Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 16 May 2006 - Strasbourg

15. Commission Question Time

  President. The next item is Question Time (B6-0207/2006).

The following questions have been submitted to the Commission.

Part One

  President. Question no 48 by Michl Ebner (H-0360/06)

Subject: Anti-competitive nature of mobile phone ringtone advertising

On 6 April 2006, advertising for mobile phone ringtones in media used primarily by children and young people was termed anti-competitive in some respects by the German Federal Court (judgment of 6 April 2006 - I ZR 125/03) on the grounds, inter alia, that such aggressive advertising is directed at a target group which is in special need of protection and commercially inexperienced.

However, advertising for ringtones, mobile phone games and suchlike is not confined to Germany; rather, it extends to the other Member States too.

Does the Commission intend to take action on this issue in the interests of protecting children and young people? What form will the Commission action take? Is there a timescale for any intended Commission action?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr Ebner refers to the need to protect children and young people from aggressive advertising for ringtones, mobile phones, games, etc. and asks whether the Commission intends to take action on this.

The recently adopted Unfair Commercial Practices Directive bans aggressive commercial practices and gives specific protection to children and young people. If a commercial practice is specifically aimed at a particular group of consumers such as children, its impact will be assessed from the perspective of the average member of that group. Furthermore, the directive bans direct pressure on children to purchase.

The Distance Selling Directive also protects consumers who purchase goods and services at a distance, in other words with no face-to-face contact. It includes provisions on prior information. When providing that information, the supplier must have due regard for the protection of minors.

The Commission has already launched a review of eight of the consumer directives, including the Distance Selling Directive. Issues such as those raised by Mr Ebner will be addressed in the review. A communication on the review will be published this autumn.

  Michl Ebner (PPE-DE). – (DE) First of all, thank you very much, Commissioner, for your detailed and very reassuring remarks. You have said the first data will be available in the autumn. Is there also a further timetable that will allow us to see when the stricter rules, which from what you have said are certainly necessary in this area, will actually come into force? Could you tell me anything more about this timetable, which will be set after the autumn?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. The deadline for the transposition of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive into national law is 12 June 2007, and the new laws must be applicable in the Member States from 12 December 2007.

In accordance with the better regulation principles, the Commission will work closely with the Member States during this transposition period in order to facilitate timely and correct dispositions and uniform applications.

I hope that answers the honourable Member’s question.

  President. Question No 49 by Nicholson of Winterbourne (H-0362/06)

Subject: The need for a common minimum standard for children in Europe

According to Article 20 (1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 'A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State'. However, it is clear that standards of 'special protection and assistance' provided to children in need differ widely across the Member States. Indeed some (including those that are more economically developed) continue to perpetuate outdated and poor quality child care practices, which in many cases can cause psychological and neurological damage to children. One example of particular concern is the continued and systematic use of 'caged beds' as a form of restraint in state institutions.

In this context, what steps is the Commission taking to address the need for a common minimum standard for the care of children across Europe?

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child declares that the state should provide alternative care for children temporarily or permanently deprived of their family environment or for children who cannot, in their own interests, be allowed to remain in that environment. The Declaration also supports the use of options other than placing the child in an institution, wherever such options arise.

There are many reasons why children remain in institutions away from their families. It may be because their parents are unable to look after them due to illness, death or imprisonment, because the children need protecting from abuse or neglect, or because the institutions are able to provide appropriate care for disabled or sick children. Children may also be placed in institutions due to delinquency or anti-social behaviour or because they have committed a crime. These groups share the common characteristic of a very high threat of social exclusion, and great effort is required to prevent them from slipping into persistent exclusion and poverty. It is also necessary to provide the support essential to their proper development and integration into society.

At present we face difficulties in obtaining an accurate picture of institutional care in Europe, as there is a lack of comparable data. The Commission has noted, however, that many of the large traditional institutions are gradually beginning to be replaced by more short-term care, and that there is a general preference for reuniting families or securing foster care in a new family.

Ever more attention is being paid to the living conditions of children and young people in the European Union. The European Council, meeting in March 2006, challenged the Member States to take measures towards a rapid and substantial reduction in child poverty and to provide all children with equal opportunities, regardless of their social background. In the action plans for social inclusion that the Member States submitted to the Commission, children who faced the threat of poverty and social exclusion were identified as a priority group. Some Member States have set out concrete goals at a domestic level for reducing child poverty. The Commission is aware of the fact that in some EU Member States the facilities that care for mentally or physically disabled children and adults make excessive use of methods of restraint, whether pharmacological or physical, and the Commission regards this as unacceptable.

