Erasmus Mundus programme (2009-2013) (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs De Sarnez on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an action programme for the enhancement of quality in higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through cooperation with third countries (Erasmus Mundus) (2009-2013. - C6-0228/2007 - 2007/0145)COD)]
Marielle De Sarnez
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, this evening we are debating the Erasmus Mundus 2009-2013 programme, on which we have finally come to an agreement with the Council. It will therefore be possible for this programme to enter into force in January 2009 and thus to benefit students starting from the beginning of the academic year in September. Here I would like to thank all my fellow Members who were draftsmen of opinions at the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Development and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as well as my fellow Members on the Committee on Culture and Education. I would, of course, like to thank the European Commission. I would also like to thank the president of the Erasmus Mundus Association and the executive agencies that have been able to help us with their expert knowledge and, above all, their experience.
Five years after the adoption of Erasmus Mundus, almost to the day, I am happy to be presenting to you this second-generation programme whose objective remains the promotion of excellence in European higher education, enabling the most talented students from non-EU countries and from Europe to follow high-level joint programmes in at least three universities and to benefit from a high-quality welcome and significant scholarships.
The previous programme's figures speak for themselves: between 2004 and 2008, 103 Master's courses were selected and approved, over 6 000 students received Erasmus Mundus scholarships, over a thousand teachers from countries outside the EU came to European universities and over 400 higher education establishments from Europe and outside Europe were involved.
The new programme comprises three actions. The first opens up the programme to doctorates and will enable European students also to receive scholarships, although at a lower level. The second is exclusively devoted to partnerships with higher education institutions in non-EU countries, and the third covers the information campaign to be conducted on the international stage. The budget is EUR 950 million. By way of comparison, the first programme had a budget of only EUR 230 million.
There have been some extremely significant improvements made by Parliament to the programme, and I would like to point them out to you in order to pay tribute, in a certain sense, to you. The first improvement is that now, the criteria for selecting students are academic excellence criteria, and this also holds true within the context of the partnerships. Secondly, the geographical distribution criteria will be respected in order to achieve as balanced a representation as possible. Thirdly, the principles of equality between men and women and non-discrimination will be abided by. Fourthly, administrative obstacles and procedures, in particular in connection with visas, will need to be removed. The Member States will have to take the necessary steps to facilitate the issuing of visas to students from non-EU countries moving round a number of Member States. We attach particular importance to this point, even though it was a little difficult to resolve it in our negotiations with the Council.
Next, the learning of foreign languages in the host universities will be encouraged. Doctorates will involve establishments from at least three different European countries. This will make a great diversity of research subjects and theses possible, and will provide much more varied mobility opportunities. The scholarships will be better tailored and will take into account the tuition fees as well as the estimated amount of expenditure for students' studies. Work has been done in close collaboration with the Danish permanent representation and an expert from the Danish ministry of education on tuition fees, and this has enabled us to reach a compromise that is acceptable to all. Public-private partnerships with the universities will be encouraged, and special attention will be paid to the brain drain issue. Within the framework of action 2, funds will be targeted and used in accordance with the objectives of the development and external relations instruments. The information available in the universities will be clearer. Finally, the evaluation report that is to be completed two years from now will be more detailed, and will be broken down by actions and by geographical areas.
Ladies and gentlemen, to conclude: Erasmus Mundus is a fine programme and in these difficult times it gives a positive image of Europe. I therefore hope that Parliament will adopt it, fulfilling the wishes of many students, academics and researchers in Europe and throughout the world.
Ján Figeľ
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am happy to be here and again express gratitude for the very strong political support of the educational agenda, namely for the Erasmus Mundus second programme for the next five years. I think that to reach a first-reading agreement is really a good confirmation of this support.
I would especially like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Mariella De Sarnez, but also the Committee on Culture and Education and other committees, specifically the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Development as the partners in enforced cooperation.
As the rapporteur said, this is a programme with world-class quality. It promotes intercultural understanding, but also people-to-people contacts and, since the establishment of the programme, we have more than a hundred European joint master programmes. More than 7 000 scholarships to students and academics have been given. And I think, with the increased budget, as was mentioned - particular thanks again to Parliament and to the Council - we will be able to meet the growing demand and enthusiasm for this programme. The second phase of the programme will provide for the continuation of the existing actions, but also innovation. There are new elements, because it means the extension of the scope of the programme to the doctoral level; it means third-country universities are enabled to participate in the joint programmes; it will provide full study scholarships to European students to follow joint master and doctorate courses.
As we said already, the 'Erasmus Mundus External Windows' or cooperation windows, come into one house or under one roof. Partnerships funded under this action will continue: they will allow the transfer of know-how and exchanges of students and professors at all levels of higher education. Of course, they will continue to respect the needs and priorities of countries concerned, in this way contributing to their development.
To conclude, really I am pleased that Parliament and the Council have been able to support the programme structure as we proposed, and also I welcome the valuable contributions on issues like visas or disadvantaged groups or minimal requirements for the new doctoral courses.
Let me finish by congratulating the Parliament for the work done, because it was not easy. We, as the Commission, fully share the agreement achieved, which is reflected in the compromise amendments tabled by Ms De Sarnez, Ms Pack, Ms Novak, Ms Prets and Ms Trüpel. As soon as the formal legislative procedure is finalised, we will launch our call for proposals, in order to ensure the smooth continuation of existing courses and the selection of new programmes.
Samuli Pohjamo
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. - (FI) Mr President, as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I wish to focus on the programme's foreign policy dimension. Funds for this are being taken from the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument and the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance.
The amendments tabled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs were an attempt to ensure that the programme's aims reflect these policy priorities. The Committee also reminded everyone of Parliament's right to monitor the implementation of joint assistance and called for improvements to visa policies. Many of the Committee's amendments have been taken on board, for which I would like to thank the rapporteur Mrs De Sarnez and the Committee on Culture and Education. I wish, moreover, to stress the importance of the Interinstitutional Agreement on sound financial management and Decision 1999/468/EC, and in particular Article 8, by virtue of which the Commission must consult the European Parliament.
Finally, I would like to remind everyone again of the EU's values and its foreign policy aims in the implementation of the programme and of the need for better information regarding the programme in third countries.
Alessandro Battilocchio
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs De Sarnez, who has put together an excellent summary report despite circumstances in which the Commission, and above all the Council, have not always shown themselves to be open to appeals from this Parliament.
