23. Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities (
- Before the vote (oral amendments to Amendments 62, 65 and 75)
Giuseppe Gargani
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur I wish to table three oral amendments: to Amendment 62 - on the voting list, if you can follow - regarding recital 12, I propose that the entire parenthetic clause from 'annual amounts' up to 'annual budget' be deleted.
To Amendment 65 on the voting list, concerning recital 12c, I propose that the following parenthetic clause be inserted between the words 'parliamentary assistance' and 'cover the total costs': 'the annual amounts necessary will be determined within the annual budgetary procedure'.
To Amendment 75, which concerns Article 131, my oral amendment is to add the word 'transparent' to the words 'reference framework', to give 'transparent reference framework'.
These are the oral amendments that I am tabling to the House as rapporteur. I hope that they are accepted.
Giuseppe Gargani
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would formally ask the Commission whether it is in agreement in respect of all these accepted amendments.
Margot Wallström
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is pleased that an agreement has been reached between the institutions on a joint text for a statute for parliamentary assistants.
On behalf of the Commission, I can confirm today our agreement on this text, which preserves the full substance of our initial proposal. The Commission prepared this proposal in response to a request from the European Parliament to the Commission in a letter from President Pöttering to President Barroso. Only eight months after this request, you have now endorsed the result of the very constructive discussions between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. With this proposal, for the third time in 10 years, the Commission took the initiative of addressing the issue of a statute, and we firmly believe that this time we will succeed. We now have to use this window of opportunity. Therefore, I also give a commitment on behalf of the Commission to defend this text until its final approval by the Council.
(Applause)
President
Mrs Wallström, I am sure that Parliament welcomes your statement.
We will now proceed to a roll-call vote to close an issue that has been pending for almost 30 years.
Let me just savour this moment.
- After the vote
Giuseppe Gargani
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while I am grateful to the Commissioner, I would ask for your attention for a moment because I have to read out a political declaration, an institutional political declaration agreed on with the Council.
'The European Parliament and the Council, notwithstanding the competences of the budgetary authority, agree that the transition to new conditions of employment of accredited parliamentary assistants does not in itself require an increase in the appropriations entered in the European Parliament section of the general budget of the European Union and intended to cover parliamentary assistance, with respect to the appropriations entered for this purpose in the budget for the financial year 2008, subject to indexation.
The European Parliament draws attention to Article 69(2) of the implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, as adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 17 July 2008, which stipulates that the total expenses reimbursed to all parliamentary assistants may be indexed each year by the Bureau.
The European Parliament and the Council agree that, where the Commission has to propose, pursuant to Article 96(11) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities (CEOS), an adjustment of the contribution to the unemployment insurance scheme, as a result of the inclusion of accredited assistants in that scheme, the necessary payments from the European Parliament should be financed by way of an appropriate budget heading and drawn from the global appropriations intended for the sections of the budget relating to the European Parliament.
The European Parliament and the Council would point out that, in accordance with Article 248(4)(2) of the EC Treaty, the Court of Auditors may at any time present its findings on specific problems in the form of special reports or give opinions at the request of one of the other Community institutions.
The European Parliament undertakes to consult the future body representing accredited parliamentary assistants with regard to any amendments made to the internal decision referred to in Article 125(1) of the CEOS.'
This is the declaration agreed on with the Council, and while I would ask the Council whether it agrees - I think it is fairly safe to say that it does - I should just like to devote a couple of minutes to sharing a thought, an idea, with Parliament. We have concluded a piece of work which, as the President pointed out, is age-old and has been debated for many years. However, the Committee on Legal Affairs, which was given the task of having to consider, in just a few days, a proposal that came from the Commission but that had somehow been drafted by the Roure committee - I refer to the chairman, Mrs Roure, whom I thank - has done a thorough job. It is with great pride that I must say that the Committee on Legal Affairs has thoroughly investigated a problem that my fellow Members know is difficult.
We have struck a balance regarding the free and fundamental choice of Members to choose their own assistants - this is stated throughout the framework - a balance that gives rise to transparency, that provides rules and that therefore changes this situation about which there was uncertainty. I have stood up for the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr President; I have also written a letter to Mr Pöttering, to say that, as the Committee had the duty and right to hold a large-scale debate, it has done so, and I believe that it has found the right balance. In the trialogue I must thank the Commission and the Council, who have worked together, but, above all, I must thank the coordinators, my colleagues and Maria José from the Secretariat, who has made an exceptional contribution, which we are consolidating today.
I hope that my fellow Members will vote in favour; we will see in the next two years whether this legislation can contribute significantly to our parliamentary work.
President
Many thanks, Mr Gargani.
I would also, as this has been the result of teamwork, take the liberty of congratulating Martine Roure for her excellent work within the working group, chairing it with great determination
I would also, of course, like to extend our thanks to our Secretary-General, who has been a formidable negotiator on this topic - and without his determination, none of this would have been possible - and also to the four most recent Presidents of the European Parliament, Mr Pöttering, who was keen to complete this matter, Mr Borrell, who enabled us to take a decisive step forward with the adoption of the codex, Mr Cox, who made it possible to separate the various statutes, and, of course, Mrs Fontaine, who fired the starting pistol almost 10 years ago, so that we could finally have this report before us today.
Monica Frassoni
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry, this may seem like sycophancy, but my fellow Members will forgive me, since some may still not be aware that the person who put forward this matter within the Bureau in years gone by was in fact you, and therefore as you were not able to say it, I will. Therefore, on behalf of my group and of those outside my group, I thank you also for your work within the vice-presidency of Parliament.
