A facility providing financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments - Financial support to Member States (debate)
President
The next item is the joint debate:
on the report by Mrs Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments - C6-0389/2008 -;
the Commission statement on financial support to Member States.
Pervenche Berès
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, behind this obscure title, each person is assessing the importance of the discussion we are holding this evening following Hungary's request for financing, which was first made to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The European Union has looked at the issue to verify the conditions under which it could give its support to one of the Member States.
It is true that there was a discussion amongst the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs as to why Hungary first approached the IMF. That is a question for Hungary as a country, as a member of the European Union of some years standing, and also for the institutions of the European Union in the sense that, manifestly, at this stage, we have been unable sufficiently to develop this climate of confidence, this climate of solidarity, this climate of cooperation to allow a country like Hungary, in its current difficult situation, to consider that its first circle of solidarity, its first circle of cooperation, should be the European Union.
I believe, finally, that the plan implemented for a balance of payments assistance facility, on the basis of Article 119, achieved on the initiative of the Commission and Mr Almunia, whom I thank, will allow an appropriate solution to be found jointly with the IMF.
Evidently, we all think now that, unfortunately, Hungary's situation is not an isolated case, and we must in some way consolidate the cushion which will allow the European Union to meet such requests.
In the resolution that we adopted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and that I hope will be supported by plenary tomorrow, we ask the Commission to examine how and whether the banks of some Member States of the Union have helped to aggravate this situation. I believe that this is important information for the European Parliament to have in the coming debate, and which, doubtless, Jacques de Larosière's group will examine thereafter.
We have also said that we think, essentially, that the Council's proposal was to raise the level of the facilities to a given threshold, which we have accepted, believing that this, perhaps, will not be the last discussion we will have with the Commission. At this stage, we understand that this is the basis for agreement in the negotiations with the Council and, therefore, we accept this situation.
In the future, we hope that the European Commission, Council and Parliament will all regularly approve these amounts, because, in 2002, when the European Parliament voted on the Regulation we are now amending, we asked for a regular update to be organised. Evidently, and unfortunately, I have to say that we were right. We are now therefore asking you for it again, Commissioner, and I believe it is reasonable to ask that it be carried out in that manner.
Finally, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I asked for the tools and processes of Article 100 of the Treaty to enable us to act to support some Member States more widely, and not just on balance of payments problems. Unfortunately, I was not supported by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in this matter, but I am using my position as rapporteur to urge the Commission to examine this mechanism which the Treaty offers us and which, to date, we have failed fully to exploit.
Joaquín Almunia
Mr President, Mrs Berès, ladies and gentlemen, when the founding fathers of the European Union drafted the Treaty of Rome, they had the foresight to include, in one of its articles, a mechanism to help Member States whose balance of payments was seriously threatened.
That foresight in that article of the Treaty of Rome has been passed on through successive treaty reforms and is now in Article 119 of the current Treaty. After many years of non-use, this legal basis has now been used by the Commission to assist a Member State which needed urgent help, namely Hungary.
This article of the Treaty was developed in a 2002 Regulation which is what we have used in the case of Hungary and which is what we are now proposing to amend with regard to the maximum ceiling of the amounts that can be made available to help Member States facing this kind of difficulty.
Yesterday we debated in this House the ten years of Economic and Monetary Union. This afternoon we have debated the economic situation. Yesterday and again today we have discussed the problems caused by this situation and, unfortunately, there are some EU Member States which are outside the euro area and whose macroeconomic and financial imbalances are putting them in a particularly vulnerable position, given market pressures.
In the case of Hungary and in light of these difficulties, at some point the Hungarian authorities contacted the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Immediately after establishing contact with the IMF, they contacted the European Commission.
As I have said to the Hungarian authorities, this was not the right procedure for a Member State. The logical procedure is firstly to contact the European authorities and then, if necessary - and in the case of Hungary, it undoubtedly was - to jointly contact the IMF.
I must say to you all that the IMF and its Managing Director, Mr Strauss-Kahn, have proved to be absolutely open to this cooperation between the IMF and the European Commission, the European authorities and the EU Member States which are members of the euro area and need to access the facilities provided by the IMF.
In the case of Hungary, we have acted in cooperation. Although the procedure was not started correctly, the end result has been right as we have acted in cooperation. The European Union is providing Hungary with EUR 6 500 million within a global aid package worth EUR 20 000 million. This same approach, but in this case using the right procedure of firstly contacting the European authorities and then jointly contacting the IMF, is now being used in the case of another country.
Unfortunately, the situation is proving so difficult that this may not be the last case, or at least we should be prepared for there to be other cases, other Member States which need this type of help. That is why, at the same time as we presented the Council with the proposal to help Hungary, by using Article 119 of the Treaty and the 2002 Regulation, we also presented a proposal to raise the maximum ceiling of the facility established by the 2002 Regulation to EUR 25 000 million.
Hopefully we will not have to use these funds, but we cannot rule out this possibility. If we have to use them, then we must demonstrate our solidarity, as the founding fathers did in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, and we must also plan for a possible increase in the ceiling above EUR 25 000 million, if this proves necessary. As a result, I would ask Parliament, when discussing this issue in the future, if this proves necessary, to show the same willingness that I am pleased to witness here today. I would ask Parliament to give its opinion quickly and flexibly on help that, due to its very nature and characteristics, will be urgent.
There are elements in the motion for a resolution tabled by Parliament, together with the debate on the proposal to raise the ceiling of the balance of payments facility, with which I agree. These involve concerns about the vulnerability of some of our Member States and about the need to assess how we can protect ourselves and protect those Member States affected by this particular vulnerability, as in the case of Hungary, but which may also arise in the case of other countries.
We have to make this defence of the stability of Member States' economies and financial positions compatible with the free movement of capital and with the principles on which the internal market is based. However, we must be aware that we have to react to unnecessary risks and situations in which certain private interests may threaten the higher interests of Member State citizens and the economic and general security of our States.
I have taken due note of the suggestions made in this motion for a resolution. We will assess these in the Commission and report our findings to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. As stated by Mrs Berès, these will also be conveyed to Mr De Larosière so that his group can present its findings within the period set for its work, in other words by March.
