Via Baltica (debate)
President
The next item is a statement by the Commission on Via Baltica.
Dalia Grybauskaitė
Member of the Commission. On behalf of the Commission, and replacing my colleague, Commissioner Dimas, who is unable to participate today because of serious health problems, I would like to make a presentation on the situation and to explain why the Commission applied to the Court.
The Polish authorities gave the green light to the construction of the Augustów bypass, which cuts through the unique Rospuda valley in a forested Natura 2000 site, despite the initiation of previous infringement procedures. A letter of formal notice, covering the Augustów bypass among other things, was addressed to Poland on 15 December 2006, while the decision authorising the start of the works was issued by the Polish authorities on 2 and 9 February 2007.
The Rospuda valley is the last peat bog system of its kind in Europe. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that, if the project is executed in its current form, it would be in breach of the directives on birds and habitats. On 28 February 2007, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on an urgent basis requesting Poland to comply with EC environmental law within a week. Having found the response of the Polish authorities unsatisfactory, the Commission decided on 21 March to refer the case to the Court of Justice. The decision provides for a request for interim measures, which means the suspension of construction works until the judgment of the main case is delivered, in order to avoid irreversible damage to the Natura 2000 site concerned.
John Bowis
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, perhaps first we could send our good wishes to Commissioner Dimas and wish him a speedy recovery.
Secondly, let me say to my Polish friends that this is not an issue which is getting at Poland. There are many Member States who have been subject to pressure from Parliament and the Commission when a development proposal is potentially damaging to the environment.
I think in this case, though, we have a serious case which is going to be a test of will of the Commission, of the policy and certainly of this Parliament too. We have irreversible damage in prospect for the habitats of a large number of species from eagles to woodpeckers, to capercaillie, wolves and lynx. I welcome the Commission taking the steps of going to the ECJ and I certainly welcome the subsequent decision to seek a special procedure from the ECJ to make an order urgently requiring Poland to stop the works pending the proper full decision. That is sensible. The ECJ President granted that on 18 April and I hope that is a very strong message to the Polish authorities who are involved with this scheme. But regrettably, it appears that Poland is ignoring that and proceeding, at least in part, with construction works for two of the projects in north-east Poland.
So my request to the Commission is to insist that we look seriously at alternative routes, because we believe, and my committee believes, that there are alternatives which would be much better for the environment. We believe that they must be fully explored, they must use the strategic environmental assessment principles and that only if those are complied with should we agree to this road corridor proceeding.
I hope the Commission will take that message to her colleague. I hope it will make him better. It will certainly make it better for the Polish environment if we comply with the rules.
Thijs Berman
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Madam President, my group supports the Commission in this dispute with the Polish Government.
With its environmental directives, including the Habitat Directive and the Bird Directive, the European Union has made a vital step towards the sustainable development of our continent. The directives are a great success. The areas where they apply often form part of Europe's Natura 2000 network, which network of protected nature conservation sites located in the Member States is at the heart of the EU's environmental policy and of the preservation and recovery of biodiversity. They give the protection of nature and the environment an enormous boost.
In some cases, this goes against the local and national grain. Politicians easily yield to pressure on the basis of short-term economic interests, instead of standing up courageously for a clean environment for the sake of future generations.
Needless to say, the Via Baltica is of major economic importance. This is beyond dispute. Moreover, it is essential to open up Northern and Eastern Europe, and to link up the Baltic states with the west of Europe. Increased prosperity and wellbeing in Poland are in the interest of the whole of Europe.
This is why billions of euros from the Structural Funds are being invested in that country, and everyone will understand that the residents of the city of Augustov are keen to see the end of the dangerous, noisy traffic pollution caused by lorries.
Traffic will need to be diverted away from the city centre. At what cost, though? The Rospuda valley is a unique area, a special protection zone under the Birds Directive, and it should, on account of its extraordinary value, also fall within the scope of the Habitat Directive. Poland has enormous natural resources, with a landscape of outstanding natural beauty. It is these resources that hold the key to Poland's economic future.
In the Netherlands, we faced a similar situation not so long ago, with the construction - that was subsequently turned down - of a new motorway cutting across some of the Naardermeer, the Naardermeer being the oldest nature conservation site in our country which falls within the scope of the European Birds Directive. This situation was comparable to the Polish nature conservation area where the Via Baltica is planned.
The Commission was right to warn the Polish Government against the construction of this section of the motorway. As a European Member State, Poland has the duty to protect the Rospuda valley, and, whilst it has proposed measures that are intended to compensate for the destruction of part of the nature conservation area, this compensation is inadequate.
The study into possible alternative routes has not been carried out fully. There are other routes conceivable that could prevent irreparable damage being done to the area.
In mid-June, this House's Committee on Petitions will be sending out an inquiry mission that will be looking into the complaints by Polish citizens who do not want to see the valley destroyed.
Although we will hear all parties and weigh up all arguments, one thing will be paramount: that the Via Baltica should not be allowed to damage one of Europe's most attractive nature conservation sites. The construction of this road should not contravene European environmental laws which Poland has also signed. Pacta sunt servanda: treaties are there to be complied with.
Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski
Madam President, we can view the case of the Via Baltica and the Rospuda Valley from two different perspectives which should not be contradictory.
The first point of view is a practical one, involving the people who live there and who use those roads. It is not only Poles who are affected, but also the inhabitants of the Baltic states and Scandinavia. It is a real problem which we cannot ignore. Many people die on these roads. These people have a right to roads that are built to the highest standard possible and they have a right to travel in comfort and safety.
The other issue at stake here is that of the authorities taking responsibility for decisions that they make. It is not true, in spite of attempts to prove to the contrary, that there is no alternative route. There is an alternative. It is possible and practical to implement and needs only the necessary political will. In Poland, this issue has been debated for many years. We, together with a group of Members of the European Parliament, drew attention to this problem last year when we tabled a question to the Commission and appealed to the Polish Government to stop this project from going ahead, as it would be a good idea for the project to already comply with European standards at the planning stage.
The second issue is that of lessons learnt. This is the first case of its kind in Poland, and sets a precedent. We, as Members of the European Parliament, and the European institutions should take care to ensure that, for the good of citizens and in order to improve their safety, all Member States plan their investment projects properly, in line with European Union directives and environmental protection standards.
This can be achieved. There are no contradictions. This lesson has to be very effective. We, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, therefore strongly support a solution that will allow the Via Baltica to be built as soon as possible. However, this solution also needs to quickly lead to a breakthrough based on the fact that it is pointless to insist on bad decisions that damage the environment.
Roberts Zīle
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (LV) Thank you, Madam President and Mrs Grybauskaitė. First of all, I would like to say that, on becoming acquainted with the history of this section of road, it certainly seems to me, as a Latvian citizen, that it has been known for several years that this stretch of road was going to be built. It is possible that the agreement of the Natura 2000 territories by the previous Polish Government was perhaps not conducted in the best manner. As a result, however, this delay is causing not only residents of Poland to suffer, particularly those in the eastern region, who may use this stretch of road every day, but also three entire European Union Member States - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - and not only citizens travelling to the European Union but also a large section of industry, since 4 500 lorries pass through the town of Augustów daily via this stretch of road. I would really very much like a compromise to be reached that would not further delay the already delayed construction of this road. It worries me that these three Baltic States are in fact not connected with the European Union via a normal, modern highway. These three Baltic States are not connected with the European Union through Poland by rail, since it seems that the Rail Baltica section in this region will encounter the same difficulties in complying with environmental requirements. Nor are these three Baltic States even connected with the European electricity market at the Poland-Lithuania border. So I call on the Commission and all other parties, including the Polish Government, which can reach these decisions within a reasonable length of time, to reflect upon this issue not only from the viewpoint of Poland and Europe's environmental needs, but also from the point of view of the interests of these three European Union Member States. Thank you.
David Hammerstein
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Madam President, the Polish Government is issuing a challenge to the European Institutions.
European environmental legislation must be applied. The directive on natural habitats is there to be applied. The way we deal with this issue will be crucial. We must either take Community law seriously, and take the application and use of European funds for great infrastructures seriously, or the whole thing will gradually become pointless.
I have had the pleasure of visiting the beautiful and unique area of the Rospuda Valley, and I can state that this project is absurd. It is also practically impossible from a technical point of view, given the marsh area that it has to cross. At the same time, I can state that there are clear alternatives which are more viable, more economical and which could serve the same purpose as this road.
People suffering from lorry traffic in Eastern Poland, in Augustów, are hostages to the political game being played by the Polish Government in relation to other issues. It is a political challenge to the European Commission, which is combined with other political issues. It is the inhabitants of the area and nature that are going to suffer as a result.