President
Thank you everybody. I think that the new statute will serve as an example in other parliaments all over the world.


The charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Greening of transport and internalisation of external costs (debate)
President
The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:
by Mr El Khadraoui, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - C6-0276/2008 -, and
by Mr Jarzembowski, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the greening of transport and the internalisation of external costs.
Saïd El Khadraoui
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to come straight to the point and clear up a few misunderstandings. I have read from various sources that, by bringing in this Eurovignette Directive, we are trying to give the road transport sector the kiss of death in these economically difficult times. I have also read that we mean to make road pricing compulsory for all passenger cars in Europe.
The truth is, of course, that we do not mean to impose anything at all; on the contrary, we wish to offer a wide range of possibilities to help Member States who so desire to introduce, in their own time, the 'polluter pays' principle into the road transport sector. That is, we want to establish a framework, to lay down ground rules that Member States must observe if they wish to internalise external costs.
This should bring us one step closer to a more sustainable transport system. I wish to add straight away that this is no miracle cure. Very many more measures will have to be taken if we are to work wonders. If we do nothing, however - as the Commission is well aware - road transport will increase by 55% by 2020. We therefore have to do something.
What we are proposing here is a minor revolution in itself, if I may say so, but it is just a start, and will require an ambitious follow-up within a few years. With the help of the majority in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, we managed to draft a balanced, reasonable, coherent proposal. I should also like to thank everyone involved. It was not easy; points of view differed very widely. However, I hope that we retain this balance after tomorrow and thus send out a strong signal to the Council, which needs to draw up another common position.
What are the essential points? Firstly, which externalities are to be introduced into the system? We opted for the areas of air pollution, noise and congestion. Regarding the last of these, we have actually made a concession to the road transport sector by saying that countries wanting their systems to cover congestion should make a link with passenger cars. This is optional, not obligatory.
Secondly, on the subject of earmarking, we do not regard the revenue from these charges as an additional tax that is allowed to simply flow into State treasuries. Such revenue must be reinvested in the transport system with the aim of keeping external costs down. This must be the ultimate objective.
Thirdly, there is interoperability, which is vital, and I think the Commission still has some way to go in this regard. We want to prevent lorries having to take along 27 different tins in future in order to pay all the various tolls around Europe, and so I think that clear initiatives are needed to this end.
Fourthly, there must be the possibility of further action in future. Within a few years, an overview must be drawn up of the internalisation of external costs in all modes of transport. We must consider the possibility of adding other external costs, too, but we must also favour charging schemes based on kilometerage over time-based schemes.
Overall, the impact of all of this is actually limited. We estimate that the operational costs could rise by 3% if this Directive were to be applied in the field throughout Europe. Consequently, I wish to propose to my fellow Members that we stick with the package supported by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.
In other words, I do not support the amendments by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats that seek to remove congestion from the system, nor can I support the amendments tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, no matter how appealing I find them. Let us preserve a coherent whole and take a step forward in this way.
Georg Jarzembowski
Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by saying that the mobility of people and goods is quite simply of key importance to citizens' quality of life, growth and employment, the social and territorial cohesion of the European Union and for trade with third countries.
That is why the European Community quite simply needs an infrastructure that meets its needs and equitable transport rules for all modes of transport. Given that transport also has negative consequences for people and the environment, it must, of course, be further greened, in order, also, to play its role in fighting climate change.
However, I have to tell you, Mr Vice-President, that what you put forward to us as a basis document on the greening of transport was a little too sparse. I am sorry to say that there is no consistent overall plan and you leave everything open - everything is palmed off on subsidiarity. If you say that we have to green transport, that must apply throughout the European Union and cannot be made subject to the wishes of the Member States. It must then apply to everything from the railways to marine transport.
You cannot just pick out road transport - and, in fact, specifically only goods vehicle traffic - and then say 'we will leave it up to the Member States to decide whether or not they want to have road tolls.' If you want a fundamental change, you need to put forward an integrated plan for all means of transport - and that is something we made very clear in the committee. Then, however, you also have to do that with scientifically-based impact assessments that take account of the consequences for competition amongst means of transport, mobility costs and the competitiveness of Europe.
The second communication, on the internalisation of external costs, is another example of the compartmentalisation under your system, proposing something and yet not proposing it. As regards the internalisation of external costs, you again set out a great big handbook that provides a multiplicity of ways to perform calculations, but then, in the end, you say 'we will calculate according to a flat-rate value.' No one on earth could understand that. You also fail to take account of the contributions already made by the various means of transport, be it in the form of general taxation, petroleum tax or vehicle tax.
You know, it is the same story with the Eurovignette. My group agrees with the other groups that exhaust emissions and noise should be taken account of in the external costs and in the charging thereof. Congestion, though? Mr Vice-President, congestion is caused by an insufficient provision of infrastructure by the Member States. To give the Member States money for managing their own shortcomings would be downright madness.
What is more, you are very much aware of the fact that companies have long borne the costs of congestion, as it leads to higher wage costs and higher fuel costs. With that in mind, it must be said, Mr El Khadraoui, that it makes no sense to internalise the costs of congestion - quite the opposite, in fact. We must attempt to get rid of this congestion through the prudent upgrading of infrastructure and the deployment of intelligent transport information systems, yet we must not burden businesses, already struggling with rising costs, with additional costs in the form of road tolls. There is no point in that.
