all those affected by this tragedy, in terms of both the human and material losses.
It is vital to provide aid to people, as well as to rebuild infrastructure, public facilities and essential services.
It is true that the Solidarity Fund can only be paid after the completion of the procedures to mobilise the Fund and the respective approval by the Council and Parliament. However, in the current situation, it is very difficult to ask people facing immense difficulties in resuming their normal way of life to wait. Therefore, we ask for the greatest urgency and flexibility both in making funds available and taking exceptional measures to help Madeira.
José Manuel Fernandes
in writing. - (PT) On 20 February this year there was a tragedy in Madeira, characterised by unprecedented, torrential rain, strong winds and huge waves. It left at least 42 dead, several disappeared, hundreds homeless and dozens wounded. I would like to highlight the immediate efforts of the Regional Government of Madeira and its institutions in their rapid and coordinated response to this tragedy. On 27-28 February 2010 in western France - in particular the regions of Poitou-Charentes and Pays -de -la Loire - there was a very strong and destructive storm, dubbed Xynthia. It left more than 60 dead, several disappeared and thousands homeless. In the face of these tragedies I wish to show my profound grief and strong solidarity with all the affected regions, giving my condolences to the families of the victims and paying tribute to the search and rescue teams. I call on the Commission to begin taking, as soon as requested by the respective Member State, all the necessary steps to mobilise as much of the European Union Solidarity Fund as is possible. When assessing these requests, the Commission must take into account the specific nature of the individual regions, in particular the fragility of isolated and peripheral regions.
Sylvie Guillaume
I endorsed this motion for a resolution on the action to be taken in the wake of the devastating and deadly passage of storm Xynthia on our territory because, beyond trying to lay blame, we must above all show European solidarity so as to support the victims of this disaster, which struck several European countries. Not only must we harness the Solidarity Fund, but this aid must also come from the Cohesion Fund, the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Lastly, we must encourage insurance companies to intervene as quickly as possible and subsequently learn lessons from such events when it comes to issuing planning permission.
Filip Kaczmarek
in writing. - (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, I endorsed the motion for a resolution on the major natural disaster in the autonomous region of Madeira and the effects of the storm 'Xynthia' in Europe. Let us concentrate on Madeira, because it was there that the catastrophe took the heaviest toll. We are creating a large and strong community for many reasons, but also so that we can help each other in times of need. Today, Madeira and other regions are in need, because they have been hit hard by the effects of the storm. It is our duty to help those who need our aid. I hope the motion for a resolution will contribute to the effective elimination of the effects of the tragedy. I sympathise deeply with all the victims and their families. Thank you.
Véronique Mathieu
In recent weeks, several EU regions have been hit by natural disasters: Madeira, then western France and various regions of Spain. The human and material consequences caused by the violence of these meteorological phenomena have left a deep impression on us MEPs. This explains the motion for a resolution on natural disasters voted on today in the European Parliament; it expresses our 'deepest sympathy' and 'solidarity' with the victims of the devastated regions. European solidarity must be reflected in financial terms by the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund and by means of other European-funded projects. However, when it comes to the Solidarity Fund, I must point out that the current regulation does not permit a sufficiently flexible and rapid response; the opportunity exists to amend this regulation, and it is now up to the European Council to make progress in this matter. I also voted in favour of the amendment supporting the proposal made by Mr Barnier in 2006 to create a European civil protection force. I regret that it has not been adopted; implementing this proposal would improve the EU's crisis response capacity.
Nuno Melo
The recent natural tragedy that occurred on Madeira has left the island in a state of chaos. Other regions in Europe have been equally devastated by the impact of storm Xynthia. The EU should unreservedly help in a joint effort to express solidarity, mobilising the European Union Solidarity Fund for this purpose. The EUSF was established with the aim of delivering urgent financial aid to Member States affected by natural disasters.
Andreas Mölzer
in writing. - (DE) On 20 February, a serious natural disaster with torrential rainfall on an unprecedented scale, in conjunction with a powerful storm and very high waves, hit Madeira, killing at least 42 people, with many people still missing. In addition, hundreds of people have been left homeless. A few days later, the devastating storm Xynthia passed along the French Atlantic coast, causing nearly 60 deaths, in particular in the regions of Poitou-Charentes, Pays de la Loire and Brittany. There, too, there are many people missing.