Furthermore, the alternatives to this road which runs through the forest have the support of the preliminary study, the strategic environmental study, carried out by the Scott Wilson consultancy, which is a highly prestigious international consultancy. It is not true, therefore, that the option of this road via the Via Baltica through the Rospuda Valley is the only possibility. Not at all.
The seriousness of this Parliament and the seriousness of European environmental legislation is at stake. I hope that the European Commission will stand firm, and that means not sending any more regional funds until Poland realises that being part of the European club means obeying the rules.
Erik Meijer
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Madam President, most of the EU Member States that acceded in 2004 and 2007 possess well-developed railway networks.
Unfortunately, this railway network has, in the last 15 years, been pared down, and there have been cutbacks also in the maintenance of it. Moreover, in many cases, the old railway companies have not received from the state the compensation they thought they could count on beforehand for their operating shortages, and this has the effect of deterring new enterprises that would otherwise be keen to take part in tenders, and so the likelihood is that the railway network will be used less and less and that rolling stock will become unusable.
These countries once had a huge head start over the west of Europe in the area of rail transport, but it has thus been lost, and their environment is particularly vulnerable too.
Fewer tracks does not mean less traffic. In order to channel this traffic elsewhere, all attention is now focused on investments in motorways. Roads like these were around 15 years ago, except that they were limited to the busiest routes, particularly around the big cities. New roads of this sort will now be built very quickly.
In an effort to limit costs, the interests of nature and the landscape are often overlooked. The shortest possible route cutting through areas considered empty is preferred, and there is no money for diversions, tunnels or bridges for wildlife.
Poland is not the first, or only, country to face this problem. The same thing occurred years ago in the Czech Republic, which planned a connection from Prague to Dresden and also in Bulgaria when a link was planned between Sofia and Thessaloniki.
The way in which valuable nature conservation areas are handled does not only make the national, but also international, news, as international nature and environmental organisations draw attention to this. They also point out that the European Union is partly responsible for destroying the environment if it helps to finance bad projects of this kind. I have been urging the European Union to refuse any responsibility in this matter for years.
On 2 July 2002, Commissioner Wallström stated by way of response to my written requests that Poland should adapt its Via Baltica plans. I would remind her that, according to the original plan, the Via Baltica avoided this vulnerable area, but that these plans were subsequently reviewed in a bid to better serve other cities. What the European Union should insist on is a return to the original plan that was drawn up a long time ago.
Johannes Blokland
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Madam President, it is a good thing that we, despite the urbanisation that goes hand in hand with increasing prosperity, still boast valuable nature conservation areas within the European Union's borders. These areas form part of the Natura 2000 network, which does something very important by ensuring that nature in the European Union is accorded a protected status, and, for example, by helping to maintain biodiversity.
We approved Mr Adamou's proposal only this week, in which a stand is made for maintaining biodiversity. Moreover, the Natura 2000 status ensures that the nature conservation areas remain intact for posterity.
At least, that is how it should be. Not every government appears to realise this, as was evident last year. The Polish Government seeks to build the new road, the Via Baltica, right across the Natura 2000 area of the Rospuda Valley.
Along with a delegation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I have visited the Rospuda valley and was able to see for myself how unique and valuable this Polish nature conservation site is. It is totally beyond me that it is the Polish Environment Minister, no less, who is in favour of this project, even though sound alternatives are available. He, of all people, should surely realise what disastrous effects this project could have.
By way of compensation for the construction of the road, it is intended to plant a million trees to the north of the region, despite the adverse effects this will have on nature. I know that this is a very sensitive issue in Poland. For traffic safety, it is necessary for the Via Baltica to be in place soon, provided it is tailored to regional circumstances with minimum adverse effects on the environment.
I am delighted that the Commission has issued warnings to the Polish Government, and that, when it received no response to its demands, it brought the matter before the European Court of Justice. It is to be hoped that the Court's ruling of 18 April, according to which the Polish Government should stop the compensation measures with immediate effect, will be a message for the future - a message that Member States cannot simply tamper with valuable nature conservation sites.
Bogusław Sonik
- (PL) Madam President, the planned construction of the Via Baltica has caused a lot of controversy, as have many other trans-European transport routes. Having studied the Commission's statistics on the subject, it is clear that a number of Member States have considerable problems related to planning infrastructure projects in the areas covered by the Natura 2000 network, namely Austria, Spain and Portugal.
At the moment, the Polish Government still wants to continue the construction of the Augustów bypass which will pass through the Rospuda Valley. It argues that the decision regarding the project was made before Poland joined the European Union, when Poland was not bound by the strict requirements of the European Union directives on birds and habitats. The European Commission is accusing Poland of infringing these directives as a result of its investment in the road building project. For Poland, road safety is the argument that speaks in favour of constructing the bypass. However, the environmental criteria that need to be fulfilled in the implementation of this project, seem to have been forgotten.
However, in spite of the current situation, we cannot allow talks on the issue of the ring road to stall. The problem has to be solved in the form of a compromise which will be satisfactory for both sides. Both arguments, namely those concerning environmental aspects and road safety, are equally important and will affect hundreds of similar projects in Poland and elsewhere. We should make cooperation mechanisms more efficient at various levels and adapt the regulatory criteria to the current environmental and social situation.
However, I would appeal for similar requests for debate to be treated equally in the future. To this day, in spite of the support of over 60 Members, no permission has been granted for a debate on the biggest environmental threat resulting from the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline under the Baltic sea. I would like to remind you that over 10% of marine areas are part of the Natura 2000 network and no one, literally no one, has taken this issue up in the European Parliament.
At the moment, when important areas of biodiversity are being destroyed before the very eyes of environmentalists and the whole of Europe, there seems to be no will to discuss the issue of the environmental threat to our only internal sea, namely the Baltic.
Andrzej Jan Szejna
(PL) Madam President, the Polish PSE delegation in the European Parliament has stressed the need for the construction of the Augustów bypass for a long time.
However, the chosen construction plan for the new road, which will pass through the Rospuda Valley, will certainly have a negative impact on the ecosystem, which is unique in Europe and is located in an area that is protected by the Natura 2000 programme. Allowing the Augustów bypass to pass through the valley will cause irreparable damage to the natural environment, including the destruction of 20 000 trees and the disappearance of extremely rare plants and animal species. Sadly, we need to be aware of the fact that any alternative to the ring road will have an impact on the natural environment in that region. We should opt for the project whose negative impact on the unique fauna and flora in the Rospuda Valley will be as small as possible.
Representatives of the Law and Justice party, which currently governs Poland, assured us before the elections that the Via Baltica, which includes the Augustów bypass, will avoid the most precious natural areas. Now they are breaking their promise. The Polish authorities have had time to reconsider the location of the bypass. However, they have ignored the environmentalists' suggestions that changing the route of the motorway would avoid damaging the environment and would save money. The Minister for the Environment did not take advantage of opportunities to reconcile the interests of the residents of Augustów, who are campaigning for a motorway, and those who seek to protect the environment. The Polish Government is ignoring the problematic fact that this investment will be incredibly expensive and will place a large burden on the Polish taxpayers, as the European Union will not contribute to the construction of the road in an area where, according to the habitats directive, it is forbidden to destroy the environment. Moreover, given the European Commission's negative assessment of the project, further work on the construction of the road may make Poland liable for fines amounting to millions of euros. This will be a burden which Polish taxpayers will have to bear.
In my view, Prime Minister Kaczyński's proposal to hold a local, regional referendum on the Augustów bypass, and its route through the Rospuda Valley, is simply a sign that the Polish Government wants to shirk its responsibility for home affairs and is an unnecessary bone of contention for Polish society. The referendum was held because local government elections were being held in the Podlasie Voivodship at the same time. However, it was obvious from the start that the result of this referendum would not be binding for the European Court of Justice, which is currently dealing with the matter. It is therefore irrelevant and these kinds of activities only serve internal political ends. In addition to this, I would like to point out that, according to Polish legislation, a referendum is only valid if the turnout is over 30% of those eligible to vote. The turnout on Sunday did not exceed this threshold.
The natural environment is one of our greatest treasures, and yet we do not do enough to protect it. I think that the Polish Government should make a real effort to draw up alternative solutions to the problem as soon as possible.
DanutBudreikait
(LT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Augustavas bypass should become part of the Via Baltica. This is very important to the city of Augustavas, where about 1.5 million vehicles annually drive through the centre of the city.
The European Commission has appealed to the European Court of Justice against Poland's building of the Augustavas bypass on the Via Baltica, which was commenced before Poland joined the EU. The appeal is based on claims that the environmental protection requirements of the Rospuda Valley, through which the projected viaduct must pass, will be violated. The territory is protected by the Natura 2000 programme.