Mr Vice-President, your communication on noise protection measures on the railways is positive, in principle. As the man on the English-speaking street says, though, 'Where's the beef?' What are you actually proposing? You say there are many options. No, you are the Commission! You have the right and the duty to put forward proposals that we can then implement. That is why the Committee on Transport and Tourism is calling on you to actually table a proposal for a directive on the introduction of noise-related track access charges so that, by re-investing the money collected by means of such track access charges in the railway companies - including private companies - we will be able to help see new noise-reducing brakes actually installed. All of us in this House have a clear goal and that is that noise pollution by the railways must be eradicated. We want to promote the railways, but then their journey through the serene Rhine valley must also be effected in an environmentally sound manner. So help us do this - propose something really tangible!
Antonio Tajani
Mr President, we have reached the end of yet another debate on a subject that I resolved to bring to the attention of this House as soon as I had obtained the support of Parliament, in other words, our aim of not imposing a new tax on European citizens. As far as the Commission is concerned, the fact that the new Eurovignette is optional is evidence that we are not imposing a new tax. Above all, the sums collected will not be generally earmarked for the budgets of the various Member States but will be allocated to make a difference in a particular sector, namely pollution, the internalisation of external costs and the construction of safer roads and infrastructure.
I wish to thank Parliament for the commitment it showed to the greening package, particularly with regard to the review of the Eurovignette directive. The draft adopted by the Committee on Transport and Tourism based on Mr El Khadraoui's report sends out a strong message to Member States because it proposes a more flexible framework that legally authorises the adoption of new instruments to combat negative effects within the transport sector and also within the parties involved in the sector. It does this by showing a political intent to gradually encourage the introduction of fair and effective tariff scales for the use of infrastructures whereby the polluter pays, instead of the taxpayer having to foot the bill.
I feel that the opinion approved by the Commission, which is under discussion today, reinforces the Commission's proposal in some key respects. As far as the allocation of resources is concerned, I believe the proposed amendments are consistent with our suggested approach, which aims to defend the allocation of revenue from tolls and reduce the external effects of road transport, and I believe I can support them. As far as the type of external effects that should be taken into account, I say no to CO2 but yes to taking congestion into account. A modulated congestion charge would allow us to fight climate change more effectively than if we applied a one-off tax on CO2. It is essential for the economic effectiveness of road transport and useful for ensuring sufficient income to fund new transport capacities and I believe that the compromise we achieved constitutes a sound basis for discussions with the Council. We must nonetheless take great care to ensure that the final result represents an encouragement to States rather than a deterrent and does not impose conditions that are too complicated to manage.
I harbour certain reservations, however, about the specific amendment concerning sensitive mountain areas. The Commission proposal already authorises a pollution cost multiplication factor known as the mountain correction factor. The fact that we simply authorised the addition of this tariff charge to the existing surcharge, decided in 2006 to fund the great tunnels through the Alps, amounts to a double tariff charge and this is an obstacle to achieving a single market in my opinion. Hence my puzzlement.
Now I would like to move on to Mr Jarzembowski's report on the communication accompanying the directive. As he clearly showed during his speech, Mr Jarzembowski is highly critical of the Commission's position: for once. we are not in agreement after all these years of working together. The report is clearly critical. I will attempt to concentrate on two points in particular, two points that I feel are crucial. I wish to stress, on the one hand, that the Commission has carried out an impact assessment that covers all transport methods and analyses the effects of the various internalisation options. I feel that this analysis lays the foundation for the internalisation strategy proposed by the Commission. On the other hand, the Commission has proposed a common internalisation framework based on a principle that concerns all transport methods and takes into account past initiatives. It is a pragmatic approach that respects the acquis communautaire and takes into account the recently adopted proposals - I am thinking of the extension of the ETS to aviation and the international agreements on aviation, the maritime sector and inland waterways. Of course we can debate whether or not the Commission's proposals go far enough, but I must stress the fact that the Commission has dealt with the topics it was asked to cover, in other words, an integrated plan to make transport greener, supported by specific legislative proposals.
I wish to end by bringing up one aspect on which the Commission and Parliament are in agreement: the need to find a legislative approach to the problem of noise pollution in the railway sector. The Commission will submit its proposals within the framework of the first railway package revision, due to be adopted in the autumn. We will, of course, be pleased to hear your suggestions on this matter.
President
Thank you, Mr Tajani. In your relations with Mr Jarzembowski, you will have seen how right Karl Marx was when he showed how people's institutional position also determines their political position on various subjects.
Claude Turmes
Mr President, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy mainly looked into two aspects of this directive, the first of which was oil.
Of all the major world economies, Europe is the most dependent on the transport of goods using oil. Let us not deceive ourselves. Although the price of oil is going down at the moment, it is only because the global economy is shrinking. Once the economy starts to recover, we are once again going to see the same problems of oil shortages, and the European economy's main Achilles heel in the future will be our dependence on oil for the transport of goods.
The second aspect relates to technology and exports. If Europe introduces a relevant Eurovignette system, it will also promote the rise of European economic players. The United States, China, India and Indonesia are economies that will have the same problem as us. This is therefore an appeal for the implementation of an ambitious policy, both with regard to the internalisation of external costs to anticipate the necessary changes from oil and to promote European industry in all the technological apparatus surrounding the Eurovignette.
