8. Regards the main new provision introduced by this kind of ‘second-generation agreement’, i.e. the possibility for the Commission and the Swiss Competition Commission to exchange confidential information, as a positive step; believes that this agreement could be considered a model for future bilateral cooperation agreements in the area of competition enforcement where there is a high degree of similarity between the parties to the agreement as regards their substantive competition rules, investigative powers and applicable sanctions; is of the opinion that the EU should adopt a general framework establishing a minimum common and cons ...[+++]istent basis for any future negotiations on competition enforcement cooperation, leaving to the Commission, however, a margin for manoeuvre to allow for more ambitious achievements on a case-by-case basis; notes that this framework should include rules on secure channels for transmitting confidential information;

8. Regards the main new provision introduced by this kind of ‘second-generation agreement’, i.e. the possibility for the Commission and the Swiss Competition Commission to exchange confidential information, as a positive step; believes that this agreement could be considered a model for future bilateral cooperation agreements in the area of competition enforcement where there is a high degree of similarity between the parties to the agreement as regards their substantive competition rules, investigative powers and applicable sanctions; is of the opinion that the EU should adopt a general framework establishing a minimum common and cons ...[+++]istent basis for any future negotiations on competition enforcement cooperation, leaving to the Commission, however, a margin for manoeuvre to allow for more ambitious achievements on a case‑by‑case basis; notes that this framework should include rules on secure channels for transmitting confidential information;

8. Calls on the Council to modify as a matter of urgency the rules governing the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) in line with Parliament's resolution of 18 May 2006; reiterates its conviction that the new EUSF regulation, which – among other measures – lowers the thresholds for the mobilisation of the Fund, will put the Union in a better position to address damage caused by disasters in a more effective, flexible and timely manner; strongly urges the European Council not to reject this regulation and to request the immediate revision of the current EUSF regulation;

The Commission has warned that it cannot approve Community funding until the rules governing the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund are adopted and complied with.

12. Supports, in principle, the Commission"s idea to foresee a significant share of the structural operations under the Cohesion Fund rules; therefore, this Fund should be defined and managed separately from the Cohesion Fund which is in place for current Members States; underlines that funding from the Cohesion Fund for the new Member States should be replaced by an increase in funding from the Structural Funds in so far as their implementation in the new Member States is improving;

It believes that the Cohesion Fund should continue, but that it should become an instrument of structural policy subject to the rules of the Structural Funds.