Zsolt László Becsey
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (HU) Thank you for the floor, Mr President. As a matter of fact we are faced with a sad situation, since we need to debate a request for immediate assistance. I would say, however, that I can make a positive comment because the European Union has finally, after a lot of searching - which was far from easy - discovered Article 119 and the legal basis on which it can provide such assistance. For a long time, as the news wafting in from Hungary indicates, they could not find a legal basis for doing so.
Before going any further, let us examine the reasons for this. One reason is convergence - as we debated yesterday - or rather the lack thereof. In recent years, there has been no reinvestment in capital movements from east to west within the EU, and consequently there is an enormous capital drain from eastern Member States to the western ones. This means we face an ongoing imbalance of payments, which, moreover, will prevent true convergence.
The other problem is that obviously the surveillance system is incomplete, since the countries which do not use the euro can simply run up debts in foreign currency. If I have heard correctly, until now the European Union did not entirely have the power - though in my view it does have a voice - to tell these countries to 'be careful, do not allow the population and businesses to run up endless and irrational debts in foreign currency, because there could be trouble if there is a crisis', and so the problem has indeed arisen.
Therefore, surveillance must be extended to cover this, and should already have been extended long ago, for as I say, the Commission has a strong voice in Central and Eastern Europe, and can open its mouth.
The crisis has now arisen. The Hungarian Government first ran to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) out of fear, this we know, but they say that they did of course try to approach the EU as well, and that the latter tried systematically to find a legal basis. The government also say that they lack sufficient capacity to analyse the crisis. To this I say, let us create it. It should not be the case that everyone has to rely on the IMF whenever they need crisis analysis. What will the outside world think of us, if we try to use IMF funds to rescue Member States of 1-1.5 million inhabitants from an imbalance of payments?
A crisis mechanism will not work when a system, at times of crisis, has to stop a capital drain from a non-euro area country, for instance in the monetary sphere, for that is when the drain really begins to operate. Even the European Central Bank cannot do much, since in spite of coverage in forints, it does not really want to help with the liquidity problem, although all Hungary needed was foreign currency liquidity, since the banks were not heavily in debt.
As far as the Hungarian report is concerned, its 2006 analysis began with an improving situation. It reminds me a bit of Chernobyl in 1986, when on the first day they reported that there was no problem, and thereafter the situation was steadily improving. In the end we worried that there would be negative radiation. In this case as well, everyone is forgetting. We started out with what happened until 2006, and since then there has been a serious lack of surveillance of currency flows.
This EUR 25 billion ceiling, I would like to observe, seems very low. It includes from the outset that we want to work with the IMF, whereas it is hard to imagine a more terrorising situation than relying on the IMF.
It would be very important, of course, for the European Parliament to be involved and at the same time to act speedily. In my view, the two are now happening at once, and for this I am grateful to the Commission as well as to Parliament. I would, however, reiterate that we should create a mechanism which will prevent a recurrence of the various misfortunes that occurred in relation to the Hungarian crisis, and which has done nothing to increase the prestige of the European Union in Central and Eastern Europe. Thank you for the floor, Mr President.
Szabolcs Fazakas
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) Thank you for the floor, Mr President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as I am not a member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, please allow me to approach the question before us from a different perspective. Last year's financial crisis in America has reached Europe this year, and our financial markets, which we had believed to be stable, were shaken in their very foundations.
Instead of devising a unified EU solution, it was only after long hesitation that we were able to address the crisis with an individualised, harmonised response that is costing several billion euro per country. These individual national solutions cannot be the way to handle crises in the new EU Member States, which are unable on their own to move billions of euro. Initially, these countries trusted that, since their banks did not get involved in dubious, speculative overseas transactions, this international credit crisis might not affect them.
The lack of liquidity and crisis of confidence that accompanied the international financial crisis has, however, greatly shaken the finances of those States that rely on foreign credit, and the speculative attacks on national currencies further contributed to this turbulence. In this situation it was important for the new Member States to receive not only moral but concrete, tangible financial assistance from the European Union, and for the EU to extend its protection to those countries that have not yet joined the euro area.
This is not just solidarity, as inspired by the fundamental European value, but a shared European interest to avoid a domino effect by preventing even a single bank - not to mention an entire country - from becoming insolvent.
Bearing this in mind, we are now looking at raising the facility from EUR 12 billion to EUR 25 billion. In this context, the European Central Bank provided Hungary, which was most severely affected by the crisis on the money markets, with a rescue package of EUR 6.5 billion euro. This was a very fair and dignified solution, since Hungary has not only spearheaded reform and European unification for decades, but has also, since last year, halved its approximately 10% budget deficit, in accordance with the convergence programme adopted in 2006; that programme has been implemented systematically since that time, and the deficit this year is being reduced to 3%.
In order for the consolidation process required by the EU to continue, assistance is needed from international financial bodies. As a consequence of the financial and credit crisis, the entire world economy is now facing difficulties; yet individual EU Member States are trying to deal with these with their own instruments and in accordance with their own very specific goals. In order that the new Member States, which do not have such instruments at their disposal, should not lose out in the process, what is needed in order for Europe to weather the crisis jointly is not only to harmonise current actions but to adopt a common European strategy to deal with the economic crisis.
I hope that this financial rescue package constitutes the first rung on this ladder, and that once it has been adopted, we will be able to concentrate all our efforts jointly on solving the crisis of the real economy. Thank you for the floor.
Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, speaking on behalf of the UEN Group on the Council Regulation establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance to EU Member States, I should like to draw attention to the following issues: first, the situation in world financial markets is having an increasingly adverse impact on the real economy, with the result that GDP is expected to fall in 2009 in the US and in many of the European Union's most developed states.
Second, since those countries constitute the main market for the new EU Member States, this threatens their economic growth and will therefore have an adverse impact on their balance of payments. Third, this being the case, we must definitely support raising the ceiling of Community financial assistance to EUR 25 billion for each Member State not in the euro area, because only a ceiling this high will guarantee the effectiveness of any assistance granted by the Community.
Fourth, should a Member State outside the euro area need immediate financial support, the Council, European Commission and Parliament should act with sufficient speed to prevent confidence in their effectiveness being undermined.
Fifth and last, we welcome the European Commission's rapid response to Hungary's financial needs, granted in spite of the fact that Hungary had in the first instance approached the International Monetary Fund and not the European Commission.
Nils Lundgren
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when I read up on the subject that we are now debating, the balance of payments problem, I felt like Marcel Proust with his madeleine cake, In Search of Lost Time. There is an aroma of the 1950s and 1960s about the approach to the problem.