Thousands of people have also been left homeless. I therefore supported the measures proposed in the joint motion for a resolution for the EU to come to the aid of these countries and regions financially, for which reason I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution. In particular, it must be ensured that the Union's Solidarity Fund is mobilised promptly and flexibly.
Wojciech Michał Olejniczak
in writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of adoption of European Parliament motion for a resolution. Ecological catastrophes and natural disasters are an increasingly common part of our lives. The dangers from changes in the environment have grown over recent decades, and we should do everything possible to prevent them.
The European Union, which has 27 Member States and half a billion citizens, must tackle not only the emergence of climate and environmental change, but must also look after its citizens and guarantee them the best possible conditions for survival after a crisis. Our efforts, however, must not concentrate only on giving help after the event. A fundamental reason for the European Union's existence is to give its citizens a sense of security. In relation to this, the appropriate EU institutions must take specific steps to supervise the regions and their abilities to undertake preventative action.
In order to tackle, as quickly as possible, the effects of the storm 'Xynthia', we should mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund and help all those who have incurred losses in connection with this catastrophe. Adverse and painful events which affect others should always prompt us to take effective action in solidarity with those who have suffered. Let us show that it is the same this time.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
in writing. - I abstained on the resolution on the major natural disaster in the Autonomous Region of Madeira and the effects of storm Xynthia in Europe because two of our key amendments were defeated. More specifically, the one which made reference to the fact that in France buildings were allowed on floodplains and natural wetlands and that housing speculation caused the construction of buildings in vulnerable areas, and the one stating that all Community funds for the implementation of such plans, particularly from the Structural Funds, the EAFRD, the Cohesion Fund and the European Solidarity Fund, be conditional on sustainability measures.
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
I would like to begin by expressing my solidarity with the families of the victims of the natural disasters in Madeira and of the victims of storm Xynthia. Natural disasters have been an ever-frequent occurrence recently due to climate change. This is why we must ensure that the European Union is prepared to respond as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I voted in favour of the European Parliament motion for a resolution which calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of increasing the community cofinancing rate for regional operational programmes. No Member State is able to cope on its own with natural disasters of great magnitude. This is why the European Commission must adapt the European Solidarity Fund in order to guarantee that Member States hit by disasters will be able to access this fund quicker and in a more efficient manner.
Nuno Teixeira
This motion for a resolution expresses the need to provide aid to those European regions that were recently the scene of natural disasters, such as the Autonomous Region of Madeira. The heavy rainfall on Madeira on 20 February has, in addition to the serious human consequences, with 42 people killed, several injured and made homeless, had countless repercussions and serious material damage.
In this context, it is vital to mobilise assistance for affected regions to recover from the economic and social consequences of disasters. I would stress particularly the fragility of insular and outermost regions, as in the case of Madeira, where the specific nature of its economy and social situation makes it all the more vital to provide the best aid possible.
I would repeat the need to call on the European Commission to mobilise the Solidarity Fund in a flexible manner, as well as to revise the regional programmes financed by the Cohesion Fund, with a view to adapting them to the requirements arising from the tragedy.
It would be equally apt to review the financing planned for 2010 earmarked for specific projects, in accordance with the general rules on the Structural Funds for 2007-2013.
In view of the size of the natural disaster on Madeira, and its indelible consequences, and the effect of storm Xynthia, I voted in favour of the tabled document.


Generalised tariff preferences (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Scholz, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 - C7-0135/2010 - 2010/140(COD)).
Helmut Scholz
Mr President, Mrs Győri, Mr De Gucht, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing an important aspect of international trade policy very late in the day. Given its importance, I would have preferred the House to be full, with all the seats occupied. The European Union's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) is a major achievement of European trade policy. It opens up our market to the poorest countries in the world for all types of goods except arms. It also gives developing countries trade concessions on a whole range of products. GSP+ is a valuable incentive system which offers developing countries further concessions if they sign and put into practice important international agreements on human rights, labour standards and protecting the environment. However, the system does have weak points and it needs to be updated regularly.