The Committee on Development approved my report unanimously. Some of our comments have been accepted; on other points we are still not entirely satisfied. Out of a sense of responsibility, however, we have chosen to take a step back, because we believe the most important thing is that the whole package be approved at first reading, in order to guarantee that the programme can begin on 1 January next year.
It is excellent to have quadrupled the funding for students, but I would like to point out that a considerable amount is taken from resources intended for development: the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the Cotonou Agreement. We will therefore take care to require absolute compliance with the overall legislative framework, in particular relating to the DCI. For the moment, I would like to wish the very best of luck to the many young people from Europe and from all over the world who, in a spirit of friendship and sharing and a desire to learn and to grow, will take part in this extraordinary educational experience.
Teresa Riera Madurell
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, we in the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality believe that the success of the first phase of the programme was less encouraging in terms of the participation of women: female students did account for 44%, but participation differed greatly depending on the country, and female academics only accounted for 22%, which, in our view, is unacceptable.
In this second phase, our aim is therefore twofold: firstly, to once again defend an equal right to education to ensure just and democratic societies and, secondly, to increase the participation of women in order to prevent talent being wasted in science and culture. This can all be achieved through gender-sensitive selection criteria, gender-balanced representation on the programme's committees and gender-based data in the evaluation reports.
We are aware that the situation of women in many countries is hindering greater gender equality, but we feel an additional effort by the Commission is necessary in this respect.
I congratulate the rapporteur.
Ljudmila Novak
in the name of the PPE-DE Group. - (SL)A large number of committees were involved in discussing the Erasmus Mundus programme so it was no easy task for the rapporteur to find compromise solutions. In the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, we are strongly in favour of the programme being adopted as early as possible, in its first reading, so that we can begin to implement it in the new year.
Global development requires the exchange of different expertise and scientific achievement as well as the encouragement of young researchers to take an active role. This programme promotes excellence and the equal representation of the sexes and also enables people with special needs to participate on an equal footing.
Although we wish to attract young researchers from third countries, we should not in so doing encourage a brain drain from countries which are already suffering from a lack of trained personnel for their own needs in the struggle to reduce poverty. It happens all too often that we give aid with one hand and take back even more than we have given with the other.
With this programme as in other cases, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is strongly in favour of a reduction in administrative barriers and an improvement in the system for granting visas, so that the very best students and research workers will be able to devote themselves to their studies and research in their particular field and will not have to concern themselves with administrative barriers that prevent them from beginning their studies.
Lissy Gröner
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, by supporting the Erasmus Mundus programme, the European Parliament is sending the right signal in times of crisis. Moving closer together through education and developing the EU as a centre of excellence in learning around the world are among the traditional demands of social democracy.
However, the budget of EUR 950 million for this period seems modest, especially in comparison with the hundreds of billions now being spent as a result of the failures of bank managers.
The objective of excellence that lay behind the first stage of the programme should be pursued further. The new programme also seeks to promote intercultural understanding and cooperation with third countries and boost their development in the field of higher education. The most important new points in comparison with the first initiative are the inclusion of joint doctoral programmes, increased grants and more intensive structural cooperation with universities in third countries.
There has been progress in all three areas. Masters and doctoral programmes aim to promote the excellence of European higher education in the world. There has been progress on this, too. The increased expenditure on students from third countries has been taken into account and, thanks to our rapporteur's negotiating skills, key criteria that Parliament wanted introduced into Erasmus Mundus III have been improved.
Our aims - geographical balance, gender balance, removal of visa barriers - have won the support of the Council. We succeeded in this with the 'Youth' programme, and we must also do so here with Erasmus.
Hannu Takkula
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FI) Mr President, Commissioner Figel', I would like to begin by thanking our excellent rapporteur, Mrs De Sarnez, for this Erasmus Mundus programme. It is very true, just as the Commissioner pointed out here, that this is an important programme: it is an exemplary one. It is one of those success stories that we in the European Union have been able to create, see and implement, and I believe that the programme in this new format will expand and become an even greater success.
Now we are also giving students in third countries the opportunity to join this programme, use it to enhance their knowledge and skills, and go back to their own countries to build prosperity there too. It is important that development cooperation and the social aspect are made vital ingredients, because the European approach must be such that we are also prepared to give of ourselves to other continents, thereby building not just Europe but the whole world we share.
Young researchers, young students and teachers will be in the vanguard when we build Europe in accordance with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. Innovation, research, generating added value - that is what we need if we are going to ensure that economic growth is sustainable in the decades to come.
This programme has given special attention to the issue of equality. It is important that we ensure equality is preserved, and it is likewise important to ensure that the disabled can also fully participate in these programmes. One worry that has been expressed in many speeches is the earlier problems connected with bureaucracy and visa policies, and hopefully we will also be able to eliminate them for our part and thereby ensure that this programme produces results very rapidly. This way we will get to see the success stories that result from it.
Thank you, Mr President and Mrs De Sarnez. This is excellent work, and it is well worth going forward from here.
Mikel Irujo Amezaga
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, I believe that your readiness to reach a consensus on the amendments received virtually unanimous thanks and recognition in committee, and the same is happening here.
As you said in your speech, one of the many aims of this programme is to convey a positive image. In our opinion, the positive outcome of this report has been the successful search for a balance between what the initial proposal termed excellence and what development cooperation really means. The need for this excellence to avoid producing a brain drain has, I feel, been clearly reflected in the amendments. We have managed to reach an overall consensus on this, which we regard as a clearly positive result of this report. Another positive point is having argued for greater control throughout the paragraph on the awarding of scholarships, which was initially also an amendment by our group that was accepted. I therefore repeat my thanks to Mrs De Sarnez and also congratulate the committee on the report.
Koenraad Dillen
(NL) Mr President, I will be emphatically voting against this report tomorrow, because the Erasmus Mundus programme, in its current form, is totally unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable because the scale at which it gives undue preference to students from outside the EU compared to European students is too great.
The numbers, after all, speak for themselves. Since the beginning of the programme in 2004, some 4 150 students from outside the Union have taken part. The grant for a one-year course is EUR 21 000, and EUR 42 000 for two years. This means that the total cost of students from outside the Union taking part is no less than EUR 161 850 000.
The 200 or so EU students who took part in the programme received, on average, a grant of only EUR 3 100 to study outside of Europe. This translates into a total cost of only EUR 620 000.
Well, discrimination of this kind is unacceptable to me and extending this programme is therefore altogether wrong.