Corien Wortmann-Kool
Mr President, Commissioner, our rapporteur, my esteemed fellow member, Mr El Khadraoui, began with some reassuring words. No European charges are to be imposed. Instead, the rapporteur is concerned with ground rules for the internal market, aiming to facilitate sustainable transport in Europe. However, the position he adopts as rapporteur gives Member States a licence to impose very high charges, up to a few euros per kilometre, with the congestion charge and the mark-up on top. Mr President, in the Commissioner's words, what we have here are not ground rules for the internal market but barriers to the internal market.
The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats wishes to make its position here today clear. We are staunch supporters of investment in sustainable transport. Therefore, the internalisation of external costs for air and noise pollution can count on our approval, provided the revenues are invested in making road transport cleaner - something that enjoys broad support. However, the proposed congestion charging and mark-up are a bridge too far for the PPE-DE Group. Congestion charging has a very limited impact on the environment and does not solve the problem of congestion, and would also constitute an extra heavy burden in these times of economic crisis, an extra burden on SMEs, which is also bad for employment.
The rapporteur has reached a compromise with the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe by making a link with passenger transport, which was crucial to obtaining their support. The Council will not accept that - so much is already clear. This puts the rapporteur in a position he himself wants but the ALDE Group does not.
Therefore, I should like to end my speech on behalf of the PPE-DE Group with an old saying: we may lose the battle, but that does not mean we have lost the war.


2008 budget guidelines (Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII(A) and VIII(B))
President
The next item is the report by Mr Itälä on behalf of the Committee on Budgets on the guidelines for the 2008 budget procedure - Sections II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX
and on the European Parliament's preliminary draft estimates (Section I) for the 2008 budget procedure.
Section I - European Parliament,
Section II - Council,
Section IV - Court of Justice,
Section V - Court of Auditors,
Section VI - Economic and Social Committee,
Section VII - Committee of the Regions,
Section VIII(A) - European Ombudsman,
Section IX - European Data Protection Supervisor

Ville Itälä
rapporteur. - (FI) Mr President, the main idea behind the budget for 2008 is that we can ensure that 2008 is the year of the taxpayers, which in practice means keeping expenditure more or less at 2007 levels. The level of inflation needs to be raised to 2007 levels. It nevertheless needs to be pointed out that this cannot apply to buildings. Buildings policy has to be kept separate because we now have so many commitments regarding buildings that expenditure in this area is bound to increase beyond this level, but then that is how the matters has been presented out in this proposal and report. It is also, however, important for Parliament's reputation that we look after the taxpayers' money and do not necessarily implement all the wonderful projects which have been proposed. The people cannot have confidence in Parliament if each year we spend money in accordance with the 20% rule, although now in 2008, when there will be no further enlargement or any new languages, we have a real chance of adhering to 2007 levels and showing the taxpayers that we are genuinely concerned about how much money is being spent here.
There need to be a few more projects. With respect to information policy we have to send a clear message to the people about what happens here, and this may be best realised through visitors' groups, which has been a priority for many years. That is surely the best sort of information policy, although another issue is the small-scale local media, which does not have the resources to pay for trips to Parliament. The local media should be able to visit Parliament more often and we need to find some solution where we MEPs could invite more representatives of the local media here, because this is just the sort of media which people read and listen to, and if it reports positively on us, Parliament's reputation and that of the EU as a whole is bound to improve.
We also need to pay more attention to the way we draft legislation, and this means that we must have good and sufficient technical facilities. In this connection there is a proposal that, for example, we Members should be able to connect to computers via our mobile phones. That facility exists in almost all the national parliaments, but not in the EU's Parliament, and these things need to be put right by the year 2008.
Translation services are a subject we talk about daily, and this of course is largely about how equally all Members are treated regardless of which language area they come from, and this is something that is certainly in need of major, and above all, structural change. These services, however, always need to be kept functional.
I would furthermore emphasise that we could keep at this current level, and with regard to buildings, although some claim that 2008 is the last year in which money can be used for them, the list is very long indeed. We have talked about external offices in London, Stockholm, and Paris. We are embarking on the KAD construction project in Luxembourg at the same time as another institution, the European Court of Auditors, starts on a major construction project there. Here in Brussels we have completion work to do on new buildings, we have the purchase of premises close to here in the 'banana' building, there is the completion of the Sports Centre ... The list could go on, but this only goes to show that not all of them can be embarked on or realised in 2008: instead, a priority list should be drawn up for buildings and we need then to proceed with reference to it.
I believe that the preparatory work has been done in the right spirit and that we all wish to tell the taxpayer that the year 2008 has been specifically proclaimed the year of the taxpayers.
Valdis Dombrovskis
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I would like to express my support for the rapporteur's approach, that the European Parliament's level of expenditure should be based on requirements that are justified following careful evaluation. In this speech, however, I would like to draw attention to my proposal to reduce consumption of paper and energy resources at the European Parliament. The EU institutions ought to set an example of environmentally friendly policies and reduce consumption of energy resources. Unfortunately, in various spheres the European Parliament uses resources inappropriately, for example by consuming paper extravagantly and using unnecessary, intensive air-conditioning in the summer. Reducing paper consumption and using air-conditioning more rationally would produce both gains from the environmental viewpoint and also significant savings in the European Parliament's budget. In practice, all European Parliament documents are accessible in electronic form. My proposal envisages reducing the circulation of paper versions of documents by stipulating that paper versions of many documents would be available on request, instead of being automatically distributed to all Members and officials. Every working day the Members and Parliament officials receive an enormous quantity of paper documents. The majority of these are subsequently thrown away, since should it be necessary electronic versions of the document are available. It would be much more rational to allow the Members and Parliament officials to stipulate which documents they wish to receive in future in paper form and which they will read electronically. The potential saving is considerable, in view of the fact that the European Parliament's current consumption of paper is nearly 850 tonnes a year, or 3.4 million sheets a week. With regard to air-conditioning, the proposal envisages raising the air temperature of the European Parliament by a few degrees in summer. Up until now it has been kept unnecessarily and even uncomfortably low. Thank you for your attention.
