President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Mr Barón Crespo on behalf of the Committee on International Trade on the origin marking of certain imported products (O-0065-2006 – B6-0316/2006).

  Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE), author. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, while I note what the Commissioner has just said about the excellent climate of cooperation and joint work between Parliament and the Commission, I would like in this case to express my regret about a small incident relating to the formal communication of this proposal to Parliament for information, which has prevented us from reacting properly, although we are still in time.

I am aware that this proposal was sent within the documents of the 133 Committee, communicated as usual by the Commission’s secretariat to the secretariat of the Committee on International Trade. Nevertheless, I would like to point that, for both practical reasons and on principle, informal communication does not replace formal notification of Parliament for information purposes. In any event, Commissioner, I would like to make it clear that we do not believe that the Commission has acted intentionally, and we can therefore start dealing with the issue itself, which is very important to the Europeans.

Firstly, with regard to the fundamental issue, I would like to point out that I am in favour of your proposal to establish an obligatory system of origin marking in the European Community. I believe that this initiative moves in the right direction. In short, the proposed origin marking system will inform European consumers of the precise country of origin of the products they buy. It moves in the direction of things we have approved previously, such as the traceability of agricultural products.

The European Commission rightly sees consumers' rights as an important, even constitutional, priority. Nevertheless, it makes little sense to have rights if one does not have the information required to make them effective. Freedom of choice does not exist if consumers are not in a position to exercise it properly.

If they are to have confidence, consumers must be satisfied with the degree of information and protection they are provided with. In fact, there can be no trade without confidence. A precise origin marking will not just benefit consumers, since this proposed Regulation will also have beneficial effects for European industry.

Our products must increasingly be associated with a high level of quality and style. That is what will allow us to survive in the globalised world, in sectors with such high levels of quality and design as textiles, clothing, jewellery and footwear, for example, and also automobiles, since that is another sensitive sector.

Consumers throughout the world are often prepared to pay more when they know that a product has been manufactured in the European Union and that is one of the 'natural' advantages that we must safeguard. In relation to the negotiations this weekend in the WTO, I would also say that I believe that such a sensitive issue to Europe as geographical indications is relevant to this line of thinking: we must safeguard what characterises us at world level.

This is therefore a point on which we fully support the Commission: we do not understand the attitude of many European Union States which are currently blocking the decision in the Council. We believe that this is an important step towards increasing our presence and competitiveness at world level and I believe that this falls within our collective responsibilities.

The Commission and the Members States should not just listen to the views of importers, wholesalers or companies that have already relocated their production to other continents, however respectable they may be. They should also listen to the legitimate demands of consumers and of European industry, which needs to accept this origin marking. This is also a question of justice. Our main trading partners impose the ‘Made in Europe’ upon us, so why do we, for our part, not contribute to increasing the prestige of this marking?

Globalising does not mean surrendering our experience and capacity, it means strengthening them. I hope that the Member States who are opposed to this fair initiative in the Council will understand that.

  Peter Mandelson , Member of the Commission. Mr President, I should like to start by saying that this Commission and I, as Commissioner for Trade, are fully committed to working very closely with Parliament, in line with the framework agreement governing relations between the two institutions.

As this question rightly points out, the legal basis for this measure – Article 133 of the EC Treaty – does not provide specifically for consultation of the European Parliament on this proposal for an ‘origin marking’ scheme. However, in line with our commitment to keep the European Parliament fully informed, on a par with the Council, of the conduct and conclusion of international negotiations, as well as legislative initiatives, the proposal and the accompanying impact assessment were transmitted on 12 January 2006 to the European Parliament via the Committee on International Trade.

I should like to refer to paragraph 2 of the motion for a resolution that you have before you. The language of that paragraph is slightly unfortunate because it could, as it is written at the moment, be read as if the Commission had not sent any document at all on ‘origin marking’ to Parliament. As I said, we sent it as an Article 133 document to the INTA Committee. I believe that it would certainly be fairer to me and to the Commission – and more accurate – if an adjustment were made to the wording.

Our intention has been, and continues to be, to act in line with both the letter and the spirit of the framework agreement. To meet the commitment in that agreement, and in addition to the many formal and informal contacts that I have with you, the Commission tries hard to share a maximum of information with Parliament, just as I did last week in Geneva.

In particular we sent to the INTA Committee copies of all policy documents that are being discussed in the Council’s 133 Committee. If a more formal interinstitutional way to bring this issue to your attention should have been used on that occasion, the opportunity was certainly not missed on purpose.