However, no such environmental protection issues have been raised concerning the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which is projected to pass through Natura 2000 territory and which may lead to unpredictable ecological consequences.
Poland is seeking ways of solving the problem, perhaps by building a considerably more expensive tunnel. However, the people of Augustavas want to live quietly. No one is concerned about the residents suffering from pollution.
I have asked the Commission what solution there might be, apart from a prohibition on building the bypass, and what help Poland might get. It was explained to me that in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission is not empowered to dictate concrete solutions to Member States nor to prescribe expenditure.
Perhaps it is time to review the Commission's powers?
Will residents of the Baltic countries be obliged to travel to Europe only by air?
Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski  -
(PL) Madam President, the natural environment is very important. Indeed, it is one of the most important issues today. The natural world is an independent part of our surroundings. We did not create it and we should certainly protect it.
However, protecting the environment cannot become an alibi for certain small groups of environmental activists who resort to blackmailing specific regions and governments. For reasons that are rather more political than environmental, and due to expected material gains, these groups are trying to block the construction of roads, bypasses and airports. A classic example of the misuse of environmental arguments is the campaign against the construction of an airport in Świdniku, near Lublin, in Poland. The colony of marmots is the reason given. However, no mention is made of the fact that this was not their original habitat and that, according to experts, they could be safely relocated to another site.
Similarly dubious arguments are used by environmentalists to argue against other planned investments in Central and Eastern Europe, including the Via Baltica. No mention is made of the fact that a referendum in Poland produced a definite majority in favour of the project in the region where the bypass is supposed to be built.
European environmental regulations cannot be applied automatically, without acknowledging that specific cases exist. We should use our common sense and not be led by ideological feelings. Use of the environment as a scarecrow could be prevented by more investment in infrastructure in the new Member States. Let us not forget that these investments really do influence peoples' quality of life, and that their right to good quality infrastructure is at least as important as environmental considerations.
Stanisław Jałowiecki
- (PL) Madam President, it is true that Poland, which has done a lot since starting its programme of reforms 18 years ago, has unfortunately neglected the building of roads. That is a fact.
We are now quickly trying to make up for lost ground, although this is clearly far from easy. One of the hurdles in our path consists of environmental restrictions. We should bear in mind that when Western Europe was building roads that covered a significant proportion of its territory, no such restrictions existed on the construction of transport networks. Now, a conflict has erupted.
However, nature is not mute in this conflict. Various environmental groups speak on behalf of the environment. Indeed, they often speak too loudly, forgetting that man is also an important, if not the most important, part of this ecosystem. Indeed, it is man who needs to be protected, first and foremost.
It is regrettable that the conflict surrounding the construction work in the Rospuda Valley has escalated to such an extent and that it has become so complicated, including its political dimension. Is there a way out? Is there a sensible solution which could satisfy both sides? I am afraid that the answer is no and that the Commission has to choose. A decision has to be made.
I personally think that the road should be built. However, permission for the work should include a strict list of conditions that have to be met in order to minimise damage to the environment. This is because, let us admit, losses cannot be avoided. They accompany civilisation, as progress is never free. Everything has its price.
Bogusław Liberadzki
(PL) Madam President, the Via Baltica is most important in terms of increasing cohesion within the European Union. It is important in terms of decreasing the temporal distance separating the Baltic states, namely Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and indirectly also Finland, from the rest of the European Union, by means of access through Poland. The benefits for the Union and for Europe seem to be significant and measurable.
I am also aware of the very difficult situation in which the inhabitants of Augustów find themselves, as an increasingly large number of lorries, passenger vehicles and buses continues to pass through the town. Those people cannot continue to live like this. This region of Poland is very rich in natural resources: flora, fauna, lakes, forests and the entire landscape. Any road in this area will have a negative impact on the environment. However, it is simply impossible to avoid this region altogether. The road will give Europeans access to these landscapes and bring them closer, while not building the road will mean that the region will remain an inaccessible fortress.
In spite of the fact that the current Polish Government's stance has sometimes been less than professional, I would like to ask the Commission to take these aspects into account. It is possible and necessary for the Commission and the Polish Government to effectively seek a solution that will be beneficial to the Union, the citizens and bring relief to both the inhabitants of Augustów and the drivers of the vehicles passing through the area, without causing too much damage to the environment. During the mid-1990s, I was the Minister of Transport in Poland. I supported the project then, as I thought that it was necessary. Today, I continue to support the construction of the Via Baltica.
Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański
(PL) Madam President, it is my duty as a Polish Member of the European Parliament to inform my colleagues that the case of the Via Baltica has two sides to it. The first is environmental and the other is political.
The worst thing in this case is that the European Commission has also become involved in local electoral conflicts. I would like to take this opportunity to mention the fact that the European Commission has recently become too frequently and unnecessarily involved in matters which fall within the remit of Polish national and local government. That is why we will soon be hearing a lot about the E-19 road.
This begs the question: what does the Commission want? In Poland, people say that it wants to block resources allocated to Poland for the construction of motorways. Perhaps it would be better for the Commission to deal with issues such as GMOs in Europe, as this is the reason why we are facing the threat of an environmental and biological disaster, or perhaps the Schmidt farms, whose increasing pollution of the environment continues to go unpunished. There is much to do and there is no need to interfere with those who are doing an honest job.
Barbara Kudrycka
(PL) Madam President, the European Commission decided to file a case against Poland at the European Court of Justice because it began to build a section of road that was 1 500 metres longer than the road that is currently used by lorries and five kilometres of which infringes on land protected by the Natura 2000 programme. The current state of the road is so appalling that residents have dubbed it the 'road of death'. In 2006 alone, 14 people died and 25 were injured on that stretch of road near the small town of Augustów. Postponing the construction of the road by three to five years, as this is the minimum amount of time that the Court will need to deal with the case, and perhaps having to start from scratch with the investment process, may lead to another 40 to 70 deaths.
I would also like to mention the noise pollution created by the thousands of lorries which pass through Augustów and the potentially lethal threat of accidents involving lorries transporting dangerous goods through built-up areas.
The habitats directive permits investment in projects on Natura 2000 land in exceptional circumstances, if compensation is offered. Last Sunday, nearly 92% of local residents voted in a referendum in favour of the designated new route. Is this stance on the part of the residents not enough reason to withdraw the case filed at the European Court of Justice?
If the Commission does not decide to withdraw its complaint, it will show that it has not been able to fairly balance the opinions of a small but significant minority in the Directorate-General for the Environment, environmental groups and eco-terrorists, as well as the expectations and needs of the inhabitants, which both the mayor and the Marshall of the Voivodship presented to the Commission.
In this situation, if the alternative methods for building a bridge across the Rospuda Valley do not satisfy the Commission, a serious conflict may erupt, which threatens to permanently paralyse and block the road that is currently used. In view of how determined the local residents are, and I know that they are because I, unlike the others here, actually live in that area, anything is possible. If the aforementioned road is not going to be built soon, we should perhaps consider opening negotiations with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, with a view to diverting transit traffic from the Baltic states through these countries.
Katrin Saks
(ET) Madam President, as a representative of Estonia, I would like to emphasise the importance of the Via Baltica. Historically, this has, for us, been an important connection with European countries, and it must be developed so that it becomes quick and safe. Today it is neither.
This spring, for instance, it took more than 12 hours to get from Tallinn to Warsaw by car, and this is not as it should be. Thus we wholeheartedly welcome the opportunities offered by the Tenth Framework Programme for the construction of the motorway. That being said, a good road does not justify abandoning all environmental requirements. Nor are such roads likely to lead us to a happy future. Unfortunately, the Polish incident casts a shadow over the entire Via Baltica project, which is of vital importance for the Baltic region in particular.
We hope that the European Court of Justice will soon make its decision and that a compromise can be reached between the Commission and the Polish authorities as soon as possible. I would like to reiterate the importance of all connecting links between the Member States of the European Union - whether they be roads, railways or power lines. We cannot feel like full members of the European Union if these connecting links are virtually absent or in very poor condition.
Dalia Grybauskaitė
Madam President, I understand the sensitivity of this issue. We are talking about trans-European networks, about trans-European works and roads and people who are living near these roads.
We understand that this project started before the entry of Poland into the European Union. However, I would like to stress, on behalf of the Commission, that certain procedures need to be followed before large programmes can be started, in particular impact assessments. The Commission is urging Poland - as it is now its responsibility - to complete the impact assessment as soon as possible.
In comparison, and in reply to the question on the North Stream proposal, the project concerned has not yet started; the impact assessment is ongoing and this project can only start after the impact assessment is completed. That is a different matter. It is the opposite with the Via Baltica situation. There has been no impact assessment; the process is only halfway through, but the works are ongoing.