Manolis Mavrommatis
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by congratulating the rapporteur on her excellent work and for successfully coordinating the work of the other committees. 4 424 scholarships were awarded to third country students and 323 universities participated in this programme between 2004 and 2008. That gives us an idea of its size.
The new Erasmus Mundus programme will need to adapt to the increased demand for mobility, while at the same time maintaining its standards. I think it is absolutely vital for scholarships to be awarded to European post-graduate and doctoral students, in order to increase mobility in Europe and in third countries, given that their movements have, in the past, been subject to time limitations.
I also agree with the rapporteur that consideration must be given when determining scholarships to the level of tuition fees, expenditure for studies in general and costs relating to the student's stay in the destination country. Finally, the Commission should discuss the possibility of granting special incentives to countries such as Greece, Austria, Slovakia and the new Member States of the European Union in general who are under-represented in Erasmus Mundus associations. This will make for a more harmonious policy to strengthen educational mobility in the European Union.
Christa Prets
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, it is to be warmly welcomed that, after five years - the duration of the programme - we can already see an improvement and thus are able to take it a stage further in both substantive and financial terms.
Parliament is not normally so enthusiastic as to adopt a report as early as first reading; but, I believe, the report is so well written and we can support the content so strongly that it is more important to wrap up at this first reading than to block the project. None of the students would understand why we still needed a second reading. I think it is very important that we promote intercultural understanding and cooperation with third countries and not, as some of our fellow Members in this House have just noted, fastidiously enumerate figures on what this or that does for us. Exchange has always brought benefits, and we have always been able to gain from it. It is a win-win situation. Looking at this any other way is narrow-minded and a little petty.
It is also important that we improve the promotion of this programme, that we advertise even more in the countries with too little involvement, that we simplify various things. Agreement on the visa issue is very important and fundamental, as is uniformity across all countries of enrolment fees, for example. More comparators and more simplification are needed in order to advance the project even further. The geographical presence of all countries should be as great as possible, of course, to make the project even more successful.
We can indeed be very proud of these five years, and we shall certainly make even greater progress on this in future. This is in keeping with the subjects of exchange and the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008, which must not be limited to various discussions, but also put into practice.
Ramona Nicole Mănescu
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs De Sarnez on this very comprehensive report and its generous objectives. It is very important that this programme will help highly qualified students and academics to obtain qualifications and experience inside the European Union in order to be able to satisfy the requirements of the labour market, and within the specific framework of partnership, encourage them to share their experience or qualifications upon their return to their country of origin.
I want to stress that Erasmus Mundus will ensure a more structured international cooperation between higher-education institutes - thanks to greater mobility between the European Union and third countries - improving both the accessibility and the visibility of European higher education in the world. I emphasise the fact that this programme should be implemented in line with the objectives for academic excellence and with a balanced geographical representation, avoiding certain European countries being underrepresented as well as avoiding an overrepresentation of Asian students to the detriment, for instance, of students from Mediterranean or ACP countries.
Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by congratulating you on your assiduity and on the new programme which you have presented. I should also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs De Sarnez, and my colleagues who worked to achieve a better proposal and a good agreement. Allow me to highlight the significance of this programme to mobility in Europe, in allowing Europeans to familiarise themselves with the outside world and in contributing to the role of Europe in the development of and in the dialogue between cultures in the modern world.
May I also remind the House that this programme can function as a complement - and we must make use here of all the opportunities without any overlaps - to two important new instruments at our disposal: the Euro-Mediterranean University and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology.
I should also like to point out that we must consider the qualitative evaluation and analysis as well as the figures, which are sometimes positive and sometimes negative. We need to look at the countries which do not participate and why they do not participate, because the methods used to apply, approach and evaluate Erasmus really do differ from one university to another.
It is a pity, therefore, that these opportunities are being lost as a result of distortions or the wrong approach by education establishments or bureaucratic problems in the various countries.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) In 2004, 2.5 million students studied in other countries, but 70% of them actually studied in just six countries. In 2007, 1.84% of the European Union's GNP was spent on research and innovation. I would like to give you a few more figures: 81% of the funds allocated to research and development were used in the industrial sector, but only 42% of industrial companies are involved in innovation activities. This means that if we want to have a competitive economy, we need researchers and people with masters and doctoral degrees.
We need to continue the Erasmus programme. We need to extend the programme to include doctorates too. We also have to allocate more funds to the European participants in the programme. I would like to stress the importance attached to studying foreign languages in the new Erasmus Mundus programme. Finally, I would like to say that more funds should be allocated as well to the Erasmus section devoted to young entrepreneurs.
Zita Pleštinská
- (SK) Commissioner, the fall of the Iron Curtain has brought enormous opportunities for young people in the Europe of 27 states, especially in the area of education. Exchange visits and PhD courses at renowned European universities are eliminating barriers to communication, and I therefore listened with interest to the detailed information from the rapporteur and Commissioner Figeľ.
I remember my own student years when, as a Slovak, I was given the opportunity to study at the architecture faculty of Budapest university. I gazed with envy at my fellow students who were able to go to Paris for work experience. I was not able to get a French visa. Thank heavens our children no longer have these problems.
I would like to therefore add my voice to those colleagues who have spoken of the need to simplify the visa regime for students from third countries - students from Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and Moldova who wish to learn how life is for their counterparts in the EU. This would give a clear signal to those countries we want to see drawing closer to the EU.
Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva   -
(BG) Mr President, Commissioner, it is particularly important for us to broaden the scope of the Erasmus Mundus programme by trying to turn it into an effective tool for improving the standard of higher education in Member States and in the other countries within its geographical scope. If it is particularly important for the labour market to provide mobility for human resources, a single educational and economic area must then provide mobility for acquiring qualifications.
I would like to congratulate the Commission and the rapporteur on their efforts to get results in the implementation of the extended programme. The programme is one of the reasons for and an opportunity to create educational programmes of similar content, which will not only facilitate the process, but will also contribute to producing graduates and PhD students in the future, and will meet the requirements of an education that conforms with the EU's economic priorities. Integration in education will be a guarantee of overall development. The programme is all the more timely because of the recent decline in interest in doctoral programmes in many countries and the changed environment for obtaining and providing higher education.
Thank you.
Mihaela Popa
(RO) When we talk about Erasmus Mundus, we are talking about exchanging mindsets, an exchange which is specifically achieved through mobility and the exchange of opinions and through promoting multilingualism and, as the Commissioner was saying, interpersonal relations.