The balance of payments problem? This is something that we are to set aside EUR 25 billion for. Why on earth should we do this? Is this what we are doing today? This is intended for those countries, those poor countries, as I understand it, that are in the EU but not in the currency union and that may then need to be rescued from a fate worse than death: the balance of payments problem. This has, in that case, been created by the European Union itself, of course. What we are talking about here no longer exists in fact.
My own country, Sweden, is part of the EU and loyally supports it, implementing everything that is decided there much better than most other countries, but we have not joined the monetary union. Wisely so, in my opinion. However, if we should now experience problems in Sweden, will we then have a balance of payments problem? The answer is, of course, no. Naturally, it is possible to imagine that Sweden could start to mismanage its economy and experience a much higher rate of inflation and increase in wages than other countries. What happens then? Do we get a balance of payments problem? No, the Swedish krona falls to compensate for this. Nothing else happens at all. This is also the case in other countries in the same situation, for example in the United Kingdom.
What is the problem then? Well, the problem is that, if these countries are members of the European Union - which they should be - but are not members of the monetary union - which they should not be - then they are to be forced, as you intend, to keep a fixed exchange rate with the euro. The worst-case scenario is to be forced to keep a fixed exchange rate with your most important trading partners. It is clear that if a country mismanages its economy, experiences a higher inflation rate or suffers a structural setback in its most important export industry, its exports will decline and its imports increase. Suddenly the question is, how is this to be financed?
This is, however, a totally artificial situation. It is thoroughly old fashioned for countries that are not members of the monetary union to choose to fix their exchange rate and then need to be rescued by the International Monetary Fund or the EU or by anyone else. Why, for goodness sake, should this happen? It is a form of economic policy that is completely out of date. Either a country joins a monetary union - that could be right sometimes, I agree - or it remains outside, standing on its own two feet with its own independent monetary policy, and takes care of itself. If the country takes care of itself, nothing in particular will happen. If it mismanages itself, the currency will fall to compensate for that. This is not particularly dangerous, either.
I would therefore like to point out that, while we are discussing whether we should set aside EUR 25 billion for this purpose, it is a purpose that is actually not at all necessary. It is a problem that we have created ourselves, or rather you have created yourselves. Put an end to it. Those countries that are members of the EU but have not joined the monetary union should maintain a regime with a floating exchange rate. Then the problem disappears.
Sergej Kozlík
- (SK) The limit for mutual assistance to an EU Member State that is not a member of the euro area and that is experiencing balance of payment difficulties or is facing the risk of serious problems as a result of an overall disequilibrium in its balance of payments is currently EUR 12 billion. The examples of Denmark and Hungary show that the consequences of financial crises in some states can be so great that, if such a crisis occurred in a larger state, then this limit would be too low.
I would therefore like to stress that I do not consider the primary reason for increasing this limit to be either the expansion of the European Union or the greater number of states outside the euro area, as is stated in the explanatory report. We need to be aware that the financial problems in some Member States are mainly the result of inconsistent economic and social policies. These problems are aggravated and made more profound by the financial crisis, thereby creating pressure for increased levels of assistance. Hungary is just a typical example.
I support increasing the limit on medium-term assistance to EUR 25 billion. I also support, however, the opinion of the European Parliament that there is no need to create a special process allowing the Commission to revise this limit outside the usual decision-making procedures. I believe that such an approach will maintain high levels of diligence in the assistance system while also giving sufficient scope for action.
I mention this as Hungary is a textbook example, since its political leadership has been unable to decide on reform and recovery measures for a long time. In the final analysis, the adoption and implementation of such measures could also lessen the impact of the financial crisis in this country and reduce the need for financial assistance from the European Union.
On the other hand, however, I must defend Hungary over the fact that the new rules for financial markets must not allow excessive flow of liquidity from subsidiary banks to parent banks and that a sufficient level of supervision must be maintained over national central banks.
It is true that he who acts in haste may pay twice over, but it is also true that he who takes in haste will not always pay back on time or in full. It is therefore essential for the system to set out clear rules in respect of assistance, based on a regime of recovery measures which covers both schedules and matter-of-fact issues.
Dariusz Rosati
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, may I begin by responding briefly to two statements made by fellow Members. First, I should like to point out that countries not in the euro area are not required to maintain a fixed exchange rate with the euro. Poland is an example of a country with a floating exchange rate. Second, I should like to say that even a country which has a perfect domestic policy and makes no mistakes could be affected by the crisis, due to the contagion effect. Of course, the Hungarian situation largely originated in incorrect government policy, but Hungary had also been affected by a flight of capital, which was not the result of the Hungarian situation, but had external causes.
Commissioner, I wish to support the Commission's proposal. It seems to me to take into account the fact that we are all in a single market, and that the situation of individual countries is of importance to the other countries. We should therefore be aware of the ties that bind us and feel a sense of joint responsibility for our partners. The proposal is also an expression of European solidarity, which should be among the main values underlying our actions.
The amount of EUR 25 billion proposed by the Commission seems reasonable, though of course there could be situations requiring more money, and therefore I also support the proposal to grant the Commission the right to decide to revise the ceiling where there is an urgent need to do so. It is my view that using the full procedure involving the consent of Parliament or a parliamentary consultation would be impractical in such circumstances. Let us suppose that a crisis occurs in the summer, when Parliament is not sitting. It is hard to imagine that we would wait six weeks for Parliament to convene before helping the relevant state. I therefore support the Commission's proposal granting it the right to raise the ceiling within a very short period of time.
May I also say that I see the proposal as lacking a reference to possible action on the part of the European Central Bank. The Bank granted a loan to Hungary. This action should be coordinated, and it is my view that a reference should be included. Finally, I think that the proposal should not refer to Article 100 of the Treaty. Article 100 deals with quite different situations and should therefore be treated separately.
Edit Herczog
(HU) Thank you, Mr President. Commissioner, Mrs Berès, it is precisely the principle of solidarity that makes Europe more than an economic association and enables it to display the features of a strong political community. When the crisis began, it seemed for a moment that Europe would split in two economically and socially, but thanks to rapid and effective action by the Commission, we were able to prevent that from happening.