I very much welcome the interest you have already shown in this proposal through several questions on the subject, which we have answered. So let me now come to our proposal.

We have proposed a mandatory origin marking scheme, to create transparency about the origin of certain imported goods according to a single standard by which origin is determined. This system will allow consumers to take informed decisions; it will reduce the incidence of fraudulent or misleading origin marking. We believe it will help improve the image of European goods and will help our competitiveness. While it is clear that ‘made in’ marking as such does not contain information on the social, labour or environmental conditions in the country of production, origin information helps the consumer to choose between different available alternatives according to their preferences and the background information they already have.

As regards WTO compatibility, the Commission believes its proposal is in line with international rules, notably Article 9 of the GATT. That provides that WTO members may adopt and enforce laws and regulations relating to marks of origin on imports, notably to protect consumers against fraudulent or misleading indications.

Concerning the enforcement of the proposal, the Commission considers that customs authorities are well placed to ensure that the requirements of the proposed scheme are respected, just as they do with many other rules on environmental, health and technical issues. That part of customs work is crucial to ensuring that our businesses can trade on a level playing field and that consumers draw the full benefits of globalisation.

I should add that in addition to possible controls carried out before the products are released into the internal market, the regulation provides for Member States to check origin marking on goods that are already on the market. That should enable Member States to draw on other expertise in policing the scheme, for example by working with those who are presently involved in the enforcement of national rules concerning the voluntary use of origin marking.

As you will be aware, Mr President, the Commission proposal is being debated in the Council and I am of course ready to keep you informed as discussions on the proposal move forward.

  Robert Sturdy, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I totally endorse what the Commissioner said. What I can never understand in these situations is why a country – and I can think of one in particular, because we had this problem in Hong Kong – is so afraid of having its own name on a product. If you look, for example, at Canada, it almost seems frightened to have its name on products. These countries should be proud of it and see it as a wonderful opportunity. It is not a question of protecting EU trade, of protecting EU jobs; it surely is a question of protecting the consumer across the world. I therefore find the attitude of these non-EU countries difficult to understand.

Having said that, perhaps we ought first of all to put our own House in order and have country-of-origin marking within the EU, which we do not seem to have at the moment. That might help considerably.

The Commissioner briefly mentioned one issue that is particularly important: counterfeiting and fraud. Origin marking would be of considerable help there. But I say again that while the matter may not come under this remit – and the Commissioner was quite right to say I was wrong in assuming that hormone beef was part of the trade negotiations – all this is connected with world trade and it is the kind of issue that will come up.

I do not want to see origin marking as a non-trade barrier. I want to see it as an opportunity for countries outside the European Union to be able to be proud of what they produce, providing it is produced – and here I totally agree with the Commissioner – to the same standards that we have within the European Union.

  Francisco Assis, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, the proposal for a regulation on the indication of the country of origin on certain products imported from third countries is unquestionably very important, and represents noteworthy progress in implementing the principles of fairness and transparency in international trade.

Origin marking contains a great deal of information enabling European consumers to make more informed choices. This, right away, enhances their rights considerably. These new arrangements can and should have additional impact, insofar as a clearer comparison can be made of the expected quality of a product, and the processes involved in making that product. At the point of purchase of the products covered by this proposal, European consumers will, among other things, be in a position to compare various approaches to environmental, social and safety, and other such important issues.

It is plausible that this may have a very positive knock-on effect on European production, and especially SMEs and the sectors most vulnerable to external competition. Such effects should not be seen as the result of adopting a protectionist stance, but as the fruit of a tighter approach to transparency and fairness.

Taking a firm decision to go down this route may, according to the European public, lead to the pursuit of a process of gradual liberalisation of international trade, thereby ensuring it is not wooed by the appeal of protectionist, anti-liberal rhetoric, which is always capable of rising to the surface on all sides of the political spectrum.

This is therefore a fair and timely proposal that should be implemented at the earliest opportunity. Those opposed have not presented any salient arguments against it. The Commission should implement the initiatives that will help overcome any lingering resistance, so that the EU can take this vitally important step towards promoting genuinely free and fair trade.

  Gianluca Susta, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the compulsory origin marking proposed by the Commission must be supported because it has a dual purpose: to make Europeans, as consumers, better informed and to optimise the industrial system of those European countries that are investing a large amount of resources in innovation, with the aim of transforming their production apparatus into something of excellence.