Erasmus Mundus is so important to students, doctoral post-graduates and lecturers because we are living in a mobile Europe where every country is maintaining its own identity, but at the same time, is making an effort to get to know and understand those around them. Being able to access information in good time, in an appropriate and professional manner, is extremely important if students are to be able to benefit from all the opportunities offered within the European Union.
This is why I have tabled an amendment to this draft report, requesting a mobility scheme to be set up for masters programmes, to include an Erasmus Mundus European information portal. This programme is important primarily for promoting publicly the values which the European Union is based on. By this I am referring to respect for human rights, social diversity, tolerance and, last but not least, peace, which we are in such great need of on this planet.
Dumitru Oprea
(RO) On the subject of mobility under the Erasmus programme, this morning radio stations in the Romanian city of Iaşi were publicising extraordinary events due to take place on Wednesday. More than 100 young people from over 17 countries will be fêted in the university's lecture hall as they are welcomed in the traditional manner with bread and salt by the university's management body and all the young people from the community. What more could you want than events of this kind involving young people from the whole of Europe gathered in the name of multiculturalism and multilingualism? I believe that an extension of the programme for the best students with a knowledge of the most foreign languages would be welcome, something which Europe could not fail to benefit from.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Young people's exchange visits are one of the Union's flagship projects. They are the best way we could use our resources, as these exchanges make an invaluable contribution to the development of genuine unity and cooperation the world over.
As we discuss the second edition of the Erasmus Mundus programme, I should like to raise the subject of destinations. I have in mind Europeans travelling to developing countries or to the Balkan states. I believe that, in addition to the bursary increases proposed, efforts should be made to encourage Europeans to travel to those countries. Participants in exchanges with those less popular countries would be better able to appreciate local traditions, culture and politics. They would gain an understanding of distant countries and peoples. Our knowledge of the latter tends to be fragmented and based on often negative stereotypes.
In my view, we should promote youth exchanges with Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia. Attendance at our institutions of higher education would be an excellent opportunity for students from those countries to develop according to Western standards. They would be able to absorb the principles governing the working of our democracy. The latter could serve as a model for them.
The European Union is strongly committed to supporting pro-Western politicians in those countries. Today's students could be tomorrow's elite. They could draw on what they learnt during their stay at our institutions of higher education as they seek to influence the movement for change within their home countries.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
(PL) Mr President, Europe is sorely in need of outstanding craftspeople, scientists, and highly skilled experts. I therefore warmly welcome the next stage of the Erasmus Mundus programme aimed at producing such individuals. The programme comes at a very apposite moment, if we consider the current world ranking of European higher education institutions. Unfortunately they are not faring too well at present and are not highly ranked, in contrast with the situation just a few decades ago.
I wish to highlight certain legal issues relating to the Erasmus Mundus programme, however. Dual certificates are not accorded legal recognition in all Member States. National legislation must therefore be adjusted to enable individuals to conduct the activities in question. Another very important issue I wish to raise is that I think we should monitor the beneficiaries of this programme. Students from third countries are coming to us, yet some of their countries of origin are still not democratic, unfortunately. I have been informed that Belarus is not sending us its best people, but only those supported by Mr Lukashenko's dictatorship and by the local KGB.
Jamila Madeira
(PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must once again beg forgiveness for my lateness. This year we are celebrating the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. The need for everyone to be involved and the perception that education, knowledge and the interaction of different cultures are crucial are already well-established facts. For this very reason, many initiatives associated with this Year have been carried out in various areas of action and intervention.
The Erasmus Mundus programme also has a role to play in this context and, within this new perspective, is already included in the new regulation. The Erasmus Mundus programme makes an important contribution to the creation of centres of excellence in the EU which will, to a certain extent, limit the brain drain from the European Union. It also plays a vital role in promoting European values among third-country nationals who come here to study and who find, on the old continent, an unparalleled cultural and linguistic diversity which represents a real attraction and which sets us apart from models existing in the rest of the world.
However, dialogue and intercultural understanding have faced some problems. The issue of visas for Erasmus Mundus students and the frequent difficulties encountered in obtaining and renewing these visas often lead to students living in situations of semi-clandestinity in the European Union, as they attend the same courses but on tourist visas which have sometimes expired.
In my opinion, it is absolutely vital and urgent to find a solution allowing speed, transparency and efficiency in the issue of visas for these students. Language knowledge is also vital as this allows cultural understanding and mutual coexistence beyond the strictly academic sphere. As a result, we must absolutely guarantee this premise. Finally, I must thank Mrs De Sarnez for the way in which she has conducted this whole process and for the balanced report that she has produced.
Ján Figeľ
Member of the Commission. - (SK) I would like to express my thanks mainly for the very lively debate, which has served to emphasise the consensus for greater and better mobility, in other words for a Europe which, through education, specifically prepares not only its own students but also students from abroad for a more open international environment and greater responsibility. I would like to add just a few comments on this theme.
I wholly agree that Erasmus Mundus is a very important instrument, not only for mobility but also for the entire process of, for example, making European universities more attractive and creating a European space for higher education, that is, the Bologna process. And after a few years, the results are evident from the fact that not only does it cover the entire continent of Europe, but also countries outside Europe are getting involved in the process, and that Europe is playing a greater role in international mobility in today's world. It is, for example, partly thanks to Erasmus Mundus that we can now state - based on Chinese official statistics - that more Chinese students are now heading to Europe than to the United States at a university level.
Out of the top-rated universities in the Shanghai Ranking, 75% are participating in the Erasmus Mundus programme. This is a magnificent result after just four years. Concerning the quality of selection, the very fact, for example, that for each place covered by the programme over the past four years there have been eight applicants, or a ratio of 8:1, constitutes an excellent precondition for selection, and is also confirmation of the high demand for and quality of the programme. One university or consortium out of seven is given a chance. So one consortium is selected out of seven tenders. The fact that 15% succeed again confirms the level of excellence.
On the question of information, we will take every effort to ensure that it reaches the places where it is lacking, to make the distribution of and participation in the programme more balanced. This applies in particular to the new Member States, but also to the international arena. As you know, we are now launching a very important website called study-in-europe.org, which will be useful to anyone who is interested in obtaining specific information. We will, in addition, be organising special targeted and focused information campaigns.
That is why the programme is being adapted, to enable two-way mobility, not only into but also out of the EU Member States, which in my view is a very important qualitative change which will bring results. Our interest was and is for the joint diplomas and joint study programmes to assist in the process of reform and to assist in making study in Europe more attractive. In conclusion, just as I can say today that after four years Erasmus Mundus is one of the highest quality top ranking international programmes, so I believe that over time it will make a contribution to the standing of European universities, so that they will no longer languish in the second division, but will take their place among the world's best. That is the point of our cooperation.