The works are ongoing outside Natura 2000. We do not have any information that Poland is breaching any decision of the Court. I can also confirm that no European financial resources have yet been given to the project.
There were some comments concerning the Commission's responsibilities and powers. They are outlined in the European Treaties. If you want to change them, then you will have to change the Treaties.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Filip Kaczmarek
in writing. - (PL) Madam President, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia need both the Via Baltica and other investments in road-building projects, as well as measures to protect the natural environment, including the Rospuda Valley. We cannot cut certain areas of the Union off from other regions and countries simply because of environmental protection requirements.
However, we cannot ignore the environment and use the need for infrastructural improvements as a way of justifying any decision we make. Experts tell us that there are alternative routes that do not damage the environment as much as the current plans. If that is the case, then we should focus on bringing forward their implementation, rather than stubbornly sticking to this less than ideal solution.
This problem is stirring up a lot of emotion in Poland. It seems that it would be more sensible to find a solution that is based on facts. The coalition governing Poland has made the issue extremely political. It has even forced a local referendum, which it is difficult to view as anything other than an attempt to use the issue of the route of the Via Baltica for their own purposes as the referendum took place at the same time as the regional elections. Furthermore, the referendum is not binding either for the European Court of Justice or even for the Polish authorities.
The best solution for the inhabitants of the region and future road users would seem to be a compromise at a European level, in order to make sure that the principle of sustainable development does ring hollow.
(The sitting was suspended at 11.35 and resumed at 12.00)


14. Fisheries and aquaculture in the context of ICZM in Europe (
- Before the vote:
Ioannis Gklavakis
rapporteur. - Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me briefly mention Integrated Coastal Zone Management, designed, above all, to protect fisheries and fish farming. The debate on the report has been cancelled owing to the debate on the situation in Georgia, which is an urgent and important matter. That is why I am speaking today.
My report is mainly about the protection of the environment, hence I ask for your votes in support of it. I note that the Committee on Fisheries has voted unanimously.
My report contains different proposals, four of which are particularly important. The first is the completion of the marine survey plan; second, the long-term plan but also continuing discussions, at which representatives of all professions, especially fishermen, participate. Thirdly, there is the possible formation of a central coordinating body, as there has been a lack of coordination between bodies in past years. Fourthly, a schedule should be set up because, since 2002, when there were similar talks, some actions have been taken without a defined timescale.
I suggest that what we decide upon should take place according to a timed schedule. Because I believe that all of us desire the protection of the ocean, I ask you to vote in favour and I thank you in advance.


One-minute speeches (Rule 144)
President
The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, for a number of months now, Polish farmers and exporters of farm produce have been unable to export their products to the Russian Federation. In March this year Ukraine became the latest country to ban the import of meat and meat products from Poland. The decision was taken without giving any legal grounds for it. It is surprising that talks between the European Union and the Russian Federation have yielded no results. Perhaps the European Commission does not attach the required importance to matters of trade between Poland and Russia, and gives priority to other interests of the European Union and other countries. For this reason, I again ask the European Commission to do everything it can to have the export ban on Polish agricultural products in Ukraine and Russia lifted. This is a problem that is within the competence of the European Commission, and also within the scope of its responsibility.
Mario Borghezio
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a few hours ago an Internet website linked to Al Qaeda declared a holy war through the Internet, inviting all the Muslim hackers of the world to bombard Christian websites, especially the Pope's. This is, in my opinion, an extremely serious matter and an attack on the fundamental principle of religious freedom.
When the freedom to be able to address the world by means of communication is under attack, especially at the highest level, and aim is taken at a religion, indeed at an entire system of belief, one of the basic values of the European Union is under attack: the principle of religious freedom. Europe cannot remain silent about this. We are faced with an escalation of actions and initiatives whose purpose is to strike at the basic principles of our freedom. We must defend ourselves from such arrogance and from such a totalitarian escalation of Islamic fundamentalist extremism.
Katalin Lévai
(HU) I feel that as a Hungarian MEP, I ought to respond to the sudden international interest in my homeland.
It is my conviction that there is unnecessarily great concern in the European Parliament with internal political struggles, and my Hungarian colleagues in the opposition have brought an atmosphere of Cold War politics into the building. We did not receive our mandate in order to bring the conflicts among our domestic parties onto a European political stage, as this serves only to increase the distance between the European institutions and the citizens of the European Union. It cannot be in anyone's interest to present a biased image of Hungary and to destroy the positive image of the country that we have worked so hard to build up.
If we want the decreasing confidence in the EU and its institutions to be restored, we must transcend petty conflicts of interest and engage in European-style politics to meet the not insignificant challenges that face us. The further enlargement of the Union, offences against human rights, the negative effects of globalisation and the efficient collection and expenditure of EU funds for the development of neglected regions are but a few of these. We have a lot to do.
Marco Pannella
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, less than twenty-four hours ago I was in Moscow and, for one moment, was on the point of putting on the MEP's sash while I was among the thousands of people paying their last respects to Anna Politkovskaya. Then I thought that that would offend the gaze of that lady, even though she could not see me, to see our emblem on display.
The journalist Anna Politkovskaya told us what you did not wish to see or hear. On page 6 of today's Le Monde we read about people arrested in Moscow because they said: 'Georgians, we are on your side!'. Georgians, not Chechens. The symbols worn by those who were arrested were, moreover, those of the Transnational Radical Party. We, as radicals and liberals, have brought to this Parliament members of the Chechen Government in exile, who came to announce that they had chosen non-violence. Nothing was done about it.
Mr President, allow me to make a suggestion: let us no longer call our buildings 'Schuman' or 'Adenauer'; let us call them 'Daladier' and 'Ollenhauer'. Let us remove these names that we have no right to use ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Kartika Tamara Liotard
(NL) Mr President, I should like to draw your attention to the poisoning scandal involving the Probo Koala in Ivory Coast a few weeks ago, the repercussions of which are as yet incalculable. The ship has, or will soon have, permission to leave Estonia. There is still much uncertainty as to what will happen with the poison and the contaminated crew. My observer, who travelled to Estonia on my behalf, totally agrees with Commissioner Dimas when he says that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Poison of that kind should never have left the EU in the first place. This is a breach of European and international law. Having been denied the opportunity to speak with the crew of the Probo Koala on several occasions, despite prior permission, I can only conclude that various authorities are playing a very underhand game with human lives, a game that is not yet over by a long way. The Probo Emoe is already appearing over the horizon.
Kinga Gál
(HU) As I mentioned at the meeting last week of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the greatest and most tangible achievement of the rule of law is precisely citizens' free exercise of political rights. These, of course, are not to be confused with inadmissible violent acts.
For this reason, I wish to draw Parliament's attention to the investigations and the offences requiring investigation which took place in Budapest on the night of 19-20 September, the consequences of which are still being felt to this day, calling into question the effectiveness of the rule of law in Hungary. According to complaints, the police used excessive force on the two days in question, and took disproportionately harsh measures not only against the demonstrators but against young people, including several foreign nationals, who were on the streets. Among those they arrested, punished collectively and in some cases still continue to detain were some individuals who had absolutely nothing to do with the violent events.
It is important that the use of force to curtail fundamental human rights and in particular personal freedom - such as preliminary arrest and detention - should be used only in cases where they are absolutely convinced that this is truly necessary.
Antonio De Blasio
(HU) Mr President, the European spirit is under threat in Hungary; we are moving further away from Europe. The socialist Minister of Local Government and Regional Development made a promise to his fellow coalition members last Saturday that he would make the appropriate legislative amendments to ensure that, in future, development funds from the European Union are distributed based on party political considerations.
If this becomes a reality, it would no longer be elected bodies that decide on the use of funds from the EU budget, but rather party political intentions would set the course, thus providing fertile ground for non-transparent, unverifiable spending. This declaration not only endangers Hungary's credibility in the European Union, but also the development of a European spirit in Hungary, which demands that EU funds should serve cohesion and unity among the Hungarian people, based on the realisation of the fundamental principles of democracy.
The remarks by the socialist minister unambiguously point to the fact that the use of EU funds serves the aim of enriching the Hungarian socialist party elite.
Gyula Hegyi
Mr President, last Friday the Hungarian Government gained a solid majority in a vote of confidence in the Hungarian Parliament. As a result, our national currency has become stronger, economic prospects are better and Hungary has returned to normal life. There is no general crisis in Budapest. Only our leading opposition party, Fidesz, is in crisis. The elected members of the national parliament lead anti-democratic demonstrations on the streets instead of opposing the government inside the parliament. As far as I know, elected parliamentarians should work in the parliament, not on the street, where extreme-right wrongdoers who were also demonstrating set fire to a building housing a television station.