We must strive for equal rules with those trade areas – China, the US, Canada, Japan – that have already introduced origin marking to be restored to a minimum level, in the knowledge that such a move does not bring with it any risk of illegality. A more transparent market and more controls are needed, legal uncertainty needs to be reduced, and counterfeiting and unfair competition need to be clamped down on. The compulsory origin marking of imported goods may be indirectly or directly useful in all of this. It would not incur extra costs for producers, exporters or European consumers, thus making it easier to create a level playing field with those trade partners that have already implemented the standard, in line with the political and cultural decision that was and is aimed at creating, expanding and strengthening an increasingly large and free world market.

Compulsory origin marking will also make it possible to promote the high-quality, and I stress high-quality, manufacturing industry in many European countries, which is wrongly regarded as inconsequential. This attitude is, in itself, also a major social issue that Europe must not overlook if the Lisbon objectives are to be pursued in practical terms rather than with abstract statements.

Finally, this is an opportunity to put some questions to the Commission. What is the Commission’s strategy when it comes to strengthening the external aspects of European competitiveness, given the extremely close relationship between industry and trade, between production and promotion? What resources does the Commission intend to use in order to strengthen these aspects? Why has the Commission confined itself to including in the proposal only products from those sectors that asked to be included and not extended it to all industrial products, as the United States has instead done? These are a few questions that it seems only natural to ask in an increasingly globalised world, which must develop freely, without protectionism, but which must do so while also respecting the rules that govern the general interest, above all of the citizens and of consumers.

  Cristiana Muscardini, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate enables us to make two contrasting observations to the Commission.

On the one hand, in fact, we condemn the fact that the Commission did not inform Parliament of the initiatives undertaken with regard to origin marking. This constitutes a breach of the Interinstitutional Framework Agreement of 26 May 2005, and I do not believe that a justification citing Article 133 of the Treaty can be accepted.

On the other hand, however, the content of the proposal, on which Parliament has nevertheless succeeded today in issuing its opinion, enables me to express the support of my entire group for a long-awaited initiative that has already been warmly praised in the past by Italy’s centre-right government. Yet, it is an initiative that some people still insist on not supporting, demonstrating political short-sightedness and a lack of interest in consumers.

Origin marking for certain categories of highly important products, from footwear to clothing, is wrongly seen by some people and in some sectors as a measure that has the same effect as trade barriers. That is not so; one need only point out precisely that famous Article 133 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 9 of the GATT and the recent opinion of the Council’s Legal Service.

What is more, major trade partners and competitors of the Union, such as the United States, China, Japan and Canada, have equipped themselves with legislation on this matter. By adopting a regulation on origin marking, Europe too would at last be putting itself on an equal footing with the countries mentioned above, and be preventing unjustified discrimination that would heavily penalise not only European producers, but especially all consumers, including non-European consumers.

The origin marking of products represents a guarantee for consumers that they are finally in a position to link their choices to safety and quality assessments, in addition to assessments of the social and environmental conditions existing in the country in which the products originate. We need to proceed with transparency and clarity, criteria that are demanded by everyone but then all too often ignored.

We call on the Commission to do everything in its power to ensure that the Member States adopt a determined approach to consumer protection, which can be guaranteed only by the rules in force within the Union, rules that protect quality and safety, and by the label of origin, which guarantees that no one, either inside or outside the EU, can bypass those criteria.

We call on the Commission subsequently to monitor the application of the rules, in terms both of labels of origin and of product composition, and we are grateful to the Commission for its swift action, because the swifter the action, the greater the protection of our fellow citizens.

  Christofer Fjellner, (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, protectionists are reluctant to admit that their proposals are protectionist but, rather, often hide their intentions. Mandatory origin marking is an example of this. I think now is the time to kill off some of the myths that the protectionists are spreading about this particular proposal.

The first myth is that consumers are calling for this measure, but the truth is that most do not care. The advocates use the Commission’s internet consultation on this issue to back them up, but they neglect to mention that 96.7% of the responses came from a single country, namely Italy, where industry is the driving force on this issue.

The second myth is that marking gives consumers relevant information, but in the global marketplace products and components more often than not have multiple countries of origin. It can be directly misleading to specify a single country of origin.

The third myth is that marking strengthens European competitiveness, but new technical barriers to trade to protect European industry have nothing to do with competitiveness, which is strengthened only by open markets within a good business environment.

The fourth myth is that mandatory marking would provide more consumer protection, as if safety were a question of geography. This could, at the very most, be of relevance in the case of agricultural products, but they are exempt from this proposal.