Thank you very much, and my best wishes for the implementation of the programme.
Marielle De Sarnez
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, I would like to thank all my many fellow Members who have spoken. I endorse everything that they have said on the substance of the issue, and am very pleased with the extremely broad consensus that unites us this evening.
Many thanks to the European Commission for all its assistance on this work. Many thanks to the Committee on Culture and Education, its chairman and the committee's secretariat, which has been very active. Many thanks to all the members of the Committee on Culture. Many thanks also to those who have spoken from the Committee on Development, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality.
Briefly, I would like to say that I completely agree with your objectives. We must improve participation by women in the programme and we must ensure that the funds used are used in accordance with development and external relations objectives. On this point, Parliament must and will remain vigilant in the years ahead.
If we are approaching an agreement at first reading, which will, I believe, become a reality tomorrow morning, it is because each one of us has played his part fully and positively. Our contacts with the European Commission, the amendments of our fellow Members, our discussions within the Committee on Culture, the work of the committees who produced opinions - all this has, in the end, resulted in the high quality of this programme. I am most sincerely grateful to you for this. I believe that in this way we will have accomplished a useful task by showing that Europe can, simultaneously, have demanding values and also be generous.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Alessandro Battilocchio
Thank you, Mr President; as I already pointed out in my earlier speech, the Committee on Development endorses the aims of the 'Erasmus Mundus' programme and supports this proposal. My report contained suggestions that were taken on board by the rapporteur. However, I would like to appeal to the Commission: let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. Only a few months ago we had to resort to the European Court of Justice to ensure compliance with the legislative provisions contained in the DCI. The principle we want to uphold is simple and straightforward: resources intended for development must actually be used, in their entirety, for development. We note the commitment of Commissioner Figeľ to this matter and will watch closely to ensure that the reference legislative framework is complied with in full.
Genowefa Grabowska
As a Member of the European Parliament and a long-serving teacher of higher education, I have often witnessed the benefits of contacts between institutions of higher education and between students. I therefore fully support the report before us and endorse the rapporteur's proposals. The student exchange initiated by the EU is now highly developed and has become a shining example of supranational and extraordinarily effective cooperation. Over one million students have already benefited from the opportunity to study in another European country. Erasmus Mundus is a newer programme for student mobility and academic cooperation. It will continue to offer individuals from outside the EU the opportunity to study in European countries. In addition, thanks to this programme, European students will also be able to benefit from the experience of partner institutions the world over.
The European Parliament is the only democratically-elected EU institution. I believe that its commitment to this programme enhances the latter's standing and ensures that it is given more prominence in the Member States, university towns and interested institutions of higher education.
That is why I support all the proposals and ideas on removing obstacles and administrative barriers that make the programme less accessible and may deter potential participants. In particular, I appeal for maximum visa facilitation for participants in the programme. I am sure it is worth achieving this. Enabling a wide range of students to be covered by the programme is the best investment we could make. It will result in latent intellectual capital that Europe will always be able to rely on.
Maria Petre
in writing. - (RO) Let us all acknowledge the success of the Erasmus programme's first phase of operation. The amendments made to it for the second phase of operation are excellent, and the inclusion of third countries is a good idea. At the same time, we notice a drop in the percentage of young women taking part in the programme.
I think that the objectives of providing top quality education, promoting the personal development of European university lecturers, contributing to social cohesion and promoting active citizenship and equality by eliminating social gender stereotypes must be pursued as part of the cooperation programme. I also believe that the programme needs to facilitate access for young women living in rural areas and in economically less favoured regions and for those with learning difficulties.
This is the only way in which we can combat every form of discrimination in the long term and boost the active participation of young people and women in the social, economic and political life of their countries. This will then allow us to provide real, useful content for this programme, aimed at all young people from schools in Europe and third countries.


19. Consumer rights (final vote) (
Andreas Schwab
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, I want to keep my remarks short. The vote actually took place in March and what we are now witnessing is the final vote. Since we took three years to reach this compromise, I would like to point out that the Council and Commission cooperated particularly effectively here. In particular, the Hungarian and Belgian Presidencies did some really excellent work. My fellow Members from the other groups, Mrs Gebhardt, Mr Rochefort, Mrs Turunen, Mr Triantaphyllides and Mr Wieland and above all you, Madam President, as fellow rapporteur, have made an enormous contribution. I would like to thank you warmly for this. I believe that this directive will represent a significant step in developing the internal market in the interests of both consumers and businesses.
Martin Schulz
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (DE) Madam President, as we know, this is a democratic institution, and from time to time we need to apply the rules of democracy. That is why I have chosen to speak again now that this package is to be concluded because I have an important question to ask about this package on behalf of my group. You have a clear majority for the line you are taking here. There is no doubt about this and we have accepted this situation, even though we do not agree with you. However, because the process is not yet concluded, I have one question. The answer to this question will have a major bearing on how our group approaches further procedures.
We have now raised two important points in the form of questions to the Council in the Wortmann-Kool report and the Ferreira report, setting out the position of Parliament and asking the Council now to change its position. That is all well and good. I would now like to ask you the following question: what do you intend to do if the Council does not change its position? Will you reject the package? Will we have a second reading? If so, then we are ready to fight this all the way with you. Or will you approve the package nonetheless? In the light of this postponement I believe that this is an extremely important question for Parliament.
President
Mr Schulz, I have given you the floor but I do not want to open what is clearly a political debate on the file that we have just voted on.
(Applause)
This could take some time. We have an enormous number of votes to get through. The political debate will continue.
(Protests)
I will give the floor briefly to Mr Daul and Mr Verhofstadt and then it is finished.
Joseph Daul
on behalf of the PPE Group. - (FR) Madam President, you know that I am always very brief.
Martin, we are proper Democrats - you respect democracy and so do we. It is true that it is easier to win than to lose. We will continue the negotiations and at the beginning of July, we will take a final vote on the report after negotiation.
Guy Verhofstadt
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I simply want to say to Martin, on behalf of my group, that we shall continue the fight for this important package and for the vote by Parliament, including all the elements of the package.
And we will continue these negotiations and continue this fight, so he can count on us. But, after this vote, I also now count on the constructive help of the Socialists to win this battle.