Vladimír Maňka
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (SK) The fathers of the idea of a united Europe did not know what would happen 50 years on, but there is one thing they knew for certain: if we are to build Europe, we must build it together. We have transposed these words of Robert Schuman in a striking way into the EU slogan and logo, which reads 'Together'.
In the 2008 budget we emphasise the political importance of the instruments we would like to use to better inform European citizens. One of our aims is to eliminate the shortcomings that undermine the European Union's image, especially with a view to the 2009 elections. Ladies and gentlemen, on Saturday many of you, along with millions of TV viewers, were watching the major concert held in Brussels to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaties of Rome. However, the overall impression was not so much a commemoration but rather an embarrassment. The entire event would have achieved a far greater symbolism if artists from all of the Member States had been invited.
If we want to deal with problems successfully, we need to take a comprehensive view. It will not suffice for us, as the European Parliament, to make progress in communication and information policies. We need to work with the Commission and the European Houses in the Member States to elaborate effective communication measures and then to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of the process. Our emphasis on a comprehensive approach and strengthened cooperation between institutions will result in greater transparency and a more efficient use of resources.
Ladies and gentlemen, Parliament recently decided to adopt a meaningful statute on the assistants employed by MEPs. I would therefore ask you to adopt an amendment calling on the Council to take a definitive decision in the matter. As we all know, this statute will ultimately contribute to improving the quality of our work.
Anne E. Jensen
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DA) Mr President, I would thank Mr Itälä for his constructive work on the report on Parliament's 2008 budget. He proposes that next year's expenditure remain in principle at the 2007 level, and that is something that we in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe can happily endorse in principle. Following enlargement, 2008 is, of course, a year of consolidation, and very good cases will have to be made out for meeting additional needs if meeting them would have budgetary consequences. At the same time, we would concur with the observation that 2008 will probably be the last year in which we can use the surplus of up to 20% in the EU's administrative expenditure for the purchase of buildings. Last but not least, I want to emphasise what Mr Maňka also said, namely that now we are obtaining a Members' Statute, this needs to be backed up by a Statute of Members' assistants here in Parliament. On this point, we do not have the Council's support, and, without that support, we cannot put matters in order. Let us get something done about that.
Esko Seppänen
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (FI) Mr President, the European Parliament's expenditure has grown very rapidly. This growth can be explained by the enlargement of the Union, and the ensuing need for interpretation and translation services as well as space. It has been estimated that 60% of costs are due to the demand for multilingualism and a policy of having several places of business.
So far all the expenditure has been financed out of the 20% of the Union's administrative costs whose use was agreed on unofficially with the other budgetary authority, the Council. Within the context of Parliament's expenditure 2008 is a sort of gap year. Funding for new premises is in order, and there is no new round of enlargement in sight. Consequently, the rapporteur's view that Parliament should not invent new, artificial expenditure for itself and should not necessarily aim at the 20% level is right. If we do that, there is a danger that Parliament's big groups will fund their own political objectives out of common administrative expenditure, and that will be a financial burden for Parliament after 2008.
Louis Grech
Mr President, I agree with the rapporteur that the institutions should base their estimates on well-defined needs. This should result in better efficiency of resources, thus avoiding duplication of functions. In this respect, we expect the final proposal for an interinstitutional agreement for the two committees, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, to be reached in 2007, ensuring equitable governance of the joint departments.
Prima facie, it seems reasonable to request that Parliament should retain the same budgeting level as in 2007. However, we should ensure that Parliament's financial independence is not compromised in any way, especially as the Members' Statute, amounting to over EUR 100 million, comes into force in 2009.
The benchmark of 20% of heading five should be retained as the budget's upper limit. This threshold should provide us with the necessary stability and discipline when formulating the 2008 budget.
Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to Mr Itälä for his report.
Nathalie Griesbeck
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report is essential, not only because it highlights the financial resources used to run the European institutions, but also because it underlines Parliament's role as controller and because it gives concrete expression to the functioning of our Europe. As the report highlights, we need to stabilise our finances, and our budgetary strategy for 2008 must be prudent. To achieve this, priority must be given to, among other things, improving the performance of our services and the redeployment of staff.
I shall make three remarks quickly. Firstly, while paying tribute to the very high quality of the translation services, I should like to highlight the ever more frequent delays in distributing language versions, something that has a negative impact on our upstream work.