Hungary turned first to the European Union to ask for its assistance. However, the EUR 20 billion which we needed in support, or financing, would not have been possible from that source alone.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the Commissioner and the European Parliament for their quick response, for the solidarity of our colleagues, which shows the value of being European. Thank you for your attention.
Harald Ettl
(DE) Mr President, the proposal concerning amending the Regulation on assistance for Member States which are not part of the euro area, in order to increase the ceiling from EUR 12 to 25 billion, if they are hit by grave payment difficulties, has been made at the last moment.
The primary requirement for ensuring that these ad hoc measures work is that the EU does not make the same mistakes as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) with respect to counter demands. At the IMF, Mr Strauss-Kahn alone is not a guarantee of a sensible policy. We know the shock therapies used for countries devastated by crises in the old neo-liberal style only too well.
We also know those who have previously profited from this only too well. I hope that better, more sustainable stability will be achieved using the EU tool, based on the example of Hungary. Hungary shows us in particular that the EU has to realise that it was the conservative opposition that obstructed Hungary's premier with respect to stability and reform measures. The stability of Hungary will certainly not be achieved by curbing social expenditure alone, social expenditure which is actually not too high anyway; this will only help the anti-European right-wing populists. Yes, Hungary has been put under pressure, especially due to the rapid depreciation of the forint, which hedge funds have been partially responsible for.
In the case of Iceland, the IMF has demonstrated that it is still enforcing shock therapies, for example by imposing high base interest rates to the detriment of the national economy concerned, in this case the national economy of Iceland. Commissioner, please take into account that I do not want my neighbour Hungary to be plummeted into social conflict due to corrective measures such as this based on counter demands. Hungary needs confidence-building, supportive action from the European Union, which, after all, will help not only Hungary but all of us.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, I believe that this debate is taking place at exactly the right time.
I would like to remind you that Hungary is the country that has used the budget deficit to the greatest degree: minus 5%. This shows us that stability in this country also has a political background. It makes no sense that, in the future, we abandon the state - and after all, this refers to all the taxpayers - to the risks involved in some businesses. In this case I completely agree with Mr Ettl, we cannot burden the taxpayers with the risks of hedge funds and derivatives as this would lead to limited purchasing power.
This is precisely what we need in Hungary: more purchasing power. We need people to invest in the country and in the companies again and this means that we need tax reductions so that investment is possible once more and not only for companies but, above all, for employees. I believe that I am drawing the right conclusions. Decisive factors are that allowances are granted, for example for energy efficiency measures, that investment bonuses are given, and that appropriate progressive depreciation is carried out.
I would like to ask Commissioner Kovács, who comes from Hungary, to set up appropriate initiatives at European level.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, I came down to the Chamber while I was watching the debate in my office just to make, I suppose, a broad point.
In Ireland we have the bank guarantee scheme, because of the financial crisis, and we have more unity now in the EU as to how we deal with this. But we now realise that our banks will need to be recapitalised and, perhaps, as a matter of more urgency than we first thought. I wish to express the hope that that would happen, because we have a real problem, as was said by the previous speaker. We need people to spend and to invest and there just are no credit lines available. I think it is most important that something happens swiftly to restore confidence and capital to the banking system.
Marian Zlotea
. - (RO) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased that we have this opportunity this evening to discuss such an important issue, the economic crisis, which is affecting not only Member States, but the whole world.
We therefore need to find solutions to this problem. Mutual support for Member States should be one of the steps to be taken in this direction. Bearing in mind that we want EU Member States to resort to this fund when necessary, we must welcome the decision made by European political leaders at last week's summit.
I believe that this European financial assistance fund for Member States needs to be increased to at least EUR 25 billion for one reason: we need to save this market economy. Before I finish, I would like to express my confidence that we will take the measures required to overcome this crisis, both at a European and global level. We urgently need to find the resources required to avert the problems which our citizens are going to be faced with, such as unemployment. We all wish the best for the EU.
Margarita Starkevičiūt
(LT) I would like to thank the Commissioner for pointing out quite rightly today that this problem is linked to the question of how to make the free movement of capital compatible with the stability of macroeconomic nations. I do not really like my fellow Members saying that this is a problem for the poor countries of the European Union. Ladies and gentlemen, if the economies of Germany and France were to grow by 2 and 3 percent, that would pose no problem for those of us who have integrated into the common market. Therefore, if some kind of package is also required as a stimulus for national economies, it should be implemented by the countries mentioned and then we would not be talking about stabilisation funds. In truth, we do not need that money, but guarantees that the European common market will function well and grow. If there are such guarantees, which must be achieved through our joint efforts, then all the problems will be solved.
Joaquín Almunia
Mr President, I want to thank the Members for the support expressed in most of their speeches for the Commission's decisions and proposals on this issue.
I should like to make three very quick comments on three of the issues raised in your speeches. Firstly, I share Mr Becsey's concern about the risks posed by families and businesses taking on debts in foreign currencies, in countries which have a floating exchange rate and which are subject to risks of excessive volatility in their exchange rate, as was the case with Hungary. Mr Becsey knows of my concern because the budgetary and economic surveillance that we carry out in the Commission is sometimes not sufficiently heard or heeded or does not have the desired effects when comments are made on this type of risk.
We are, I believe, more effective in budgetary surveillance. The case of Hungary is very positive in this sense, given the major budgetary adjustment that has occurred in that country between 2006 and now. However, on the other hand, we have had no success in terms of the risks posed by taking on debts in foreign currencies. I hope that, from now on, given the circumstances not only in Hungary but also in other EU countries due to the crisis and excessive volatility in many financial indicators, particularly in exchange rates, this type of comment and recommendation will be heeded more.
Mr Lundgren is no longer here but he made comments that were totally incorrect. He criticised Hungary and the Commission for recommending to Hungary that it should have a fixed exchange rate, whereas the situation is exactly the opposite. In other words, the exchange rate in Hungary is floating and the excessive volatility in this exchange rate aggravated the problems and was one of the factors that caused the crisis having led to the request for this help. As a result, when criticisms are made, people should ensure that these are based on correct information and not on totally wrong information. If Mr Lundgren had stayed until the end of this debate, he would have been aware that his information was totally wrong. As he is not here, I hope that one of you will let him know.