Rebecca Harms
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning I read a moving appeal for the future of the European Union by three of my fellow Members in a German daily newspaper. Such a show of unity is generally always very moving. However, it is evident when it comes to the regulation of the financial markets and the balancing of social justice that this unity is weak on detail. I believe that we should not try to conceal political dissent at this point, but rather that we should argue and debate in a transparent way on the direction of policy, even in times of crisis, as a service to the citizens of Europe.
President
The Commission has sent us the following statement on the amendments adopted by Parliament.
'The Commission recalls its commitment towards ensuring that Member States establish correlation tables linking the transposition measures they adopt with the EU directive and communicate them to the Commission in the framework of transposing EU legislation, in the interest of citizens, better-law making and increasing legal transparency and to assist the examination of the conformity of national rules with EU provisions.
'The Commission regrets the lack of support for the provision included in the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, which aimed at rendering the establishment of correlation tables obligatory.
'The Commission, in a spirit of compromise and in order to ensure the immediate adoption of that proposal, can accept the substitution of the obligatory provision on correlation tables included in the text with a relevant recital encouraging Member States to follow this practice.
'However, the position followed by the Commission in this file shall not be considered as a precedent. The Commission will continue its efforts with a view to finding together with the European Parliament and the Council an appropriate solution to this horizontal institutional issue.'


Investor-compensation schemes (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on investor-compensation schemes - C7-0174/2010 -.
Olle Schmidt
Madam President, Commissioner.
Madam President, in this case I urgently need a broad consensus, so I will take another tone in this debate.
(SV) I would like to thank all of the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission, the committee and the group secretariat for their excellent work. We had hoped to achieve our objective, but we are not quite there yet. Investor protection is a form of consumer protection for securities and money that banks and investment firms handle on their customers' behalf. It enables the customer to receive compensation by the State if an institution that goes bankrupt cannot release the customer's assets as a result of fraud or negligence or of serious erroneous assessments and mistakes. However, compensation is not provided for risk investments, for example if investments in shares fall in value.
I will go through the committee's amendments point by point. Firstly, the committee wishes to increase the level of compensation to EUR 100 000 per investor and it wants the level of compensation to be the same for all EU Member States. The most compelling reason for proposing a level of EUR 100 000 is that there are countries with levels of compensation higher than the proposed EUR 50 000, including the United Kingdom, France and Spain. Thus, we do not wish to reduce the level of compensation and thereby worsen consumer protection in these countries. The level of protection should also be as high for investments as it is for bank account savings. We need people who want to invest in the enterprise of the future.
Secondly, the committee wants to extend protection to include cases where it has been proven in a court of law that an investment firm has given bad advice. It should be possible for a situation where investment firms mislead investors and give bad advice in investment decisions to constitute grounds for compensation. An example of this is if a fund advisor were to advise elderly people to invest in high-risk funds with a long investment horizon.
Thirdly, the committee considers it important to create schemes that have sufficient funds to be able to pay out the compensation. Taxpayers must not subsequently have to pick up the bill. Therefore, we should introduce ex ante funding so that there is money in the funds if a firm should go bankrupt. It is proposed that the target fund level be reduced from 0.5 to 0.3% of the investment firm's assets. The process is being accelerated so that all Member States are to achieve full financing of their funds in five years instead of 10 years. The calculation of the fees is to be based on the potential compensation risk incurred by a firm. Those investment firms that take the biggest risks will also have to contribute more to the funds than those firms that take smaller risks.
Fourthly, the borrowing mechanism must be adjusted. The Commission has proposed a compulsory borrowing mechanism in which schemes can borrow from one another, between countries. In order to avoid moral hazard, in other words deliberate underfunding, we propose that the compulsory borrowing mechanism not be launched until all the schemes have built up their funds and reached the target level. After a five-year period, a scheme is to have the right to borrow from other schemes within the European Union, provided that the scheme that finds itself in this situation has previously achieved the target funding level.
Fifthly, the committee would like the Commission to investigate the UCITS funds, including in the directive. We have had an intense debate in committee about whether mutual and bond funds - UCITS funds - should be included or not. We believe that we need to look more closely at how this is to be done. We obviously do not want Madoff-style dealings, but the committee thinks that the Commission should investigate the advantages and disadvantages of supplementing or replacing existing schemes with insurance-based solutions, in other words a system of insurance contracts.
Finally, the committee would also like to increase transparency by introducing a reporting obligation for the Member States of the European Union, in other words a duty to report to the Commission and the European Securities and Markets Authority on how the national schemes are working.
The issue of investor protection is important for consumers and investors and for financial stability. Tomorrow, I need a strong message from Parliament. I hope that I will receive support in the vote so that we can begin negotiations with the Council as soon as possible.
Michel Barnier
Madam President, I would firstly like to extend warm thanks to Mr Schmidt, and also to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and its Chair Sharon Bowles, for the very ambitious and, may I say Mr Schmidt, very clear signal being sent out in regard to this important piece of work by Parliament.
Strengthening investor-compensation schemes is just one of the components of a consistent package which - may I remind you - also includes Deposit Guarantees and the White Paper on Insurance Guarantee Schemes. This comprehensive package was adopted by the Commission a year ago now.
What we have here today is an important proposal in terms of our response to the crisis. Consumers, or retail investors, are some of the financial system's most vulnerable stakeholders and they are also the main victims of the crisis. Not only is it fair to protect them, it is also logical. Moreover, our fellow citizens would not understand if we failed to protect them. A trouble-free investment requires the guarantee of being properly compensated in extreme circumstances, such as fraud or operational mistakes leading to the loss of securities. Compensating investors therefore helps to restore confidence in the financial system - that is one of the lessons of the crisis - and also to establish a genuine internal market for financial services.
This is the rationale which led the co-legislators to adopt the very first directive on investor compensation, on the basis of a 1997 Commission proposal. This 1997 directive has been helpful, but it needs improving; that is what we are doing here together today.
Honourable Members, I have for a very long time now been in favour of what we call in French a 'providential' policy, that is to say a preventive policy; prevention always costs less than repair, and I have, in my own country, devised preventive mechanisms in other fields such as ecology. That is why I would like to see this guarantee scheme mechanism implemented.
First of all, Mr Schmidt, I share the ambitious approach outlined in your report. Parliament's agreement on the pre-funding principle is a very positive point. As far as we in the Commission are concerned, pre-funding is a prerequisite for a credible system. Indeed, what is the point of planning a high level of cover if there is not enough money available for it? To say that we could raise the money on an ad hoc basis is rather unrealistic in these times of tension.