Secondly, I should like to reiterate my request to have equivalent technical and information technology resources in the different places of work, Strasbourg and Brussels. In this period of commemorating the Treaty of Rome, I should also like to emphasise the possibility for Parliament to have an ambitious communication plan concerning the media. I would also emphasise the need to improve the information given to the citizens, for example by doing more to accommodate them during the part-sessions. Visits by our fellow citizens are often an effective way for them to discover Europe. I would therefore like the capacity for receiving visitors to be improved, especially in Strasbourg, at the seat of the European Parliament.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.00 a.m.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Gyula Hegyi
, in writing. - Last week the Commission held an important and interesting conference on the ecological taxation - eco-taxes. Sustainable development and a proper climate policy need political and administrative rules - strict regulations, directives, laws and by-laws. But, living in a market economy, we have to understand the importance of the financial tools as well. An adequate tax system can decrease the use of the natural resources, pollution and environmental damages, and can encourage the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency. As Commissioner László Kovács said, during the second half of his term he intends to concentrate on taxation promoting the EU's energy targets and to fight climate change. The European Parliament should call for a solid and environmentally aware European-level taxation, which can contribute to sustainable development and saving energy.


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9.00 a.m.)
Carl Schlyter
(SV) Mr President, if you went into the corridors of Parliament yesterday you would have seen a great many stickers from the lobbyists' organisation of the European chemical industry on the floor, and some of them are still there today. I wonder whether the quaestors, when they gave permission for the exhibition, authorised the organisation to spread stickers everywhere on our floors. If that is the case, I think it was an incorrect decision. If the quaestors did not give any such permission, I think that Cefic has clearly breached its undertakings as a lobbyist and should therefore have its access pass withdrawn or at least receive a harsh reprimand. I hope you can look into what actually happened and ensure that all these stickers are removed immediately.
President
Fine, we shall look into the matter, Mr Schlyter.


1. Tibet
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Tibet.
Adam Jerzy Bielan
author. - (PL) Mr President, Tibet has been under Chinese occupation for over 50 years. The Chinese authorities have been pursuing a policy of discrimination and persecution, aimed at marginalising Tibetans in their own homeland. The Chinese army has recently carried out yet another barbaric killing. On this occasion a defenceless Tibetan nun was murdered crossing the border into Nepal. China denies that shots were fired at Tibetan refugees attempting to enter Nepal, but the entire incident was caught on film.
The House cannot remain silent and indifferent to these latest events. The policy of force and repression imposed on the people of Tibet by the Chinese authorities can no longer be tolerated.
I hereby call on the Government of the People's Republic of China to stop violating the human rights of the Tibetan nation and of other minorities. I also appeal to the Chinese Government to guarantee that it will respect international law, international human rights standards and freedom of religion. Tibet must be granted genuine autonomy and the Tibetan people must be allowed freedom of religion and education.
I also call on the Government of the People's Republic of China to accelerate the dialogue begun with representatives of the Dalai Lama, and to seek to arrive, without further delay, at a solution to the issue of Tibet that is acceptable to both parties.
Eva Lichtenberger
author. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, China's representatives described the events of 30 September on that country's border in terms suggesting that they had been attacked by a band of Tibetans and had had - and with difficulty - to defend themselves.
On this occasion - unlike in many other instances - a video is in existence to clearly demonstrate that the opposite is the case. This video shows that the Tibetan refugees did not attack; that, on the contrary, the group of people trying to cross the border was composed of young people, children, nuns and monks. The European Union must firmly repudiate the Chinese account of what happened, and demand clarification of the matter.
It must also demand clarification as to what has become of the children that the Chinese troops took into custody, the present whereabouts and state of these children and refugees and the manner in which such situations on the border are, as a rule, handled. We in the European Union must make it abundantly plain that Tibet must be accorded autonomy within China's borders, but real autonomy nonetheless, in line with the 'Middle Way' proposed by the Dalai Lama.
Thomas Mann
author. - (DE) Mr President, there has been another incident with fatal consequences at the border between China and Nepal. When, on 30 September, a group of Tibetans - all of them unarmed civilians - attempted to flee over the Nangpa Pass to Nepal, Chinese border guards opened fire on them. Kelsang Namtso, a seventeen-year-old nun, was killed; many people were wounded, and thirty arrested, among them women and nine children.
I wish to echo what was said by the previous speakers. This tragedy would never have come to light had it not been for a Romanian camera crew that was on the scene by chance and filmed what happened. The pictures they took appeared on Dutch television at peak viewing time. Despite this documentation, Peking maintains that there were injuries but no deaths and that, moreover, it had been the Tibetans who had opened fire and the Chinese had been obliged to defend themselves.
We condemn this brutal action on the part of the Chinese security forces and call on the authorities to treat their captives in a humane manner and in compliance with international agreements, for China is a signatory to the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child, which protects minors from arrest and from arbitrary treatment on the part of the state.
What happened at the Nangpa Pass must be investigated with the minimum possible delay, and those responsible must be called to account for their actions. These attacks on defenceless civilians must be put on the agenda for the next EU/China dialogue on human rights.
I urge those representing the Commission to get an idea for themselves of what is going on, to go to the Tibetan Welfare Centre in Katmandu, as our ad hoc delegation from this House did in July when we went to Nepal, to ask the refugees arriving there about the things they have had to endure, and to do something about it!
(Applause)
Erik Meijer
author. - (NL) Mr President, this Parliament is right in once more expressing its indignation, and the unfortunate fact is that I expect it will have to do so many times more. The situation in Tibet is getting worse rather than better, and we may actually be to blame for this. Even before 1951, the European countries accepted that Tibet should be part of China, even though it was not described as such on maps. That is how it stayed when in the 50s, the People's Republic of China actually brought this inhospitable region under its control with military means, and the Dalai Lama fled to India.