Finally, with regard to the comments made by Mr Rübig on the deficit, it is not true that Hungary has a 5% deficit as this has been significantly reduced. In 2008 the deficit will be clearly below this figure, in fact it will be below 3%, and in the commitment made by Hungary as a condition of this help, the target deficit for next year is 2.6%. Therefore, if this target is met - and I hope that it will be - Hungary will have to face another kind of problem. Undoubtedly it will have to face this and will continue to do so, unfortunately, but at least next year it will not have an excessive deficit.
Pervenche Berès
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have four comments.
The first is that the Commissioner is asking us to give a fast, flexible response to any such new request. I believe that the European Parliament has shown that it can come up to the mark. Today, we are accepting the threshold of EUR 25 billion to amend the 2002 liability regulation, insofar as we know the conditions for negotiating with the Council, but of course, we are showing ourselves to be open and available to, unfortunately, envisaging other scenarios.
My second comment is to remind you that, for us, one of the lessons of this stage of European integration is that, for each Member State, whether or not they belong to the euro area, the first circle of solidarity, the first circle for discussions, should be the European Union. I hope that, today, for each of us, for the institutions and for the Member States, that is clear.
My third comment is to note with satisfaction the Commission's commitment to make public, or first to examine, then make public, both in our Economic and Monetary Committee and in Mr de Larosière's group, the lessons to be learned from the situation which has developed in Hungary.
My final comment is to note with you that, in this crisis, everyone believed that there would be two channels for transmitting the crisis, the complex financial markets on one hand and, on the other, the real economy.
In fact, we now see that there is a third transmission channel, namely, the movements of capital which can affect even simpler, less opaque financial markets. This is why the interweaving of the real economy and the financial markets, whose extent, I believe, we have yet fully to gauge, is so important. Unfortunately, we are finding out more day by day, and we are faced with an issue which needs us to show flexibility and collective intelligence to find suitable solutions.
Parliament has, I believe, once again shown its ability and desire to contribute to finding suitable solutions to each new aspect of this crisis whilst hoping that, finally, we will also find what we need to allow our economy to face the challenges in these very difficult times.
President
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 20 November 2008.


20. Future of the car industry (vote)
- Before the final vote:
Martin Schulz
- (DE) Madam President, I refer to Rule 146 of our Rules of Procedure and thank you for having given me the floor. I ask my fellow Members from the Federal Republic of Germany in particular for their indulgence of my having asked to speak now.
At the beginning of this vote, Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen took the floor. Mr Le Pen repeated in his leave to speak that the existence of the gas chambers in Auschwitz was a detail of world history. With reference to Rule 146 of our Rules of Procedure, which describes how members of this House must behave here, I ask Parliament's Bureau to check if such a statement is permissible in a chamber of deputies, which is bound by a spirit of reconciliation and understanding and respect for the victims, especially of Hitler's Fascism. I would be grateful if Parliament's Bureau could advise on the necessary measures.
(Applause)
Joseph Daul
- (FR) Please, show a little respect for the victims who died at Auschwitz and elsewhere. We still have two minutes left. Show a little respect.
All I wish to say is that I completely agree with Mr Schulz and that what we have heard today, in this House, is uncalled for.
(Applause)
Bruno Gollnisch
- (FR) Mrs Wallis, I find it extremely regrettable that you have given the floor to Mr Daul and Mr Schulz, but not to me. It is true that you testified in a report that you were the expert in interpreting the one-rule-for-one-and-one-rule-for-another Rules of Procedure.
Therefore, just to follow on from what Mr Schulz said, I should like to propose that we rename the Winston Churchill building, since in his 12 volumes of memoirs dedicated to the history of the Second World War, Winston Churchill wrote not one line on the history of the gas chambers.


Agenda: see Minutes

Carlos Carnero González
(ES) Madam President, I do not intend to speak for five minutes. I would just like to ask you, given your generosity and knowledge of the region to which I am going to refer, to allow me to speak on a point of order.
Madam President, I wonder whether the President of this Institution could express his support, if he has not already done so, for the Secretary-General of the United Nations', Mr Ban Ki-moon's, call for a cease to hostilities in Lebanon, which are causing huge loss of life.
I believe that this is essential and that it would reflect the feelings of every single Member of this Parliament. I know that we have a debate on the situation in Palestine this afternoon, but the truth is that, at this very moment, innocent civilians are still dying in Lebanon.
That is what I am asking for.
President
Your request will be passed on to the President, who will certainly also put it to the Conference of Presidents.


Management of deep-sea fish stocks (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Rosa Migueléz Ramos, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the management of deep-sea fish stocks.
Struan Stevenson
Mr President, on a point of order, before we start, could I just say a quick word about the lateness of the debates on agriculture and fisheries. This consistently is the case. We are always brought to the Chamber to have the last debates in the evening, both here in Brussels and in Strasbourg.
I think it is deeply unfair. When the Lisbon Treaty is introduced we will have codecision powers in both the Committee on Agriculture and in the Committee on Fisheries. That means we will have equal status with all the other committees in this Parliament, and yet it is the Foreign Affairs Committee that always gets the afternoon sessions, and we are always made to speak late in the evening while our Foreign Affairs colleagues can go for an early dinner and an early bed.
I do not see that that is appropriate, and I appeal to you, Mr President, to take to the Conference of Presidents - to the presidency of this Parliament - our complaint on behalf of all the Fisheries and Agriculture Committee members that we object to this and we wish fair play in the future. Sometimes we are prepared to speak late in debates, but sometimes we wish to be given preference and to speak early in the afternoon. I hope you will take that on board.
President
Ladies and gentlemen, I will obviously pass on your comment to the President of Parliament, but I also invite you to pass it on to the chairmen and women of your respective groups, because it will not have escaped your notice that it is the Conference of Presidents that decides the agenda and the order in which the reports will go through. I will therefore report back on my side; please pass on the information on yours.
Rosa Miguélez Ramos
rapporteur. - (ES) The truth is that what Mr Stevenson has just said is a general feeling that we all share, because we have all been finding that we are speaking at these late hours for many years now.
I think that even the Commissioners should start protesting. I urge Mr Borg and Mrs Fischer Boel to protest too so that these debates are scheduled for a more reasonable hour, not only for our convenience, but also because it is much easier for the public and the sectors concerned to find out about them.
However, this evening we are talking about deep-sea species, and at this point I would like to remind you that European fleets began fishing these stocks in the 1990s when demersal species were in decline, and when cod in particular were disappearing, and that the Commission communication to which my report refers aims to assess the effectiveness of the regulations from two points of view: adequacy and implementation.