Over the years, the European Parliament, partner countries, companies and non-governmental organisations have made important suggestions for improving the system. The whole world is now waiting for the Commission to issue its proposal on the much-needed revision of the system. The deadline for this proposal was 1 June 2010. The Commission has not delivered on time and its failure to do so has left the countries involved and companies both inside and outside the EU in a dangerous state of uncertainty. The existing regulation must now be revised.
You are attempting to rescue the situation by means of a transitional regulation and this is what we will be voting on tomorrow, that is on Thursday. The transitional regulation is simply an extension. It does not change anything, it does not improve anything and it does not implement the new requirements resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon. This has given rise to feelings not only of surprise but also of displeasure within the European Parliament and, as the rapporteur, I have felt the same. It is the obligation of the Members of this Parliament to ensure that the rights, the duties and also the powers granted to the elected representatives of the citizens of Europe by the Treaty of Lisbon are respected. It is also our obligation to make sure that the reduction in tariffs brings about a genuine improvement in the situation of the developing countries. In order to protect the EU's partners from the consequences of a long-drawn-out procedure, I suggested initially to the Committee on International Trade that only those elements of the regulation should be amended which are necessary to allow Parliament to fulfil its new role.
At the same time, I would like to emphasise that I also believe a general redrafting of the GSP and GSP+ schemes is needed. During the intensive meetings with the Council and the Commission on the legal issues resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon which affect the transitional regulation, Parliament finally decided to take a big leap of faith. At this point, I would like once again to express my sincere thanks to the chair of the Committee on International Trade, Professor Moreira, for his untiring efforts as mediator and also to you, Mr De Gucht, for the Commission's assurance that key amendments, in particular with regard to informing and involving Parliament, would be addressed in practice. Therefore, we decided to drop all our amendments, in order to enable the transitional regulation to come into force as quickly as possible. We did this primarily in the interests of our partners and of the companies which are affected.
The Commission's assurance includes a promise in future to inform the European Parliament in full, immediately and at the same time as the Council about work relating to essential aspects of the GSP and about all developments and to share all documents relating to the GSP. The Commission also guarantees that the European Parliament will be notified about any suspension of preferences, in accordance with Article 16(3), about withdrawals, including the corresponding investigation reports from the Commission, in accordance with Article 17, and about safeguard decisions, in accordance with Articles 20 and 21, before they come into force.
We welcome the tabling of Omnibus 1 and the Commission's readiness to enter into an in-depth discussion of the proposals which it has made in Omnibus 1. At the same time, we would like to remind the Commission that Omnibus 2 must be tabled urgently.
Finally, I would like to emphasise once again that Parliament has made a concession on the transitional regulation. We must not forget that we need to fight for the ongoing and fundamental implementation of Parliament's parliamentary rights.
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Scholz, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr President, let me continue in English. Because of the terminology, I think that it is more appropriate to use English. Ever since the Commission presented its proposal to extend, for a limited period of time, the application of the current GSP regulation - the so-called roll-over proposal - the Council has been consistently reiterating before this House the importance of adopting this proposal in good time. This is to ensure that developing and less developed countries will continue to benefit from the EU's general system of preferences, which is a fundamental element of the EU's trade policy towards developing countries.
The Council is glad to see that the first step towards the adoption of this proposal at first reading is taking place today here in the European Parliament. We will take the necessary steps as quickly as possible to confirm the agreement between our institutions on the basis of your position adopted today. At the same time, the Council is looking forward to the forthcoming presentation by the Commission of its proposal for the comprehensive review of the EU's GSP.
We should tailor the scheme to better help those developing economies which most need the preferences, and ensure that it becomes an even more efficient development and foreign policy tool by providing incentives for good governance. With that in mind, the Council expresses its readiness to work together with Parliament in a spirit of good cooperation with a view to putting in place a modern, comprehensive and fully functional legal framework which will be conducive to developing countries' needs.
Let me conclude by taking this opportunity to fully acknowledge, on behalf of the Presidency, the positive and constructive efforts by both the Chair of the INTA Committee, Mr Moreira, and the rapporteur for this dossier, Mr Scholz, to reach an agreement on this proposal.