Tibet has now become more easily accessible from China via the world's highest railway line. Foreign mountaineers witnessed recently how inhabitants who tried to flee the country were simply gunned down. The government, and probably the majority of public opinion in China, consider Tibet, above all, as a region that is still virtually empty and that needs to be colonised by Chinese people from the most densely populated areas. Since the Chinese economy is more than ever intertwined with the European economy, Europe has a powerful lever. The question is whether we are prepared to use this lever. Oppression will persist if we do not bring any pressure to bear.
Marios Matsakis
author. - Mr President, China's Communist occupation of Tibet is a long-standing scourge on democracy and an open wound on the principles of justice and freedom. Time and again, we have strongly condemned the thoroughly indefensible and brutal way the Chinese regime has been treating a small peace-loving nation, isolated at the roof of the world.
In the latest incident, China's occupation forces opened fire on a group of unarmed, defenceless civilians who were attempting in desperation to flee their country through the glacial pass at Nangpa, situated at a height of almost 19 000 feet. The group included many women and children. A 17-year old nun was killed; a 20-year old was seriously injured; some individuals are missing and 29 people, including 14 children, were arrested. Some succeeded in escaping to neighbouring Nepal. Luckily and thankfully, the incident was witnessed by a number of foreign mountaineers, whose independent and trustworthy accounts, including a video, utterly contradicted the ridiculous lies about what happened put forward in an official statement by the Chinese authorities.
We in Europe have a lot to say when it comes to condemning actions of totalitarian and oppressive regimes, but in practice the severity of our words is not matched by our deeds. Apart from being regrettable, this is also highly hypocritical, in my view. The colonial-style occupation of Tibet by China, as, indeed, any colonial occupation of one country by another, has to end forthwith. To demonstrate that we mean what we say, we must take tangible measures against China. Yes, we have an arms embargo against that country, but it has little effect. What would really be effective is if we had a trade import ban on China; that would really cause headaches to the Communist leaders in Beijing and would lead to some sensible responses to our demands for freedom for Tibet.
(Applause)
Piia-Noora Kauppi
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, it is clear that bold action is needed to improve the human rights situation in China. This recent incident gives us a clear reason why that should be a priority for the European Union. I find it absolutely appalling that the Chinese state media Xinhua reported the shooting as self-defence, while video footage clearly shows the Tibetan refugees were shot from a distance and in the back. No force, threat or resistance was offered to the Chinese border guards. None of the refugees had a weapon of any kind, not even a knife.
I would like to thank the Finnish Presidency and draw attention to its work in the human rights dialogue. Last week, on 20 October, the Finnish Presidency issued an official statement condemning the incident. I would like to thank the Presidency for that.
Finally, as indicated in the joint resolution on Tibet, we must continue to encourage high-level talks between the Dalai Lama and the Government of China. I would like to reiterate that this is the only way to find a peaceful and sustainable solution for real autonomy for the Tibetan nation.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, despite the fact that official relations between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama were restored in 2002, human rights continue to be infringed in Tibet on a regular basis. It is estimated that every year 2 500 people decide to escape from repression and undertake the dangerous journey to Nepal, lasting several days. The acts of violence perpetrated against unarmed civilians have given rise to particular concern. These acts include the shots fired at refugees by Chinese border guards in the Nangpa La pass in September of this year. The group of fugitives concerned was attempting to cross the Tibetan border and included women, children and monks. To date, the Chinese authorities have not accepted responsibility for this incident, in which one person was killed. The fate of several children detained by the military is still unknown.
It is incumbent upon international institutions to take decisive and effective action to compel the Government of the People's Republic of China to put an end to its repression of the people of Tibet, its inhumane treatment of prisoners, its use of torture and its extra-judicial executions. We appeal once again, from the floor of this House, for fundamental human rights to be respected in Tibet. These rights include freedom of expression and association. We also call for a genuine dialogue between both parties, aimed at achieving understanding and respect for the religious, political and cultural rights of the Tibetan people.
(Applause)
Raül Romeva i Rueda
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Mr President, in the two and a half years that I have been an MEP, this must the third time, or perhaps there have been more, that we have had to discuss human rights violations in Tibet, and I fear that it will not be the last. The difference this time compared to previous occasions, however, is that we have filmed evidence demonstrating that the Chinese authorities' attempts to deny these events are deceitful and that, at the same time, the Xinhua news agency's attempts to show that this action was in self-defence is entirely without foundation.
We are therefore dealing with an event that clearly requires investigation, as other speakers have said. I agree with that and I support it, but, furthermore, it also deserves to be treated as a fundamental issue within the framework of European Union-China dialogue. I would insist that this is not the first time, but it is really becoming rather sad that, since we have the opportunity to hold this dialogue with China, and on the eve of the 2008 Olympic Games, we do not stress over and over again that the Tibet situation could be resolved if there were truly a little political will on the part of the Chinese authorities. So far we have not seen any such will.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, we are today debating human rights in China. We are doing so in the wake of a tragic and terrifying border incident. On this occasion, people throughout the world were able to see for themselves how China deals with defenceless individuals who do not present any kind of threat to the Communist authorities. These poor people are simply shot at without compunction.
The incident we are currently debating, and which has rightly triggered discussion of this subject in the European Parliament, reminds us of a bitter truth. Human rights are being systematically violated in China in almost every aspect of life. The human, economic and religious rights of the citizens of the People's Republic of China are being infringed. Unfortunately, we have to admit the sad and unpalatable truth that, all too often, the governments of individual European Union Member States remain hypocritically silent about what is happening in China. The same applies to the European Union institutions. If the common values that unite us in this House and across Europe really are common, it is incumbent on us to call, loudly and clearly, for human rights to be respected in the People's Republic of China.