Secondly, Mr Schmidt, I am also well disposed to bringing the level of cover on Deposit Guarantees into line at EUR 100 000, as you proposed. We in the Commission proposed EUR 50 000, that is to say a lower level than Deposit Guarantees in the banking sector, because we feel that the risks to financial stability are greater in this latter sector than in the investment sector. The bank run phenomenon that we experienced with Northern Rock, in 2008, particularly comes to mind. I am, however, willing to consider your proposal, which is more ambitious.
Finally, I welcome the fact that Parliament is maintaining the mutual lending mechanism between schemes. I see this as a further demonstration of your commitment to developing a more harmonised and a more shared approach, which is crucial to overcoming the challenges of the crisis.
There are, of course, several points, here and there, which are subjects for debate or which diverge from the Commission's initial proposal. I believe, for example - as you pointed out in your speech - that extending the cover to UCITS, considering how attractive this product is to retail investors, is a natural step. You have called for this measure to be postponed. That said, I have taken good note of your wish for it to be re-examined under the revision of the UCITS Directive in a few months' time. You can count on the Commission to concur with that, Mr Schmidt.
Moreover, the proposed reduction in pre-funding to 0.3% should be carefully assessed if you genuinely want to increase cover to EUR 100 000. Honourable Members, there is no secret here, increasing cover while also reducing funding could, potentially, bring the system into difficulty or under stress.
Finally, I have several reservations as regards introducing an amendment aimed at covering what is known as 'bad advice'. I share your objective: finance is a complex discipline and there are a number of charlatans who readily deceive the least informed consumers. However, this situation comes under the rules of conduct of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), the breach of which opens up the right to take liability action.
Moreover, providing cover for 'bad advice' would be difficult to implement. It could lead to a considerable increase in the number of situations in which we would be driven to activate compensation funds without funding being revised accordingly. Therefore, Mr Schmidt, quite frankly, as it stands, this 'bad advice' concept is rather dubious in our view, and could lead to significant differences in interpretation, from one country to another, and to renewed market fragmentation. That is why we find it difficult to accept the inclusion of this concept in the text.
However, overall, Mr Schmidt, as well as generally renewing my thanks for the excellent work which has been done by yourself, the shadow rapporteurs and the coordinators, I can say - and this is the important point in my view - that Parliament and the Commission clearly share a common vision on this issue. This is an ambitious solution and a Europe-wide solution, and the Council should take that into account. That is the signal you are sending out to Member States, so that they can approve an overall approach quickly. I am also counting on the Polish Presidency to do all it can and to convince the countries that have still not done so to adopt this more Europe-wide approach, which is more favourable to retail investors. At the end of the day, any credible agreement must include a sufficiently high level of cover, a credible level of pre-funding and easy access to compensation. These are the lines along which we are working, Mr Schmidt, and I would like to thank you for that.
Sebastian Valentin Bodu
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - Madam President, the functioning of the investor compensation schemes has been improved and brought into line with banking scheme standards. I would like to mention that we cannot send a signal of equivalence of treatment between capital market investors and depositors in commercial banks. Although both categories have to be protected, with regard to protection for investors in securities it should be considered that the risk of the latter is taken by choice. I do not think it is a good idea to increase the threshold to EUR 100 000 because this will put too much burden on broker dealers.
I welcome the introduction of the lending system between the schemes and I hope that Parliament in plenary will maintain my own amendment regarding the postponement of reaching the guarantee ceiling by Romania and Bulgaria, in order to respect the terms of the accession treaties.
Jean-Paul Gauzès
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of this text is clearly to protect private investors from the fraudulent or deeply flawed practices of investment firms.
This text is designed to increase confidence after a crisis in which retail investors, as you said, Commissioner, were definitely the most vulnerable stakeholders and the ones who suffered the most.
It is important to understand that this text provides for the payment of compensation as a last resort. It is not paid out on an ad hoc basis, but as a last resort. That is why our committee unanimously adopted this report, which seeks to fully harmonise the rules and to increase the ceiling to EUR 100 000.
In the specific case of undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), the Commission's feeling was not that measures to protect investors should be overlooked, but that this very specific product, which, incidentally, has an excellent reputation, deserved its own rules to be laid down as part of the revisions of the UCITS Directive. That is why the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has asked your Commission to undertake a study to discover what the advantages and disadvantages would be of extending the scope of this Directive on compensation for private investors to include UCITS.
It is now up to the Council to agree so that the text that we adopted at first reading - since we will also be voting on the legislative resolution - can quickly be applied. I repeat: for Europeans and private investors, there is also a feeling of belonging to the European Union which must take the form of equivalent protection for all.
Pervenche Berès
Madam President, Commissioner, this review of the Directive on investor-compensation schemes follows on, unfortunately, from the crisis and also from the Madoff scandal, which hit some small investors in Europe hard.
It is taking place, as you said, at the same time as the review of the Directive on Deposit Guarantee Schemes and the implementation of an equivalent directive in the field of insurance. This is important to us; it is also what led us to ask for the ceiling to be raised to EUR 100 000. Indeed, the original ceiling in the banking sector was EUR 25 000, and it is now being raised to EUR 100 000. Why create a gap in the field of investment at the very time when we want Europeans to be able to diversify their savings in secure conditions, including by promoting investment that will help us to finance our long-term investment needs?
You said that 'bad advice' is an issue that falls under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), but it was in fact the MiFID that inspired us to include it here, because we believe that, here too, we need to apply this useful concept that was included in the MiFID. Therefore, we are not contradicting you; we are asking you to draw on what is in the MiFID and to apply it to this text.
Regarding the situation of undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), as everyone has said, we do not want anyone who is currently in possession of UCITS to end up in a less favourable position than non-UCITS investors, when this savings product adds real value to the European financial market.
I should like to say a couple of things by way of conclusion, in order to draw your attention to the way in which this text might be applied to local authorities also - during the crisis we saw how severely they could be affected - and to ask you, as the European Parliament will do during its vote tomorrow, to examine the conditions in which an insurance system could be much more effective, efficient and, in a way, useful, when it comes to financing this ex ante fund.
Commissioner, you said that the citizens would not comprehend any failure in this area. We are counting on the strong vote of this Parliament tomorrow and on your pressure to ensure that the Council resolves this situation, because it is obvious that it does not want to progress as quickly as we would like.