The truth is, as I say in my report, that the initial allocation of quotas to the Member States was made and even extended before we had sufficient biological information, which resulted in successive distributions based on data that was not entirely reliable; therefore some Member States did not use up the quotas assigned to them, whilst others found their quotas were running out in the first few months of the year.
The truth is also that the lack of knowledge of the geographical structure of these species and the lack of reliable scientific data meant that TACs and quotas were set for extremely broad management areas and that they were also too restrictive, even going beyond the conditions imposed for species subject to recovery plans.
The truth is also, as we need to acknowledge, that the classification leaves a lot to be desired, because deep water species are considered to be all those living at a depth greater than 400 metres, this merging together a wide range of species that do not have any biological, zonal or morphological characteristics in common.
I would say to the Commission that of course it seems necessary to differentiate more clearly between species requiring protection - and there are many of them - and other species that provide an alternative to demersal species and for which long-term fleet objectives should be set.
The truth is that the Commission has already been obliged to withdraw species from the list and to recognise that they are merely taken as by-catches in shallow-water fisheries, and, for example, on a proposal of the United Kingdom, tusk was taken off the list of deep-water species and the alfonsinos quota is not counted when it is fished with pelagic trawls.
In my view, the Commission should eliminate any differences in treatment for the various species that are not fully justified as a matter of urgency, and I would also like to point out that progress has been made in these fisheries and that the Community fleet is already implementing many measures that are not, however, implemented by other non-European fleets fishing in the same areas.
Our fleet has restricted its fishing effort, through both cuts in TACs and capacity limitation and the creation of protected areas.
There are other issues in relation to these species, such as the suitability of the TAC and quota system for managing these stocks, which is extremely difficult to do because these are mixed fisheries.
Another issue appears to be, and is, the need to tackle the problem of discards, improving management in this area. Another problem that needs to be corrected is the management of fishing effort, because the Commission made the mistake of including all vessels holding deep-sea licences in the definition of vessels requiring special permits, which has led to much confusion.
Finally, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that I am going to listen to all of you and also to the Commission, and I will conclude.
Joe Borg
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all, in reply to what Mr Stevenson and what Mrs Miguélez Ramos said regarding the timing, I need to stress that the Commission - respectfully, resignedly - accepts the times for debates set by Parliament.
Allow me to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Miguélez Ramos, and all the members of the Committee on Fisheries for a very thorough report.
As you know, the EU is an important stakeholder in deep-sea fisheries. The key EU Member States participating in these fisheries are Estonia, France, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Spain. Their landings represent the largest amount of global reported catches.
Overall, the economic and social importance of the Community high-sea bottom-gear fleets is relatively minor compared to the EU fisheries sector as a whole. Nevertheless, in certain countries and regions - notably Spain and Portugal - it contributes significantly to catches, employment and value added at a local level.
Deep-sea fisheries started in the late 1970s, developing rapidly from the 1990s onwards as a result of three factors. First, significant reductions of fishing opportunities in shallower waters due to depletion of stocks and the extension of the national jurisdictions under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the 1970s. Second, the high value of some deep-sea species, and third, the advances in fishing technology that allow fishing at greater depths.
Our regulation on deep-sea fishing tries to establish specific access requirements and associated conditions for fishing of deep-sea stocks. In fact, some progress has been made with respect to the previous development stage of the fishery, where there were no rules.
Our latest proposals for the setting of TACs and effort limitations have increasingly been based on scientific information as this becomes more and more available. What we can be sure of is the fact that the state of these stocks has worsened in recent years. Scientific advice calls for additional data both in terms of quantity and quality. Our new proposal for data collection, currently being discussed within Council, also takes into consideration these issues. Furthermore, new surveys to cover deep-sea fishing grounds will be included as part of the Member States' obligations, and additional biological sampling will be requested in our implementation proposal for data collection.
However, it is clear that the rules contained in our Deep-Sea Fishing Regulation need to be reviewed. Our communication analyses its drawbacks and points to the problems that need to be addressed.
We hope to start a review exercise of this Regulation, establishing specific access requirements and associated conditions applicable to fishing for deep-sea stocks with your valuable help. A thorough consultation involving all stakeholders should take place in 2009, with a view to considering stricter rules to be applied to this fishery.
From your report it is clear that we share the same concerns and objectives, and we hope that we can work closely together to take urgent action to protect the stock.
Marios Matsakis
Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. - Mr President, many congratulations to the rapporteur for her excellent work. The proper management of deep-sea fish stocks is essential in order to promote the sustainability of the use of the seas and safeguard the conservation of marine ecosystems.
With these principles in mind, an opinion was prepared and strongly endorsed by the ENVI Committee. This opinion consisted of a small number of suggestions aiming to complement Mrs Ramos's report and enhance its effectiveness and applicability. It highlighted, amongst other things, the need to reduce total allowance catches, in conformity with the relevant scientific advice, and to adhere more strongly to the recommendations of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Furthermore, concern was expressed over the inefficiency and poor implementation of the current regulations, especially with regard to the issue of monitoring and control procedures in Member States. In addition, it emphasised the advantages of setting up a network of marine protected areas within the Natura 2000 system.
Also included in this opinion is reference to the need to develop common guidelines, exchange best practices, improve the use of available technology and involve think tanks and NGOs in order to better implement measures to reduce illegal fishing and the sale of illegal catches in European markets. The necessity of promoting more environmentally friendly catching methods, which do not harm the environment and ecological biodiversity, was also mentioned. The report, supplemented by the accepted opinion recommendations, is fully supported by my group. However, we are unable to support the three amendments submitted, as we feel that these run counter to the need to properly and effectively protect our sea ecosystems.
Struan Stevenson
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, can I firstly congratulate Mrs Miguélez Ramos on the excellent work that she has done in compiling this report.
The science in relation to deep-sea stocks is not yet fully developed. However, we do know that these species live at great depths - we have heard from 400 metres to over 2 000 metres and even deeper. We know that they are slow maturing, not reaching breeding age sometimes until they are at least 25 years old, and they have a very low reproductive capacity. We know that there are millions of different species living at these great depths, of which only very few are edible. As a result, we know that fishermen in the deep-water fishery regularly discard around 55% of all the fish they catch. We know that the kind of fishing commonly carried out over sensitive deep-water ecosystems can be horrifically destructive - cold-water coral, sea-mounts and hydrothermal vents can be destroyed. Bottom-trawlers are operating in a way that would require a major environmental impact assessment in any other industry operating in deep-sea areas.