The final myth is that it is an inexpensive proposal, but the Commission's own impact assessment states, for instance, that imported clothes would, on average, be EUR 1 to 1.50 more expensive, while a pair of shoes would be EUR 2 dearer. Thus the cost would be in the millions, maybe even the billions.

In my opinion, origin marking is a badly disguised form of protectionism that will be expensive, and all this merely in order to force on foreign competitors new barriers to trade that do not qualify as tariffs. Why else would there be such a clear repudiation of the idea of introducing ‘Made in the EC’ labelling, something that is dismissed by saying that it would create unnecessary costs for European producers? It is currently prohibited to require origin marking by other Member States, as that constitutes protectionism. To now require it of third countries without recognising that, in this case too, it is protectionism, smacks of hypocrisy, in my view.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will start by congratulating Mr Barón Crespo, who regularly draws attention to the Council's lack of tact when it does not involve Parliament sufficiently in decisions on international trade.

We have a long way to go to get the governments to understand the need to get the citizens, and therefore their legitimate representatives here in Parliament, involved in major decisions on international trade. I would also like to congratulate Mr Sturdy on his wisdom in working towards this compromise. I will be voting in favour of the joint resolution, even though it regrettably restricts itself to taking note of the draft regulation on origin marking. Clearer political support will be needed in future, in view of the marked divisions in the European Council.

Unfortunately, the text of the draft regulation contains some editorial errors, and would benefit from some operational clarifications. For example, Article 3(2) of the French version of the draft regulation refers to the Member State 'où les marchandises doivent faire l'objet d'un marquage' ['where the goods must be marked']. It is clear that this reference should be to the destination Member State, as the goods are marked in the country of manufacture, not in the State where they are sold. Turning to the operational clarifications, we absolutely must, for example, clarify the concept of the 'last substantial processing', which determines the origin of goods whose production involved more than one country, in accordance with Article 24 of the Community Customs code. Finally, we need to ensure consistency with customs legislation, particularly in the context of the control procedures planned for the future reform of the Community Customs Code, of which the Committee on International Trade would like to be informed, Mr President.

Ladies and gentlemen, the traceability of products and, in more general terms, intangible elements are elements that add value to products, are necessary in the fight against fraud and counterfeiting and, finally, are a vital tool in the economic and social battle awaiting us. This economic, social, and also environmental battle, as you know, is a battle for respect for our values. If we want our convictions to be respected, with regard to both social and environmental clauses in international trade agreements, we must require imported products to be traceable, and our internal market will be an important weapon in this battle.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I am glad that almost every Member who has contributed to this debate has supported the original proposal made by the Commission. Very properly, some important questions have been raised about our ability to meet new customs codes, etc. These are important technical issues that we shall continue to address and to discuss with Members of this House.

However, overwhelmingly, there is support for the essence – the principle – of our proposal. If we can overcome our disagreement about the method or manner or channel of depositing this proposal with Parliament, we would benefit from concentrating subsequently on the substance of this proposal.

Very simply, it seeks to re-establish a level playing field with our trading partners, many of whom have already instituted forms of origin marking. It creates transparency about the origin of goods and establishes a single standard by which origin is determined. It permits informed consumer decisions. It reduces the incidence potentially of fraudulent or misleading origin marking and it contributes to improved competitiveness.

For the consumer to be king – or queen – the consumer needs full information, or as much information as possible. I do not think it is unreasonable that amongst the information that consumers receive is the place of origin of the production or supply of particular goods.

Let me just stress that it is not a ‘buy Europe’ campaign. Products will not be stamped ‘This is foreign – do not buy it’! That is not part of my or the Commission’s motivation. Indeed, the more people know about the origin of goods and come to associate that origin with particular features or the quality of those goods, it may encourage them to buy those goods from those sources and places of origin. Why not?

However, that is not the point. The point is not whether we want to encourage people to buy goods from particular places of origin or discourage them from doing so, but to give them the information to enable them to make an objective judgement about where they purchase goods.

I hope that Members of this House will see the ‘origin marking’ proposal as an alternative to protectionist instincts and measures and not as paving the way for them. I do not believe that we run the risk of putting up new non-tariff barriers to trade. I would certainly be very resistant to that.

People in Europe are entitled to express or to demonstrate whatever preferences they have. Those preferences will include the origin or source of production of those goods. This is no more than a simple way of enabling them to do so.

  President. – In accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure, I have received seven motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ at the end of the debate.

I would point out that the Committee on International Trade has withdrawn its motion for a resolution B6-0381/2006.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of this afternoon’s debates.