Karel De Gucht
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I warmly acknowledge the support within the Committee on International Trade for the proposal on the extension of the regulation applying the scheme of generalised tariff preferences. Our particular thanks go to the rapporteur, Mr Scholz and to the Chair of the INTA committee, Mr Moreira, for their willingness to find a pragmatic solution on how to address Parliament's concerns on the application to the existing GSP regulation of the new rules on delegated and implementing acts.
You will remember that the extension was proposed as a means to bridge the period necessary to adjust to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and to submit a new regulation on the future EU GSP scheme. The European Parliament's support as expressed in the INTA Committee's vote on 3 March paves the way for successful continuity of the current scheme to the benefit of developing countries and the EU. It also reinforces the EU's role and commitment to the objectives of EU development policy.
The Commission has heard Parliament's concerns on the decision-making aspects of the GSP regulation loud and clear. In this regard, we can reconfirm our full and active support for the European Parliament to play its role in relation to trade policy as foreseen in the Lisbon Treaty. For this reason, the Commission is committed to discussing in a constructive spirit Parliament's concern as expressed over the last few weeks. This discussion will continue in the context of the two Commission proposals for a regulation adjusting decision-making in the field of trade policy in the light of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty - Omnibus I and Omnibus II.
In parallel, the Commission will make every effort to act on Parliament's request to be kept fully informed about work related to essential aspects of GSP. This is indeed crucial in order for Parliament to be able play its role in trade policy effectively. For this reason, the Commission, building on existing requirements, will inform Parliament and the Council immediately of all important developments and share all GSP-relevant documents.
Finally we are looking forward to further discussions with you on the future scheme of generalised preferences further to the proposal for a new regulation which will come your way in May. I stand ready to discuss the main elements of the proposal at the earliest opportunity after it is adopted by the Commission.
Béla Glattfelder
on behalf of the PPE Group. - (HU) Mr President, I am very pleased that the rapporteur's willingness to compromise made the timely extension of the scheme of tariff preferences possible. The Hungarian Presidency of the European Council played a very important part in this process. Failure to extend the scheme of tariff preferences now would have an extremely adverse effect on the poorest countries of the world. It is regrettable, however, that the European Commission submitted this proposal to Parliament late, and we could not have a meaningful debate here, even though the GSP Regulation would deserve an amendment. That is because the tariff preferences we are granting to the richest oil exporting countries of the world, such as the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, are unjustifiable. It is worth considering whether Russia, which is not a member of the WTO because it did not wish to join it, and very often uses commercial policy to exert foreign policy pressure, is worthy of receiving commercial preferences.
It is also worth considering how we could integrate sustainability criteria into the scheme of tariff preferences. After all, today commercial preferences are also granted to countries which otherwise hinder the adoption of climate protection agreements on the international scene or, for that matter, export to the European Union goods produced in an unsustainable manner, often through the destruction of rainforests or tremendous CO2 emissions. I believe that the next tariff preference scheme will have to address these issues as well.
Vital Moreira
Mr President, if we are here debating how long the current scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP) will be in force, it is because the Commission has failed in its obligation to table the proposed substantive revision of this scheme within the proper timeframe.
Therefore a rollover period for the current regulation is expected in order to maintain the benefits of international trade enjoyed by developing countries, starting with the poorest, when accessing the European market. It is crucial that this proposal be adopted without further delay, in order for countries benefitting from the GSP to continue to benefit from it, and for the economic players that will, in this way, be able to develop their trade relations with the necessary predictability and legal security.
That is why I, as Chair of the Committee on International Trade and as shadow rapporteur, have advocated that the rollover should be a rollover and nothing more, with even the European Parliament giving up on an ad hoc adaptation of this regulation to the Commission's implementing acts, and giving us faith that it will be brought into line in the near future, using the so-called 'omnibus' regulations.
I would like to stress that, based on this understanding, the decision taken by the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs and the remaining members of the committee, influenced the European Commission's commitment - which was today reiterated by Commissioner De Gucht and I sincerely thank him for his care - to henceforth guarantee the European Parliament that there will be timely and complete information about every relevant act relating to the application of the current regulation, in line with the Treaty of Lisbon's provisions regarding the common commercial policy.