So we need to apply strict controls to the type of gear being used in these deep-water fisheries. We need to avoid destructive gear. We need to ensure that such fishing activity is only permitted in areas where we can be certain there will be no damage. We need to avoid situations where nets can break loose and continue ghost fishing for decades. Having said this, I recognise the nature of the artisanal fishery off the coast of Portugal and around the Azores, where the fishing is carried out in a sustainable way. I accept that we should not target such fisheries for excessive controls.
So we are dealing with this against a background of poor existing legislation, poor monitoring, poor science, poor feedback from Member States and a lack of overall credible information. I can only hope that this report paves the way for major improvements.
Paulo Casaca
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur and all those who, like Mr Stevenson, helped to improve this report. I should like, above all, to make a general appeal for us to avoid a repetition on the sea bed of the dramatic situations we have seen over recent decades with regard to the fishing of cod and other pelagic species. It is essential to observe the precautionary principle and the principle of ecosystem management. It is essential to maintain sustainable fisheries.
This report contains a proposal in paragraph 8 that seems to me to be well-intentioned overall, but it includes a suggestion to ban fishing activity over seamounts, which would be impracticable in the Azores, since almost all deep-sea fishing is over seamounts. We are therefore unable to support that paragraph as it stands and we shall, naturally, be voting for the Socialist Party's proposal to amend that paragraph. Fundamentally, however, I think we must all bear in mind that when it comes to the sea bed - environments that are much more fragile than on the surface - we cannot repeat the mistakes made in the past.
As already mentioned, species on the sea bed mature much much more slowly, damage is much more complicated to repair and, therefore, we cannot do the same as being done further up. I therefore urge the European Commission to give this its maximum attention.
Pedro Guerreiro
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (PT) We congratulate the rapporteur on her work and in general support the contents of the report apart from a few points. Since the objective is to ensure sustainable exploitation of resources, we welcome the inclusion in the report of the need to invest in scientific fisheries research, devoting more human and financial resources to that research, the need to adopt appropriate socio-economic measures to compensate fishermen for the costs of reductions in activity connected with stock recovery plans and the need to involve fishermen in the definition of measures for the protection of the marine environment and the management of resources. Finally, as pointed out, we stress the need to find different and appropriate solutions for different species, taking account of the selective fishing gears used in each region.
Carmen Fraga Estévez
(ES) Mr President, I also think that there are ample reasons to support the amendments tabled for this report, and that the report is very valuable.
With regard to the ban being discussed here on fishing at a depth of more than 1 000 metres, the Committee on Fisheries already made it very clear in another report that was much more directly connected with vulnerable marine ecosystems than this one is, in which linking depth to sensitive ecosystems was rejected by a large majority.
Vulnerable habitats will have to be protected where they are found, irrespective of whether they are at a 1 000, 600 or 200 metres, and not based on whether they fall on one side or the other of an artificial line drawn in an office in Brussels.
This is also the doctrine of the FAO, which in its preparatory work on the guidelines for the protection of vulnerable ecosystems ruled out using depth as a criterion, precisely because it considered it to be arbitrary, lacking in scientific basis and more fanciful than anything, because, as I have said, since it does not protect coral or seamounts that are at a lesser depth, it would immediately wipe off the map fisheries that have been operating for some time without any problems, such as, for example cutlassfish fisheries in the Azores or black halibut in the area regulated by the NAFO. These are just two examples.
However, by supporting the amendments we would introduce greater consistency to legislative processes, as we are now in the process of preparing the future legislation on discards to be applied to all Community fleets.
I therefore do not think that this is the time to jeopardise certain fleets with regulations on discards which could ultimately result in inconsistencies with the general rules, which goes against the practice of better regulation to the benefit of the public.
Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski
- (PL) Mr President, in view of the particular nature of stocks and the marine ecosystem, deep-sea fishing constitutes a unique micro-climate, a micro-world that most starkly reveals both the familiar assets of fisheries policy and its permanently apparent shortcomings.
The interesting report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos and the discussion it has initiated amount to a characteristic object lesson, a further justification for maintaining humility in the face of the mysteries of the deep - humility, may I add, that requires the necessary compensation at least in the form of research into the deepest European basins, the scope of which is regularly enlarged. Whilst listening to the dynamic parliamentary debates it is hard to resist forming the impression that many research centres are continuing to make use of schematic, hackneyed methodological principles. Three depth zones appear to be recognised here: up to 400 metres, 400 to 1 000 metres and deeper than 1 000 metres. Advocates of the introduction of formal, rigid fishing criteria have even appeared. For example, some kind of mythical significance is being attributed to depths exceeding 1 000 metres without any fully convincing reasons being put forward for this.
I am in favour of searching further for more efficient methods of measuring the state of stocks, adapted to the ecosystem of a given basin. The results of such comprehensive research - and not just estimated data - should form the basis of fishing limits for deep-sea fishing; and not just for this type of fishing. It is precisely improved methods of research that can create guarantees for a system that is more precise than those used hitherto for exchanging information and controlling this important and delicate segment of fisheries.
Avril Doyle
Mr President, thank you and congratulations to Mrs Miguélez Ramos for a very good report.
It is worth recalling that 70% of the world's surface is covered by oceans. More than 97% of our planet's water is contained in the oceans. The oceans provide 99% of the earth's living space and fish supply the highest percentage of the world's protein consumed by humans; 3.5 billion people depend on them for their primary source of food. It does no harm to remind ourselves how important these fisheries debates are.
Sustainable management of our global fish stocks therefore needs to be a priority and we must constantly review how we do that management. I agree with the Commission that there needs to be an ecosystem-based approach to the management of deep-sea fish stocks. This in my view should facilitate the use of various approaches and tools, eliminating destructive fishing practices and the need to establish marine protected areas consistent with international law.
Management of the deep sea must also be based on the very best peer-reviewed science, which will include effective by-catch and data-collection programmes. Furthermore, effective research relating to the mapping of the seabed and the natural resources of the oceans, especially in the light of climate change impacts, must be a priority.