It would be very wise if the PPE-DE Group could tell its Hungarian members that parliamentary democracy should mean respect for parliament, respect for parliamentary elections and strict borderlines between democratic politics and non-parliamentary extremism.
Marios Matsakis
Mr President, a report recently issued by the United Nations Human Rights Office for Iraq states that the bodies at the Baghdad mortuary often bear signs of horrific torture, including acid burns, excision of eyes and teeth and wounds made by drills and nails. Human rights organisations have repeatedly reported that acts of torture are taking place in the prisons run by the US and British forces and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and Defence and in prisons controlled by various military factions. The UN Human Rights Office's position is that the level of torture in Iraq today is worse than it was during Saddam Hussein's rule of terror.
The EU, and Parliament in particular, have an obligation to respond appropriately to this UN report. I call upon you, as well as the President of the Commission and the Finnish Presidency, to make a clear statement on the issue as soon as possible.
Bogusław Rogalski
(PL) Mr President, at last year's confidential session of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on a new partnership agreement with Russia, the PCA, Mr Brok, the chairman of the committee, acted in a scandalous way. Mr Brok reacted brusquely to my question to Mr Mingarelli, whose job was to reassure the new Member States that the planned agreement with Russia would not affect their energy security, and that the agreement would not be concluded in the manner of the agreement on building the northern pipeline, in other words that it would not protect exclusively German interests. In a raised voice he replied that it was the kind of question that might be raised at an election rally in his country and rejected it without giving the speaker a chance to reply. Leaving aside the fact that the reaction itself was quite arrogant and supercilious, Mr Brok allowed the principles of parliamentary democracy, which is based on pluralism of views and freedom of expression by MEPs, to be violated. His behaviour showed extreme bias in the running of the committee towards securing the sanctity of German-Russian relations.
I ask the President to respond to this and to explain the behaviour of Mr Brok in his discrimination against MEPs from the new Member States.
Marie Anne Isler Béguin
(FR) Mr President, one event chases away another. Nonetheless we are now witnessing live the escalation of violations of the rules of international law perpetrated by Russia against Georgia: the granting of Russian citizenship to the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the rejection of the peace plan proposed by Georgia to settle the conflicts with the separatist regions and the closure of the two border crossing points. Tension has further increased following the arrest of Russian spies by Georgia, with reprisals from Moscow which has hunted down Georgians and is trying to economically strangle its neighbour by unilaterally introducing sanctions blocking trade between Russia and Georgia. Finally, by giving the impression that Russia would recognise the separatist regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, if Kosovo gained its independence, Mr Putin makes the resolution of the conflict even more remote. The list is long and the Georgians are utterly exasperated.
Faced with this situation on the brink of explosion, the European Union has a crucial role to play in bringing the sides, and especially Russia on the occasion of European Union/Russia negotiations, to the negotiating table to find a solution and put an end to this latent conflict in the Southern Caucasus. The Neighbourhood Policy allows us this; military action would be a total failure of our policies.
Carlo Fatuzzo
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, EUR 10 billion is the sum that the Italian Government has concealed and written off from its debts in presenting the national budget for 2007. I thank you warmly for having given me the floor to make it known, through this Parliament, especially to the Commission, that the budget that has reached you from the Italian Government lacks a debit entry of EUR 10 billion.
To whom is this debit owed? To the Italian pensioners who have worked in Switzerland and are awaiting this payment of EUR 10 billion, which the Italian Government has no intention of paying and - what is worse - which they have deleted from the budget. No one knows that there is a debit item of EUR 10 billion in the Italian national budget. I hope that, from today, it will be known to everyone.
Toomas Savi
(ET) Mr President, last Saturday, Russia was once again the scene of a political murder. The first few years of the 21st century have clearly demonstrated that in Russia the right to express the truth is a taboo for which people must all too often pay the ultimate price - their lives.
Political foul play has become a part of everyday life in Russia, and unfortunately we too must come to terms with this. Anna Politkovskaya's struggle for democracy, human rights and freedom of expression is the best thing that could have been done in the interests of tomorrow's Russia and a better Europe.
Ladies and gentlemen, I sincerely believe and hope that Parliament and the unofficial meeting of the Heads of State or Government at the informal dinner to be held in Lahti on 20 October will be able to exert sufficient pressure on President Putin to ensure that the truth of this terrible injustice is revealed as soon as possible, and that all those who participated in it are brought to justice.
Leopold Józef Rutowicz
(PL) Mr President, I would like to raise the issue of water shortages, which is becoming an important matter for many citizens of Europe.
Water is necessary for life and for economic activity. Unfortunately, the constant increase in temperatures in the 25 Member States (by 0.2oC over 10 years) and a reduction in precipitation in many regions have made access to water increasingly difficult for many citizens, leading to losses in agriculture and problems in manufacturing. The water situation is rapidly deteriorating, while investments in renewing water resources and water conservation are a long-term, costly process. This makes it necessary to organise training and the exchange of experience, and to popularise best practice and methods for the rational use of water and water conservation. Economic activities should also be redirected towards rationalising the water situation in all areas of the economy. Water shortages could become a barrier to agricultural production, and in particular to the production of raw materials for biofuels, whose supply is not a problem. The water situation must be constantly monitored, and Parliament needs to be kept regularly informed ...
(The President cut off the speaker.)
DanutBudreikait
- (LT) While travelling to the Women's Basketball World Championships, the Lithuanian basketball players ended up stuck in French Guiana on their way to Brazil and were unable to depart for four days. Brazil refused to admit anyone who was not vaccinated against yellow fever.
After subsequent vaccination and the verbal assurances of the Minister of Health of Brazil that everything would be all right, the Lithuanian team finally reached Belen in Brazil by chartered aeroplane. However, they were rudely forced back onto the plane by immigration officers and sent back to Cayenne.
Only the Lithuanian basketball players received such treatment. Other Europeans who were vaccinated at the same time were admitted to Belen. Brazilian officers made it clear that German players would face no problems in this situation.
Why is Lithuania subject to double standards, as if it were not a European Union Member State? It would appear necessary to allocate more funding for raising awareness about the new EU countries, not only within the EU, but also abroad.
Laima Liucija Andrikien
- (LT) Can a mouse really scare an elephant? It would appear so, and the current crisis in relations between Russia and Georgia is evidence of this.
The European Union has a choice of how to react to events in its neighbourhood: it can just make a statement or get actively involved in the peaceful settlement of this conflict.
I welcome the participation of Mr De Gucht, the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, in handing over the Russian officers to Russia and his statement made on behalf of the EU. However, this is still not enough.
I believe that, if Russia is considering the possibility of military action in resolving the conflict with Georgia, the European Union must make every effort to immediately stop the deportation of Georgians from Russia and the compiling of lists of pupils from Moscow schools with Georgian family names, as this reminds us of the policy of Nazi Germany and the deportation of citizens of Jewish nationality.
During the deportations following the Soviet occupation, my parents were transported to Siberia in wagons for animals. Now the means of transport have changed: Georgians are deported from Moscow in planes used for the transport of cargo. Such acts and such a policy cannot be allowed to continue.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
(PL) Mr President, in May this year we adopted at second reading the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods, which states that as of 1 January 2007 European law will make food producers responsible for placing accurate information regarding the properties of food products on packaging. This means in practice that all the health benefits of products must be confirmed by independent laboratories.
Unfortunately these regulations will only superficially benefit consumers. Also, the EU regulation may eliminate the products of small and medium-sized companies who will be unable to afford tests of the same standard as wealthy European firms. In effect, consumers will have less and less choice and will be unable to make informed purchases, and they will still not know what they are actually buying. The destructive mechanism of such competition could be restricted by licensing the right to issue recommendatory health symbols, and creating a uniform system of recognising healthy products. It is also essential to give special support to small and medium-sized enterprises, whose products are often of higher quality than the products of large companies on our common market.
Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski
(PL) Mr President, the Republic of Lithuania gained independence just over a decade ago. This fact was celebrated by all of democratic Europe. Lithuania immediately started to introduce social and economic reforms, the aim of which was to eliminate the remains of Soviet occupation. An important role in achieving independence was played by the large Polish minority (10% of the total population), which has for centuries inhabited the areas around the capital Vilnius. However, although many years have gone by since the end of Soviet rule, the Lithuanian authorities have so far failed to return to the Poles the land that was confiscated from them by the occupying forces. And despite numerous agreements, Lithuania has refused to allow Polish names to be written in their Polish spelling, insisting that they be written in Lithuanian. These activities are a blatant breach of European regulations on national and ethnic minorities in EU Member States.