One final word to thank the rapporteur, to thank the Commission and also to thank the Council for this compromise, which will enable Parliament to properly look after the interests of Europe and of those who rely on us.
Niccolò Rinaldi
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Generalised System of Preferences is one of the few methods of differentiation that works in favour of developing countries in international trade. It is a delicate instrument that must be used in the best way.
Tonight we are talking about an extension, which means that the Commission date will be postponed once the new final proposal has been submitted. In the meantime, however, we are saying that this is a tool to be handled with caution, and that also applies to inter-institutional relations. Until now, even on the basis of the pre-Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has not always been fully involved in decisions, as happened at the time of the discussions on Colombia or Sri Lanka that fired the enthusiasm of this House.
We must also consider the merits of an ex-post evaluation of the decision to implement the regulation. What is the impact of the effects of a tariff reduction, what about its suspension, what are its mechanisms, what is its procedure? Sometimes an on-the-spot examination of these issues may reveal surprises and suggest the most relevant criteria to make the impact of the regulation as effective as possible.
As far as the conditions are concerned, the world is changing and the instrument must show greater compliance with regard to those countries rewarded by the tariff concessions. The main concept of respect for human rights must be complemented by a broader vision in which, as noted by the rapporteur Mr Scholz - whom I thank for the excellent work he has done in this report - various indicators are taken into consideration: post-conflict rehabilitation, the specific situation of women, trade unions, the situation of recovery after natural disasters, environmental sustainability and compliance with international social agreements.
If we were to adopt a combination of these criteria, I would not be surprised if the list of beneficiary countries we came up with were different from the current list and perhaps more deserving, but we will be able to talk about this again once we have the final proposal for a regulation.
Ilda Figueiredo
(PT) Mr President, given that the current scheme of generalised tariff preferences expires at the end of the year, it is important, as has already been said, for the Commission to table its new draft of the comprehensive revision of the system on time.
Now we are only just discussing the extension necessary to ensure legal certainty and guarantee mutual interests. However, the importance of this subject whether for developing countries or also EU Member States, above all for those with weaker economies whose industrial, agricultural or social interests are not always taken into consideration in the international trade agreements promoted by the Commission, makes a detailed discussion necessary in order to take account of all the potential aspects, consequences and impacts of this system on a future regulation, the draft of which must reach Parliament as quickly as possible.
Oreste Rossi
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this measure concerns the Generalised System of Preferences, in other words reductions on import duties for third countries which take on certain commitments to international treaties or agreements on sensitive issues such as employment rights and the environment. These requirements should be periodically reviewed and updated on the proposal of the European Commission, but unfortunately we are not here to vote for a revision but an extension of the old rules.
At this sensitive time of not only economic but also political international crisis, not to revise and update the conditions for access to or exclusion from the list is a choice that goes against the best interests of the European Union. Despite the non-linear behaviour of the European Commission, we will still nevertheless vote in favour, because we believe in this tool favouring third countries that particularly distinguish themselves compared with others over issues considered to be strategic.
Karel De Gucht
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I listened to the interventions. I understand that the groups agree that we should extend the existing system, but that they are waiting to have the new system on their desks as soon as possible. That is what we will do. We are working on it. As you know, before you can make a legislative proposal you need a public consultation, which takes time. You need an impact assessment, which takes time. Then, of course, you also have the internal decision-making process within the European Commission, on a subject which is far-reaching.
This is about a financial system which will apply for quite a period of time. We want the system to be much more selective than it was in the past, so that we can help those who really need it. At this moment in time, more than 150 countries are beneficiaries of the system. It is not at all selective. You could even ask yourself what the use of such a system is. We are thoroughly reviewing it.
We will come forward with our proposals within a couple of months. Parliament will then have the possibility to discuss them with us thoroughly. I would also like to repeat our pledge that we will keep Parliament fully informed.
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, the reform of the GSP will be a focal point for the Council and for the Presidency. With the review of the current scheme, which is to start under our Presidency, Parliament and the Council will have a unique opportunity to reflect the profound changes in the global economy, particularly the vastly increased competitiveness of emerging partners.