I am very concerned at the current lack of sufficient data to carry out a scientific assessment of the state of our deep-sea fish stocks. It is imperative that we introduce a ban on discards in deep-water fisheries as this would enable scientists to study with more precision the complex diversity of species being landed.
It is not sufficient simply to reduce discards, as bottom-trawling in deep water has a relatively high impact on by-catch and discard species. I really do think that the debate around the definition of what is 'deep' is futile and I agree fully with the FAO dismissing it as a crude measure and a crude criterion which is very arbitrary in terms of the sustainability of the species and fish stocks.
Joe Borg
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank all the honourable Members for their comments and suggestions, which we will certainly take into account as we undertake the review of our legislation next year.
May I now turn to some specific comments. First of all, it is extremely difficult to make and provide a definition of deep-sea fish. I have, however, taken note of the remarks made in this regard. We need to learn also by experience and by using the data on these deep sea species, which we have only relatively recently begun to collect. In the mean time, we need to adopt a precautionary approach, given the poor quality of information on these species. The Data Collection Regulation will certainly help to correct this situation.
I agree that these species are much more vulnerable, and so we need to be extremely careful and cautious in the management of this fishery.
On discards: as I have had occasion to say in this House before, this is an issue that we take seriously, and progressively we aim to cover all fisheries for the required reduction on discards.
On the two amendments, the Commission intends to agree with Amendment 2, which aims at reducing the level of discards rather than introducing a complete ban across the board from the very outset.
On the first amendment, the Commission is of the view that the original text is more protective of the fishing activities and sensitive habitats which, in particular, foresees that no fishing can take place in areas beyond the 1 000-metre depth.
However, this limit will be reviewed and, if appropriate, revised in two years' time.
Rosa Miguélez Ramos
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, I would like to stress the urgent need for more and better information on these species, especially in relation to those listed in Annex II, and for more human and financial resources for research. I would like to remind you that we held a hearing in the Committee on Fisheries on this issue and that the experts stressed the need for the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to identify for each species the stocks which can be exploited sustainably, and they also asked for greater scientific rigour as regards sampling schemes, and more concise data.
With regard to closed areas, for which no reliable data are actually available, the experts advised that these areas should be redefined and made smaller, since closing zones whose exploitation is feasible would lead in practice to more illegal fishing with greater impunity, given the lack of fishing interest among the parties, which would also exacerbate the scarcity of data with which to assess stocks.
I would like to remind Mr Stevenson that the text of the Amendments 2 and 3 corresponds exactly to what our committee adopted based on Mr Schlyter's report on a policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries, without a single word or comma added.
The word 'ban' frightens me. 'Ban' can confuse, and may also demotivate; and, of course, it could do a great deal of damage to our fishermen, who are currently doing their job as best they can. The best thing to do is to eliminate and then gradually introduce the ban, as the Commission proposed; if I am not mistaken, I think that those were the exact words. I would therefore ask you to please support the amendments in the vote tomorrow. Thank you.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Written declarations (Rule 142)
Marianne Mikko
in writing. - (ET) The 20th century brought breakthroughs in scientific and technological progress, extending man's knowledge of nature to a previously unachievable level. In 1969 the American Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon; the Voyager missions, launched in 1977, have left the solar system, meaning that astronomers will be able to discuss not only the outer reaches of our galaxy but the outskirts of the whole of the visible universe.
Compared to conquering the cosmos, scant attention has been paid to the ocean depths which measure only a few kilometres.
The legislation regulating the trade in deep-sea fish stocks needs to be thoroughly reviewed. I agree with the rapporteur on the urgent need to devote more resources, both human and financial, to scientific investigation.
It is vital to define what constitutes a deep sea fishery. Currently there is talk of depths and fishing gear. The Member States of the European Union must, however, jointly agree on the substance of the definitions and the importance of agreements.
I would like to draw attention to point 8 of the report, which bans bottom-trawling at depths below 1 000m. Why do we have to provide for a specific depth restriction? The commercialisation of stocks and maintenance of the biological balance should be based on regional features and international agreements. If a fishing ban at a given depth is justifiable in a given area, then the restriction should apply to all fishing gear which comes into contact with the sea bottom, not only bottom-trawls.
We need a flexible system to manage fish stocks and the opportunity to react quickly. I would like to thank the rapporteur, who has drawn attention to the ineffectiveness of the legislation in force.
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
in writing. - (RO) The continuous and rapid exhausting of deep-sea fish stocks and the insufficient measures of protection of deep-sea biodiversity require urgent actions in order to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of fish species. Although the 2002 and 2004 recommendations of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) called attention to the fact that most species are below the biosafety levels, the European Union has not reduced its fishing efforts enough to ensure sustainable fishing.
The Commission Communication regarding the review of deep-sea fish stocks confirms that the current levels of deep-sea stocks exploration must be reduced and that the measures in force have been implemented insufficiently in order to be efficient. For this reason, before adopting new management actions, we should establish the reasons why the existent actions are not implemented and the reasons behind the Member States' failure to meet their commitments or their late fulfilment.
Moreover, the EU should make significant efforts for the complete and efficient implementation of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 61/105 on deep-sea fishing areas in free sea and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.


13. The fight against terrorism (vote)
- Motion for resolution
- Before the vote on Amendment 3:
Claudio Fava
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the oral amendment that our Group is proposing involves replacing the words 'all forms of glorifying' by the word 'apology'. We consider that the word apology better reflects the type of behaviour to be curbed. If Mr Díaz de Mera is in agreement, our Group will vote in favour.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- Before the vote on Amendment 27:
Cristiana Muscardini
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on the basis of Rule 151(3), you, as President, can decide on the admissibility of paragraph 6, on which we are about to vote. That recital states that terrorism can no longer be eradicated. Can this House really make it official that terrorism cannot be eradicated? I feel that there must either be a translation error in some texts, or a very serious political misjudgement, and for those reasons I ask you, Madam President, to decide on the admissibility of that paragraph.
President
Ms Muscardini, all the admissibility checks have been done by the services, and it was open to amendments, so I am afraid we are where we are now.
- Before the vote on Amendment 33:
Claudio Fava
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I ask whether the proposer of the amendment would agree to remove the two phrases which currently read: 'in some rare instances' and 'which may not be lawful' from the sentence. If these two phrases are removed from the amendment, we would be willing to support it.
(The oral amendment was accepted)