Kathy Sinnott
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, I am very glad that Parliament is showing such concern for the people of Tibet. I do not question the genuineness of it, but I do question the genuineness of the way in which this Parliament acts on such concerns. Today in the budget vote we rejected three amendments that would have removed EU development funding from government and organisational programmes that included coercive abortion, involuntary sterilisation and infanticide.
Why do Tibetans try to escape from China? It is because of these very barbaric practices, in addition to religious persecution and political persecution. This is what blights the life of all minorities and conquered peoples within the territory that China now claims to rule.
I ask you, Commissioner - and I would like an answer - what part does our development aid play in this kind of suffering?
Robert Evans
Mr President, I wish to begin by saying to Mrs Sinnott that it is clouding the issue to raise points like that, which are entirely separate from what we are discussing here today.
Approximately 2500 Tibetans - possibly more - annually flee across the border from the Himalayas into exile. They are certainly escaping from the brutality of China's occupation, but it is not necessarily as Mrs Sinnott suggests.
It is difficult to know how many are caught or shot by the Chinese border authorities, because the allegations have generally remained uninvestigated. This particularly horrendous shooting incident on 30 September is in violation of the basic UN principles on the use of force and firearms by law-enforcement officials. It is interesting that there are guidelines as to when law-enforcement officials can shoot, but these require that they should not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury. Those of us who have seen the video clips of this incident know that the situation was not one involving grave threats to life. It appeared to be an unprovoked attack.
That is why the motion for a resolution before us is very important, in particular paragraph 8, which urges the Council and the Commission to reiterate their position regarding dialogue between the appropriate authorities. That is a position we must echo this afternoon: dialogue to resolve this situation.
Filip Kaczmarek
(PL) Mr President, the resolution we are to vote on today concerns the events of 30 September, when Chinese policemen shot at a group of Tibetan refugees seeking freedom beyond the People's Republic of China. It was certainly not the first incident of its kind. It was unusual, however, in that this barbaric behaviour was caught on film. Television and the Internet enabled us all, along with millions of others around the world, to see for ourselves what the Chinese policy on Tibet actually amounts to.
The fate of the Tibetan people is particularly unfortunate because they are one of the most peace-loving nations in the world. The Dalai Lama is not demanding independence for Tibet. The Tibetans are prepared to exist within the framework laid down in the Chinese constitution. How can it be possible to shoot at such people? How can they be persecuted and killed, simply because of their desire for a small measure of freedom and for the protection of their cultural heritage? Can this tragic course of events be halted? It can be, if orders are issued to ban the shooting of people fleeing from a country they do not wish to live in. This happened in the past, rather closer to home, on the border between East and West Germany. Great nations cannot and must not base their authority on the massacre of defenceless refugees.
Józef Pinior
(PL) Mr President, much has been said in the House today about the situation in Tibet. The Chinese authorities claim to respect Tibet's autonomy, but their actions tell quite a different story.
I would like to take this opportunity to draw Parliament's attention to the report by Human Rights Watch published on 9 October 2006. This report mentions how an Internet blog created by Woeser, a leading Tibetan intellectual, was shut down. The blog was one of the most interesting political and cultural developments in contemporary China. It told the truth about the situation in Tibet, describing the damage to the environment and to Tibetan culture. Woeser is one of the most distinguished female intellectuals in contemporary China, and her blog gave a true account of current events in Tibet.
We simply cannot tolerate a situation in which the Chinese authorities claim to have granted autonomy to a particular province, whereas in practice they are closing down leading intellectual online blogs.
Mariann Fischer Boel
Member of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission fully shares the concerns expressed by the honourable Members of Parliament regarding the recent shooting by China's People's Liberation Army of Tibetan refugees at the border between the People's Republic of China and Nepal, the subsequent death of one of them and the imprisonment of some of those refugees.
The matter has been formally taken up by the European Union in the framework of the last session of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, held in Beijing on 19 October, as rightly mentioned by the honourable Member from Finland. On that occasion, the European Union refuted the claim by China that the shooting had been in self-defence, urged the Chinese Government to undertake a thorough investigation of the incident and insisted that the imprisoned refugees be treated in compliance with international humanitarian standards.
More generally, the Commission is very concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet, and in particular the preservation of the cultural, religious and linguistic identity of the Tibetan people. This issue has been regularly addressed during the bilateral dialogue on human rights as well as at the highest level, during bilateral summits.
The European Union is particularly concerned about the number of Tibetans from religious backgrounds who are in prison for political reasons, and has repeatedly asked for their immediate release. Several of these people are on the list of individual cases regularly submitted to the Chinese authorities on the margins of these dialogues.
The Commission believes that China's policy in Tibet is not consistent with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The early ratification by China of this covenant ranks among the top priorities of the European Union in the field of human rights and we have left China in no doubt as to the need to fully respect the spirit of that covenant, once it has been signed and even before it is ratified.
As part of its overall policy vis-à-vis Tibet, the European Union has consistently taken the view that establishing a direct dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities is the only realistic way to find a peaceful and lasting solution to the question of Tibet. We have therefore welcomed and closely monitored the five rounds of talks so far held between the special envoys of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government.
The Commission urges both sides to continue this dialogue and use these talks to try to make substantive progress.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today, at the end of the debates.