The Presidency took careful note of the valid concerns emphasised by Mr Rinaldi on the effective implementation of the GSP. The Council is looking forward to considering that issue and many others on the basis of the Commission's forthcoming proposal for the new GSP.
Let me emphasise once again how grateful I am to the rapporteur and to the Committee Chair, Mr Moreira, for their cooperation. I think this is a victory for common sense, because they understood that it was an urgent and important issue. We really did not want to create any legal problems. For me this is a kind of model and I very much hope that, on other issues on which we have such legal disputes, this will serve as a very good example of smooth relations between the Council and Parliament.
Helmut Scholz
Mr President, Mrs Győri, Mr De Gucht, I would first of all like to thank the shadow rapporteurs very much for working together so constructively. Now that we have finally agreed on the formal aspects of the transitional regulation, I would like to make use of this debate to explain briefly some of the requirements for the future regulation.
The new version of the regulation should have the following basic objectives: 1. To increase the efficiency of the system; 2. To develop rules that will provide for a better regulated reform process in which the involvement of the beneficiaries is guaranteed; 3. To ensure that the regulation gives due weight to the task of democratic control which Parliament is required to perform. This includes proposals from the Committee on Development.
The new Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) should be a clearer and more transparent system. I would like to make three points in this respect and the first concerns the rules of origin. The rules of origin and the administrative procedures that accompany them are one of the main reasons why the trade preferences granted by the GSP are being underused, particularly by the least developed countries. In the current version of the system, the rules of origin often prevent preferences that exist on paper from having a positive impact. I have just come back from the Parliamentary Conference on the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Geneva and this problem was very high up on the list of issues discussed there. In my opinion, the EU should campaign within the WTO for the preference system to be given priority as part of its work on harmonising the rules of origin.
My second point concerns the partner countries. Here I feel that it is particularly important for us to develop more straightforward criteria. The Gini coefficient is a good example of this type of criterion. As already mentioned, we need to be more flexible in order to be able to respond more effectively.
My third point is about technical assistance. Preferences alone are not enough. We need to increase the impact of the system and improve the rate of utilisation of the GSP by providing technical assistance.
This is all about a general improvement of the preference system as a whole. I would like to thank everyone involved once again for their constructive approach. I will be happy to continue working with the Commission on the basis of today's assurances.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30.
Written Statements (Rule 149)
George Sabin Cutaş
I wish to stress that the proposal tabled by the European Commission is not the reform of the 'Generalised System of Preferences' requested by the European Parliament in its resolution of 5 June 2008, but merely an extension of the current set of rules. This is why I share the rapporteur's view about the need to review this regulation devised in 2008 immediately, and to adapt it to the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which subsequently came into force. Thanks to this treaty, the European Parliament enjoys new powers in the area of trade and must have its say on the eligibility criteria, the list of beneficiary countries and the temporary withdrawal of GSP arrangements. A general review of the regulation will need to be carried out in the future, aimed at increasing the involvement of beneficiary countries in the reform processes which affect them, granting technical assistance to help develop their institutional capacity, as well as reviewing and harmonising the rules of origin.
Elisabeth Köstinger
The Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) gives 176 developing countries preferential access to the EU market. Tariff reductions or duty-free access to the internal market enable trade to make a contribution to reducing poverty in these countries. Therefore, I support the transitional regulation which ensures the legal continuity of the GSP, so that this opportunity remains available to developing countries. Trade is also an important and efficient tool which gives the countries affected the chance to move closer towards the rule of law and democracy and to develop a well-functioning economy. Given the importance and the urgency of this issue, I am in favour of an extension and of making rapid progress with the regulation.


3. (
- Before the vote:
Francesco Enrico Speroni
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to raise a point of order: without wishing to interfere with the procedure, I would like to know if there is a rule by which it is compulsory each time to state, as well as the result, the number of voters, the number of abstentions and so on, or whether this is your own choice.
President
If you do not wish me to tell you I will not, but it is, clearly, good to be certain.
- After the vote on paragraph 60:
Thomas Wise
Madam President, could you at least put the results on the screens in front of us if you are not going to call them out?
President
You just have to raise your eyes if you wish to see the result.
- After the vote:
Robert Evans
Madam President, I am advised by the services that each additional roll-call vote costs EUR 400, which makes the cost of yesterday's escapade in excess of EUR 25 000.