Oldřich Vlasák
(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, if I may, to draw the Chamber's attention to a serious problem facing the Czech Republic as regards drawing on cohesion funds for modernising the waste-water sector. In order for us to honour our obligations under the directive on waste-water treatment, we will have to invest over EUR 4 million by 2010, more than 10% of our annual national budget. We agree, of course, that this cannot be done without EU subsidies. I therefore fail to understand how it is possible that in the Commission there are projects aimed at bringing clean water to Czech towns that have been lying untouched for a year and a half. These are projects put forward by our water companies based on an operational model that is in line with Community law, and yet Commission officials, acting on the basis of personal whim, refuse to authorise them and try instead to dictate to us, the elected representatives of these towns, what sort of contracts we should be signing and how we should be solving the problems of the water sector. Let us not forget that the Czech Republic is in the heart of Europe and that the main European rivers rise there and flow into neighbouring countries. This is therefore not only a Czech problem, but also a European one.
Marco Cappato
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have emphasised the untimeliness of the statement by Mr Barroso, President of the Commission, before the vote in Parliament on the Eurlings report on Turkey, since Mr Barroso influenced the vote with his negative observations, aimed at ruling out Turkey's prospects of membership. Furthermore, given the subsequent comments by Mr Rehn and Mr Verheugen, one must think that Mr Barroso was lacking in foresight concerning not only our Parliament but also the Commission itself.
I wish to express my full support for Mr Verheugen's statement, which confirmed the objective of full membership of the European Union for Turkey and emphasised that it is in our interests to have a Turkey that is linked to the West: that is, a democratic Turkey governed by the rule of law, which respects human rights and protects the rights of minorities. This, in my opinion, is the objective that we must keep in view: a European Union that is capable of promoting democracy and the rule of law and - please allow me to say this, Mr President - a European Union that should have had the courage to send representatives of Parliament, the Commission and the Council to the funeral of Anna Politkovskaya, something that, in the event, it did not do.
Nils Lundgren
. - (SV) Mr President, you recently contended that the historic dimension possessed by the EU seat in Strasbourg cannot be viewed in the same way by certain Nordic countries that did not participate in the Second World War. The people of the Nordic region did not suffer enough during the Second World War to be able to understand the symbolic value of having the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Thus, Nordic criticism of the European Parliament's expensive commute to Strasbourg can be dismissed.
Your statement was, of course, entirely erroneous from an historical point of view - Finland, Norway and Denmark were, in fact, involved in the Second World War - but it is also remarkable in another respect, in that the President of the European Parliament is entirely serious in believing that we should not listen to views on the sites at which the European Parliament sits if such views are expressed by citizens and MEPs from countries that did not take part in the Second World War. This is a grotesque idea, the only redeeming feature of which is that we thus need not listen to the President either, as Spain was also a non-combatant country in the Second World War. This line of thought is unreasonable. The peoples of Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden today have as much right to be heard in the current debate as those of other countries. It is scandalous that the person entrusted to be the President of the European Parliament should have such poor judgment as to consider himself entitled to tell us whom we should listen to and whom we should try to silence.
(The President cut off the speaker)
President
Thank you very much, Mr Lundgren. I wonder whether you have had time to read the letter that I wrote in response to the letter sent to me by several Members, and which you will have received. Have you read it? If you have, I do not understand your question. You are still saying things that are entirely false.
In that letter I explained to everybody what I said. What I said is nothing like what you claim I have said. In that letter, I explain clearly that I merely pointed out that some countries may be influenced in their points of view by the fact that, during their history, they did not take part in the world war. That is in no way intended to imply that some countries have no right to express an opinion. It does not mean that their opinion should not be heard. I simply say that they have different opinions and that one of the reasons for that may be that they have different histories.
Why do you say that the President of Parliament is denying anybody the right to express an opinion? Do you imagine that I am stupid enough to deny any European citizen the right to express an opinion because of their country's history?
Of course everybody has the right to express their opinion. I simply say that opinions may vary for differing historical reasons. Quite frankly, I do not understand why we are having such an absurd debate about a misinterpretation of my words that you, I regret to say, are persisting with.
Árpád Duka-Zólyomi
(HU) It is unfortunate that the question of the conflict between Georgia and Russia, and a debate on these unusually disturbing tensions is not on the agenda. This would be a very opportune time for such a discussion.
Things are happening in the Caucasus that may seem astonishing at first glance, but in reality are the natural consequences of a decade and a half of Russian-Georgian relations. The retaliation and punishment following the discovery of a group of Russian spies reflect a warlike situation. It is unacceptable that the Russians should expel Georgian citizens from the country on the basis of their ethnic identity. We are faced with a violation of human and civil rights and freedoms. It is obvious that the Russian Federation cannot accept that it has lost its influence over the Georgian Republic. It finds this hard to bear, as it feels its identity as a great power threatened.
The Council, the Commission and Parliament have a great responsibility. They need to intervene more decisively and negotiate with the Russians. First of all, we need to establish what the territorial integrity of Georgia means, for at present this is understood in several different ways. It is only through peaceful means that a solution can be found, and we must avoid the outbreak of another armed conflict in the region.
Marian Harkin
Mr President, I wish to raise the European perspective of the proposed takeover of Aer Lingus by Ryanair. Until recently, Aer Lingus was the Irish national carrier and in state ownership. It was in a healthy economic situation but needed to raise finance to renew its fleet. The Irish Government said that the EU would not permit any state investment in the airline, which is news to me. As I understand it, a state has flexibility in investing in airlines if in fact they are in a healthy economic position - as indeed Aer Lingus was. This is another example of the 'blame Brussels' mentality, whereby a national government can explain its own actions by saying, 'the EU will not allow that', when that is not necessarily the case. However, that is history, and we now have Aer Lingus being targeted in a takeover bid by its main rival, Ryanair.
In a way it is ironic that on the one hand we blame the EU for the current situation when in fact no blame attaches, while on the other hand we will undoubtedly make a case to the Commission's DG Competition to block the takeover, to save us from our own actions and to protect us from the consequences of those actions.
Pedro Guerreiro
(PT) Mr President, I should like to take this opportunity to salute Portuguese workers and their union confederation, the CGT-IN, who will be holding a general day of protest tomorrow, 12 October, against the right-wing policies pursued in Portugal. Among other issues, the Portuguese workers are fighting against the government's social security proposals aimed at raising the retirement age and at reducing pensions; they are fighting to protect and increase domestic manufacturing, to create jobs with associated rights, to defend public services and public administration designed to serve the citizens; and they are fighting for the right to collective contracts, for higher wages and for the fair distribution of wealth.
I wish to say a final word, Mr President, on the European Court of Justice's recent ruling on the Cadman case regarding maternity/paternity leave and salary calculations. In my view, it is utterly unacceptable that this could be seen as, and used for the purpose of, bringing into question the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', which is enshrined in Article 59 of the Constitution of the Republic of Portugal.
Milan Gaľa
- (SK) Last June the European Commission developed a proposal envisaging a reduction in land areas taken up by vineyards in the European Union. The losses and consequences resulting from this reduction would be offset through a package of direct agricultural payments totalling EUR 2.4 billion. This proposal would affect nearly 12% of the total surface area of vineyards, in other words approximately 4 000 hectares tended by about one and a half million viticulturists. This step could entirely undermine wine production in Slovakia, which has experienced substantial growth over the past few years, especially in terms of wine quality; in addition, this comes at a time when Slovak wines are becoming increasingly competitive in European Union markets.
The Commission's proposal also prohibits the use of added sugar in producing certain types of wine, although in my country this procedure is traditional, as the vines cultivated in Slovakia are characterised by higher acidity, which is typical for the region. I am not questioning the need for reform in the European wine market, but I believe we should look to other solutions.
Gerard Batten
Mr President, next week a LIBE Committee delegation will visit Algeria. However, one of the Algerian visa requirements is the absence of an Israeli visa passport stamp. Mr Gaubert noticed this and was rightly appalled at this blatant anti-Semitism. He demanded an explanation. The matter was referred to you, Mr President, and you were asked to make representations to the Algerians. I understand that you refused to do so, saying it was a matter for individual MEPs. Mr Gaubert has quite rightly refused to go on the trip.
This raises two important issues. First, why has the European Union sent almost one billion euro to Algeria since 1996, when that country is implementing a blatantly anti-Semitic policy? The EU should stop these payments immediately.
The second issue is the apparent dereliction of duty by you, Mr President, when you could have made a stand against Algeria's anti-Semitism, backed by the weight of your office. Please reconsider and rectify this situation.
President
The truth is that I do not know what you are referring to, Mr Batten, but you are welcome to clarify what you have said to me. If you would be kind enough to give me the details, I will be able to ascertain whether or not I have acted correctly and, if necessary, I will put things right.