Sven Giegold
Madam President, Mr Schmidt, ladies and gentlemen, may I express my thanks for your positive cooperation and also for the position that you took on this. This reform of the directive on the protection afforded to investors is necessary in order to improve consumer protection in the financial markets. We have experienced a number of major scandals. This reform is a consequence of those scandals. I would also like to thank the Commission for having tabled a strong, demanding proposal.
I should like to briefly discuss two points on which there was not a consensus. Mr Barnier, you mentioned the issue of bad advice. Ultimately we agreed that it makes sense to include this in the directive. We are not saying that the definition of bad advice and the structures for preventing bad advice belong in the directive, because naturally they belong in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID); however, if an undertaking demonstrably gives bad advice and cannot be held liable for this - perhaps because it has already gone bankrupt - then there is no financing for that at present. Until now, there has been no protection for the savers who suffer as a result. Representatives of the Commission also appeared to be very open to this in the discussions and consultations that took place in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I would therefore ask you, Mr Barnier, to now once more reconsider your position of rejecting this. We will also need to look at this matter again in the context of the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directives (UCITS). Thank you for being willing to accommodate this.
One central issue in my view, however, is that there is currently a blocking minority in the Council. The German Government is part of this minority. It should reconsider again whether it really wants to maintain this blocking minority. We need this reform of the directive on protection for investors. After the crisis we have been through our citizens will find it incomprehensible if consumer protection remains weak.
Syed Kamall
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, Madoff is often cited as a reason for these sorts of measures, but actually, in the Madoff affair, the SEC in the US was warned a number of times. So arguably they had the tools at their disposal, they just chose not to use them.
What I am worried about in this particular directive, though, is creating moral hazard and encouraging investors not to practise due diligence. They can invest willy-nilly knowing full well that they will be compensated for a bad decision, and that is what we have to be very careful about.
I would like to thank the other groups for accepting my amendment on transparency. It is important that investors see the cost of regulation, but also understand how much they are being charged for compensation so that, when they buy an investment, they are not being hoodwinked into paying more than they need to.
But what I am worried about is the high level of compensation. It is fine for places like London, Frankfurt and Paris, but many of the small Member States are very worried about a harmonised level of EUR 100 000 and worry about concentration of financial services and financial products in the big centres. I welcome the fact that London is such a centre, but I am worried about that from a competitive point of view. For that reason we will be abstaining but look forward to a healthy debate in the trialogues.
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Madam President, as we are all aware, the financial markets and the securities traded on them are becoming increasingly complex, and thus increasingly opaque and incomprehensible to investors. The financial crisis emanating from the US made it clear that this is not just true of conventional small investors; it brought to light the fact that European banking institutions, too, were shifting vast quantities of nested securities that ultimately proved to be worthless.
Alongside strict control of the financial markets - including restrictions on certain speculative practices such as naked short selling - I therefore feel it is necessary to bolster the various compensation schemes for investors. In my view, consumer protection should be a major consideration when amending this directive. The proposals drafted by the rapporteur in this respect as regards the Commission's text are therefore to be thoroughly welcomed. Those investing internationally, in particular - and in fact, most investors are likely to be doing so - must have legal certainty and predictability in respect of any claims. That is why we need a common level of protection, as mentioned previously.
Michel Barnier
Madam President, I would like very briefly to express my view on that point too to Mr Bodu, and to voice my concern with regard to a number of issues he raised.
Objectively speaking, there are, Mr Bodu, differences between Deposit Guarantees on the one hand and investor compensation on the other. However, as I said earlier, if sufficient funding was available, I would be in favour of the alignment that both you and Mrs Berès mentioned.
Mr Gauzès, I confirm that we will examine the extension of cover to include UCITS. I am aware of Parliament's reservations on this matter. However, I believe, Mr Gauzès, that it would be useful to plan its inclusion in the scope of the directive. We will nevertheless try to convince one another mutually and debate this issue.
I also think, Mr Gauzès, that all investors should be put on an equal footing. In any case, I would like to thank you for having again highlighted the need to protect investors properly, as Mr Mölzer also reminded us in his speech a few moments ago.
As Mrs Berès herself said, I was pressing for the adoption of the comprehensive package to which this text belongs. Therefore, we have not yet come to the end of the road, and investors and insurance holders are both affected. I would like to point out, Mrs Berès, that the future text on central securities depositories will provide a further opportunity to learn a number of lessons from the Madoff affair.
I have also taken note of two points which captured my attention and which I believe to be important, even though they involve technical aspects. The first one concerns the inclusion of insurance contracts. I think that is a good question; I am going to look into it and also study the difficulties and technical problems that it may entail. Secondly, there is an issue to which I am obviously sensitive, that is the excessive, or in some cases exorbitant, debt into which some local authorities have managed to get themselves. I will follow your debate closely on that too, and we will look at how we can deal with this issue.
Finally, Mrs Berès, you raised the issue of 'bad advice', as did Mr Giegold; I think it is a legitimate issue. I too want people to be safeguarded or protected. I ask though, is this the appropriate legal instrument to achieve that? This is a technical legal issue which may lead to divergence, and that would require us, in particular, Mr Giegold, to have a consistent and harmonised definition of what should be considered as 'bad advice'. However, I sensed your insistence. I see that there is broad agreement on this issue, and we are therefore going to look into it in light of your debate today and your objections, which I have duly noted.
Olle Schmidt
Madam President, even if you have perhaps not noticed it before, I have confidence in the free market and in people's abilities to make free choices. However, at the same time I would like to make it very clear that I also firmly believe that consumers must be protected. It is clear that, from this point of view alone, this directive is an extremely important one. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, you can criticise me in other respects, but on this matter we are in complete agreement with one another. It must be possible for the ordinary investor to know that the investments he or she makes are reasonably safe. This is extremely important for the future of Europe. That is how I see it, and how I view confidence in the financial markets.
Mr Barnier, you talked about undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) and forms of financing; 0.3% can be discussed if we also go up to EUR 100 000. I agree with that, but, at the same time, the Council's view is that we should have a very much lower-level financing mechanism. We probably do not know exactly where we will end up. I also think that it is reasonable to include UCITS in the context of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) and also with regard to UCITS 5, but I am sure that we will be able to reach agreement on that. With regard to bad advice, I, too, hope that we can find a solution, because I believe that this is an important issue for ordinary investors in Europe at the moment.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, Mr Gauzès, Ms Berès, Mr Kamall and Mr Giegold for their very fruitful cooperation, and I hope that we can close this dossier in the autumn.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 5 July 2011.