So, I would ask those who are calling for roll-call votes all the time whether they think that is a good use of taxpayers' money.
Daniel Hannan
Madam President, if the cost of every roll-call vote is really EUR 400, I suggest that this Chamber is running itself with all the efficiency that it also applies to the common agricultural policy, to structural aid, to international development and to the rest of the European Union budget. Surely we can do it more cheaply than that!
Kathy Sinnott
Madam President, here is a practical suggestion. One of the expenses is that we translate votes, but these are only numbers, so we need only one edition of the votes. We do not need to put them into every language because we are dealing with numbers, and the names are the same in every language. So we can cut expense there. I think of all the bits of paper we produce in this Parliament. The most important thing for the citizen is to know how we vote.
(Applause)


European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) (signature)
President
Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, through this public signing of the legal instrument on the Galileo programme we are emphasising the importance we attach to the European satellite navigation programmes EGNOS and Galileo. The regulation being signed today is a signal reminder that many aims can only be achieved in the framework of the European Union and not by individual Member States acting alone. EGNOS and Galileo can and will give the European Union the means to establish a European alternative and complement to other systems. At the same time, they will enable us to enhance the competitiveness of our industry in major strategic technological fields.
Galileo is to comprise a network of 30 satellites and a ground-control infrastructure. The text of the regulation we shall be signing today is the result of negotiations between the European institutions which were brought to a successful conclusion at first reading.
The institutions found solutions that made it possible to establish such a highly complex technical system, particularly by agreeing on Community funding of EUR 3.4 billion. As a result, Galileo can become operational from 2013 at the latest.
As President of the European Parliament I would like to express my very special thanks to the chairman of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Angelika Niebler, and the rapporteur of the European Parliament, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, for their successful efforts, as well as to the Slovenian Presidency for its significant commitment to this very important strategic dossier.
(Applause)
I also hope that this public signing will underline that we intend to go on working with vigour and dedication to achieve tangible progress for our citizens. Thank you for being here today, and thank you for your attention.
I now invite the representative of the Council, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, to address us.
(Applause)
Jean-Pierre Jouyet
President-in-Office. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it will now be possible to ascertain precise positioning and timing information with the satellite radio navigation system launched by the European Union and the European Space Agency. I should like to join you, Mr President, in paying tribute to the Slovenian Presidency, which has brought this difficult agreement to a successful conclusion. I should also like to pay tribute to Mrs Niebler, Chairman of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, your rapporteur and those leading Members of the European Parliament who have made the adoption of this Regulation possible.
This is a major step forward that we are taking today by adopting this Regulation on Galileo. It will enable the deployment of the publicly funded global satellite positioning system. As Mr Pöttering has said, this system is based on a constellation of 30 satellites and ground stations and will provide users in many sectors with information on their location. Therefore, for many of our citizens, this is an indication of real progress being made by Europe.
It will not only ensure our independence by providing a signal that could replace the American GPS signal, for example when that service is down, but it also goes much further, because it will provide services that are not currently available through GPS: the tracking of people in distress, which is also essential to the role that Europe must play in relation to its citizens, or the establishment of a safety of life service that is particularly suited to air traffic management. Galileo will therefore bring tangible results to the daily lives of our citizens.
The European Commission, Commissioner, and the European Space Agency have launched the selection process for companies that will be involved in the deployment of the various lots awarded to implement this system; the establishment of Galileo is obviously also of major importance for the competitiveness of European industry.
Overall, the management of the Galileo programme will be placed under the political control of Parliament and the Council. You may rest assured that the French Presidency is determined to work very closely with the European Parliament; it proposes that the Galileo Interinstitutional Panel, the GIP, which involves the three EU institutions - the Commission, Parliament and the Council - meet as soon as possible in order to discuss the conditions necessary for the successful implementation of this programme, which is very important for the European Union as a whole.
President
Thank you very much, Minister. Mr Jouyet and I shall now sign the Galileo Regulation, and I would like to ask Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, Angelika Niebler, chairman of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, and Etelka Barsi-Pataky, the rapporteur, to step forward and join us.
(Signing of the Galileo Regulation)
(Applause)