I am happy for you to explain your point further.
Witold Tomczak
(PL) Mr President, today's debate about the soft fruit sector gives rise to the hope that the two years of attempts to change the organisation of the fruit and vegetable market are now beginning to take effect. Is it not strange that the Member State that supplies 90% of the EU's frozen strawberries had to wait so long for a decision to introduce protective customs tariffs? Many Polish farmers have incurred huge losses in the past few years while waiting for an end to Chinese dumping on the market. Nobody will compensate them for these losses. But the fruit and vegetable market is not confined just to strawberries. The 18 main produce types introduced by the new Member States are an issue that has still not been regulated. These include above all cooking apples. Polish apple growers will soon be protesting against the low prices offered by the processing industry.
Parliament has spent two years attempting to regulate this sector of the fruit and vegetable market, so far to no avail. Suffice it to say that apples are the main fruit in the European Union as regards harvesting (they account for 32% of all fruit harvested), while the EU is also a major importer of this fruit. How much longer will we have to wait for this and other segments of the fruit and vegetable market to be regulated as promised in the European Parliament's resolution on simplification of the common market organisation in fruit and vegetables of 11 May 2005? Will this vote be honoured by the European Commission?
President
A member of the secretariat will speak to Mr Batten so that he can explain the point he has made with regard to relations with Algeria and the President's compliance with his duties.
That concludes this item.


Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
Carlo Fatuzzo
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this great parliamentary Chamber, crowded by Members from all 27 of our Member States. I rarely get such an opportunity to make myself heard by so many.
It falls to me on this occasion to explain my vote in favour of the report by Mr Belder on trade and economic relations with Western Balkans. I am absolutely in favour of the European Union making it as easy as possible for these Balkan states to join the European Union. I believe that it is important for economic aid to be higher than that allocated to date, and that we should make it possible to increase links between the Balkan states and Europe, develop tourism and allow all Balkan citizens, young and old, to live a better life than they have until now.
Marian Harkin
Madam President, first, I just wish to record the fact that I pressed the wrong button on the McGuinness report. In fact, I completely support the McGuinness report on food security - but I will check that with the services later.
I particularly agree with the point that we need to adapt the CAP to meet food security concerns and the fact that farmers need a stable policy environment in order to plan for the future. We cannot have certainty, but we certainly need to have some stability.
In addition, I support the fact that the market alone cannot provide income security for producers and also the call for a detailed impact assessment, in particular, let us say, on the implications for food security. If we look at particular EU proposals, for example on plant protection, again we need a proper detailed impact assessment on that, and we need to take food security into consideration when we conduct that assessment.
Mairead McGuinness
Madam President, I would like to thank colleagues for their endorsement of this report and Marian Harkin for her words of support.
It presents a clear statement of the view of this House on agriculture policy, not just at the European level, but also at a global level. In particular - and this is important - it calls for a refocus on agriculture policy in the developing world, providing assistance to those who can produce food to do so locally. I believe the EUR 1 billion that the European Union will provide for this purpose is a step in the right direction.
Obviously, I supported my own report. I believe it is a blueprint for the future in terms of how this House views agriculture. While the food security debate has gone off the political agenda, the problem of 30 000 children dying of hunger and starvation every day remains with us.
David Sumberg
Madam President, I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to explain why I abstained on the McGuinness report. It focuses on a very important aspect of the European Union and that is the absolute essentiality of ensuring food supplies to those who are starving or those who do not have a proper food supply. Nobody could be against that, and I am certainly not against that. But the problem with the report, in my view, is that it looks and refers to the common agricultural policy and does not address the fact that there is an urgent need for the reform, and further reform, of that policy.
It is not serving the people of Europe well; it is not serving the farmers of Britain well. Until that burden is taken away from the European taxpayers, then we are going to be in difficulties. Yes, the objectives of the report are right, but I am afraid that it fails very badly in addressing the core problem.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) I fully endorse most of the proposals and statements contained in the McGuinness report, which was adopted a moment ago. Sudden fluctuations in food prices are going to occur in the global market with increasing frequency, which will have negative consequences.
Price rises are felt most by low-income families, who spend a significant proportion of their budget on food. It is just such people who deserve help: the most needy people, both in developing countries and in the European Union. I agree that the common agricultural policy should be adapted to the new conditions in order to better address the problems of food security, and this is why the removal of instruments which manage markets and a reduction in the level of EU expenditure on agriculture in the future financial perspective should be opposed.
It is a good idea to establish an international body which will observe the prices of agricultural products and factors of their production under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization, in order to monitor these data on a world scale and to be able to react rapidly to fluctuations. I think the establishment of a world system of storing food supplies should also be considered.
Syed Kamall
Madam President, I am grateful for this opportunity to explain why I also abstained on this report.
I think most people in this Chamber, from whatever part of the political spectrum they come from, would agree that food security is very important. The problem is that we do not agree on what food security is. To many of us, food security is making sure that there is enough food for the people of the world - wherever they come from. For others, it is an excuse for protectionism. Food security to them means only food produced in the EU for Europeans. 'Local production' is a phrase that I often hear used. I hear people using the excuse of food security to keep out imports from the rest of the world, thereby condemning the high-quality exports that we see from many of the poorer countries of the world and condemning many more farmers in poorer countries to poverty.
To say that a common agricultural policy should be the cornerstone of food security is an amazing statement which needs to be shot down.
Christopher Heaton-Harris
Madam President, I concur with the comments made by my excellent colleague Mr Syed Kamall on this matter. I abstained because it was my party's whip to abstain on this report, but everybody knows that food security is a very important subject to us all, which is why I am bemused by the way that this place deals with such a matter.
In this particular report - which I believe we all voted for - we mention the problem we were just about to create for ourselves by voting for the plant protection products directive. We have just undermined European food security. About three minutes after we voted for this report we were basically ensuring that our farmers would not be able to grow enough food for our continent in the future. I find this bizarre. It is a shame that nobody else seems to read some of these reports that go through this place.
Avril Doyle
Madam President, one of the biggest concerns and one of the keys in relation to global food security is to ensure sufficient, sustainable production and, indeed, food security in the so-called developed world, such as here in the EU, so that we can export our surplus production and are not competing ourselves on world markets for food, thereby increasing the prices for those in regions who do not have the climate, the soil, the know-how and the investment to produce their own food.
We have to be very careful with our policies to ensure that we are responding not only environmentally but also globally to the necessity for sustainable food production.
Peter Baco
(SK) I voted for the report on the common agricultural policy and global food security because it deals with issues that I have consistently been raising in the European Parliament as matters of priority.
The first issues involves the reduction in producer costs, which will lead to greater global competitiveness. The second issue is the reduction in the volatility of food markets, especially by increasing stocks. The third issue concerns halting the decline in the social importance of agriculture by increasing public awareness of its unique and irreplaceable role. The fourth issue concerns ending the random operation of the common agricultural policy (CAP) by implementing a systemic organisation of the policy with a focus on long-term objectives. The fifth and final issue involves putting a stop to the agricultural decline in the new Member States caused by the CAP's discriminatory principles, while significantly boosting utilisation of wasted agricultural potential in these countries, the new Member States.
David Sumberg
Madam President, this goes to the core of this whole European Union. Here we are approving more money to try and persuade the public to vote for the wretched Lisbon Treaty. The public, on being given a chance in the Republic of Ireland, made it absolutely clear that they do not want it and if the people of Britain were to be given a chance - and they should have been because they were promised it in the last general election by the Labour Government - they would also vote overwhelmingly to reject this Treaty.
The message should be heard loud and clear in the European Union, it really should: people do not want it. People do not want more control in Brussels and Strasbourg. People want their own governments and their own legislatures to be making the decisions that affect them. Until that message is received we will keep pumping more taxpayers' money into forcing people to the polling box in the pretence that you actually persuade them to change their minds. They will not do so.
Marian Harkin
Madam President, first of all I would like to say that this is an excellent report. We are always speaking about connecting the EU to its citizens and the fact that the EU project cannot proceed without the involvement of EU citizens.
There are two types of democracy: representative, which we have in this House, and participative, which is what this report is all about. However, it is important to understand that civil dialogue is two-sided. It is reciprocal. Therefore, the concerns and ideas put forward by citizens must be taken into consideration by the EU institutions. I think we have an excellent example of that in the one million signatures for disability and the document that we are debating in this Parliament at the moment.
I disagree with the last speaker because I believe, if we do pass the Lisbon Treaty, that it gives us the opportunity to connect citizens to the EU in a much more meaningful way. Our role in this House is to ensure, if we pass the Lisbon Treaty, that it works effectively.
Daniel Hannan
Madam President, much can be inferred from the title of this report: 'Perspectives for developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon'. Never mind that, as it seems periodically necessary to remind this House, the Treaty of Lisbon is not in force. It has been three times rejected in its several forms by 55% of French voters, by 62% of Dutch voters and by 54% of Irish voters.
Focus rather on the Orwellian Ministry of Love bit of the title 'Perspectives for developing civil dialogue'. Now, ordinary voters unversed in the peculiar idiom of the European Union might not understand those words, as we in this House do, to mean creating a new propaganda budget to try and convince people to change their minds.
I have to say that not every euro in the vaults of the European Central Bank will serve to convince people of an intrinsically bad idea.
Dialogue by definition involves two parties. The EU has to be able to receive as well as transmit. That means putting the Treaty to a referendum. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!
Syed Kamall
Madam President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the way I voted on this report.
When I read the title of the report, 'Civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon', it reminded me of a phrase by Mahatma Gandhi. When he was asked about Western civilisation, he said, that 'that would be a good idea'. Therefore, when I read this title, 'Civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon', I thought, 'that would be a good idea, would it not?' If only we had civil dialogue. If only we had two-way dialogue. One of the previous speakers said that dialogue is very much a two-way process, but if we look at some of the civil society organisations being funded in order to promote the Treaty of Lisbon, we only see organisations that are fully signed up to promoting this fundamentally undemocratic Treaty. How many organisations that are against the Treaty will be funded or will be allowed to be promoted? There is no two-way dialogue, and that is why the citizens of the EU, when they are given the chance and asked about the Treaty of Lisbon, will choose to reject it.
Syed Kamall
Madam President, thank you all for your patience in the Chamber. I wanted to speak on this but I have just got too much to say today, I am so excited by all the votes that have been going through the Chamber today. Yes, the common fisheries policy; yes, let us talk about sustainable development - but the two are inherently contradictory. If you want to look at a sustainable fisheries policy, you have to look at property rights and market-based solutions. Look at those countries where fishermen are given rights that are tradable and passed on from generation to generation. That is the best way to make sure that we have sustainable fish stocks, not some artificial communistic method where you have central planning in fishing. That is why we are seeing great depletion of fish stocks, and we will all suffer in the end.
President
We will now suspend the sitting. We will return to the explanations of vote after the formal sitting.


Facing oil challenges (short presentation)
President
The next item is a brief presentation of the report by Herbert Reul, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on 'Possible solutions to the challenges in relation to oil supply'.
Herbert Reul
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in this report on oil supply I make a plea - and this was also agreed in committee - for emphasis to be placed on the importance of oil in the European energy supply of the future. Oil will clearly remain a very important source of primary energy in the EU even in the medium and long term.
We have been seeing a steep rise in demand caused by economic and population growth and also by the desire for individual mobility. In recent months and years we have been concerning ourselves in varying ways - the report also concentrates on this to a large extent - with the logical question that arises as to how to reduce consumption, how to reduce demand. How can we lower our consumption or cover it with other energy sources too?
This report seeks to look at the fact that we politicians should be thinking about whether and how the resources, the supply side, can be increased and what can be done in this regard. Three or four points are mentioned in this regard. Firstly, massive investment is needed to produce and exploit the available oil: USD 350 billion per annum is the figure always quoted in this connection.
Secondly, it must be pointed out that we need to be much more active in the field of technological innovations. We also need to think about how to exploit all the available reserves as efficiently as possible. This brings the focus not only to the issues of technology and the usability of land but also very quickly to foreign-policy considerations, of course. In this regard, too, in a number of points I cannot list exhaustively here, this report attempts to point out that we must step up our efforts to make unconventional oil resources commercially viable: so as to contribute to diversification, to answer the question as to how transport routes too can be changed, and to raise the question as to what contribution foreign policy can make in terms of strengthening relations and mutual dependency and reliability between the European Union and the oil-producing countries.
This report does not attempt to answer all the oil-related questions but rather seeks to examine a number of issues that have not been central up to now. It disregards all efficiency and energy saving issues, not because they are unimportant but because they are dealt with elsewhere. A number of new questions should be raised in this connection - we should even consider, for example, whether sufficient young blood is entering the technology field: young people who are prepared to get involved in this field and to seek new solutions.
That was a brief summary of the substance of this report.
Jacques Barrot
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, I wish, on behalf of the Commission, to thank Mr Reul for having prepared the report on the possible solutions to the challenges related to oil supplies I also wish to thank the members of the various committees that have put forward views on the issue for their valuable contributions to this important debate.
The economic conditions have greatly changed since the Commission communication of June 2008, entitled 'Facing oil challenges'. At the time, crude oil reached USD 140 a barrel, with major effects on the general economy and on private individuals in the European Union. Since then, the price of crude has fallen by a good USD 100 to below USD 40 a barrel.
However, the analysis carried out at the time by the Commission remains relevant to the structural conditions of the oil markets, world energy demand in the medium and long term and the importance of European Union policies on energy and climate change. All these factors will change our forms of production and consumption and our behaviour.
Many of these questions were discussed in detail in the second strategic analysis of energy policy adopted in November 2008, which has been the subject of debate on other occasions in Parliament. Furthermore, the adoption by the Council and the European Parliament, in December 2008, of the package of proposals on energy and climate change was a major step towards resolute action on our future energy needs, in particular with the setting of the objective for the use of 20% renewable energies in all energy consumed by 2020.
The Commission gives a favourable welcome to most of the points raised in Mr Reul's report. We note the support for new investments in replacement energy sources, such as renewable energies, and the priority given to energy-efficient goods and services. These features were put forward by the Commission in the European Economic Recovery Plan.
We, of course, welcome the importance given to the intensification of the dialogue with the producer countries to find pragmatic solutions to the problems faced. It is clear, given the growing connection between energy and foreign policies and the need to ensure energy security, that good relations with the producer countries must be promoted to make the operation of the international markets more predictable.
The question of transparency on oil reserves must be raised in this context. As for the transparency of oil stocks, this question was broached at the time of the second strategic analysis. On this issue, the option of a weekly publication of information on commercial stocks is currently being studied.
On the issues of energy savings and diversification of sources, we note the arguments put forward on the potential for energy savings in the building sector and we await with interest the conclusion of the debates on the revamp to the directive on the energy performance of buildings.
As for the parts relating to the need to diversify energy sources in the transport sector and exploit the potential of energy-efficient vehicles, I note that the recovery plan includes an initiative on green cars.
In conclusion, I would draw your attention to the Commission commitment further to develop the action on all the questions raised in relation to oil prices. These questions form part of the general policies on energy, climate and research.
We are pleased to continue our cooperation with the European Parliament in all these fields and I thank Mr Reul again for having provided some information and explanation, which will be a very valuable guide for our future energy policy.
President
The item is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Constantin Dumitriu
Mr Reul's report is extremely important in the context of the current economic crisis and the challenges linked to climate change.
As a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I have consistently supported the line that we must not play down the importance of investments in clean technologies and renewable energy as solutions for reducing the dependency on oil, cutting carbon emissions and, last but not least, as a solution for creating new jobs and stimulating economic growth.
I welcome the fact that this report too mentions biofuels as a resource which has not been sufficiently exploited, and I hope that the recommendation to facilitate market access for them will be taken into account by the European Commission. The use of biofuels offers a viable economic and social alternative for rural development and environmental protection.
At the same time, I am pleased with the increased attention being given to energy efficiency in buildings, which has been included as a priority in the European Economic Recovery Plan and mentioned in Mr Reul's report as a solution for reducing the demand for fossil energy resources. Energy efficiency has the benefit that it will also reduce the size of consumers' bills at a time when the economic crisis is having an increasingly adverse impact on them.
Anni Podimata
in writing. - (EL) Now, more than ever, the European Union needs a common European energy policy which will promote energy security and energy solidarity and, at the same time, support viable energy choices. Today, oil is the most important source of energy in Europe, mainly due to its widespread use in the transport sector. By way of illustration, it has been stated that in 2030 the EU's reliance on oil is expected to reach 95%. We cannot ignore the fact that imports basically come from countries in which political instability prevails and cannot therefore be considered secure.
Furthermore, today Europe faces three challenges, the financial, the energy and the environmental challenge, which inevitably limit our choices. Oil is an outdated source. Its cost has doubled since 2005, its price fluctuates constantly and it is linked to high CO2 emissions. The reorientation of energy policy is therefore the only way forward. Supporting nuclear energy or new mines in Africa is not the solution. The solution is to support European and national measures to promote energy efficiency and invest in projects which make use of renewable energy sources.