The communication recently issued by the Commission on the position of physically disabled persons in the enlarged EU places great emphasis on de-institutionalising the care for physically disabled persons. The Community has only limited powers in this area, of course, and the Commission therefore supports the use of a whole range of instruments, including an anti-discrimination programme, national action plans for social inclusion and the European Social Fund. The Commission would also like to state that it will soon be publishing a communication on EU activities in defence and support of children’s rights.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne (ALDE). – Thank you for that very exhaustive, full and explanatory statement, Commissioner. I welcome the statement and I am grateful to you for giving so much attention to the position of those who are excluded from society, particularly when they are minors. I salute your determination to pursue a policy of inclusion across Europe.

However, may I draw his attention to the Daphne-funded analyses, recently conducted surveys focusing particularly on long-term institutional care, averaging 13 months, of children under three years of age, which is the time when they are most likely to be damaged neurologically. I might perhaps send you those reports, Commissioner. I believe another one is about to start.

My final point is that the use of caged beds in some of the existing Member States is definable as inhumane and I hope to take that topic up with you personally as well. Thank you, Commissioner, I am most grateful to you.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Mr President, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, I am of course delighted to learn about the DAPHNE report, as I am delighted to learn about every report and every piece of objective data that enables us to make progress in this field. The mere fact that the study has been financed through the DAPHNE programme provides a signal that Europe is making solid progress over this matter and is striving to achieve its goal. The question of de-institutionalisation is of the highest importance and I feel that whatever additional efforts we manage to deploy will be both reasonable and necessary.

Concerning the question of caged beds, I think you are right that in some countries such beds are used fitted with nets and that there is often controversy as to whether they are used excessively or even simply for the convenience of staff. The problem – in my view – is not entirely one of technique so much as one of a generally restrictive culture which in some institutions and in some countries has persisted to a greater extent than would correspond to the high humanitarian standards which the EU is striving to enforce, since a similar kind of inhumane interference in people’s minds can also result from the use of pharmacological substances, if these are used without proper need and on the basis of a restrictive culture. I do indeed consider it necessary to clear away and overthrow this restrictive culture throughout the EU, but at the end of the day the techniques through which the culture manifests itself are not so important. You are right that caged beds may be a problem in several countries, but I have noted with some satisfaction that this is not the case in many countries, although only in some is there is a strong trend towards abolishing this method.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, we know that child care is in a sorry state in Romania, as the Commission itself noted in the progress reports. Other problems now seem to be coming to the fore. Has this problem now been dealt with or solved, or has the Commission simply shifted its focus? What is the state of child care in that accession country?

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) The Commission has of course not allowed this very important issue to disappear from view. In each case we can report striking progress, even though in some areas, for example the issue of international adoption, very intensive discussions are still continuing. The Commission has not in any way abandoned the idea of focusing on children’s rights, as I firmly believe that the European Union has a certain duty to be socially responsible, and this responsibility must also be implemented within the context of accession talks. It is therefore out of the question that we might fail to appreciate the importance of this issue.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Commissioner, again and again we are shocked when cases of child abuse come to light. Sadly, the authorities often fail to act soon enough and, for want of cooperation, it can be months before the courts allow a child to be removed from the environment in which it was being abused. What steps does the Commission plan to take so that cases of child abuse are recognised better in future and action can be taken more quickly?

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) It is of course necessary to state that questions relating to the fight against child abuse fall within national jurisdictions. The dragging out of these cases, the long waiting periods, poor detection rates and the like are all a matter for national bodies. It is difficult for the EU to get involved in this area directly, although it is possible within the framework of the European Social Fund projects, or specialised projects, or within the framework of discussions and the exchange of information, and we are putting considerable effort into doing this. I believe it is also very important to build on and continue developing initiatives, which mostly come under the authority of my colleague Mr Frattini, and which relate to the fight against people trafficking, domestic violence and so on. Even in this area the European Commission is striving in the first place to formulate at least an exchange of the defining data, in order to be able to compare the situation in different Member States, and on the basis of this to formulate specific approaches. The basic principle still applies that social matters, which frequently include tragic and sensitive issues, fall within national jurisdictions, which means that if a case has not been resolved for a long time, it will be an issue much more for the domestic authorities than for the EU, although we should use such jurisdiction as we do have to the full.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). – I am part of the advisory council for the Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and we have been raising the issue of caged beds for a number of years now. But you are quite right – it is not just a question of caged beds; it is restraints on the beds, the use of pharmaceuticals and, more importantly perhaps, it is the lack of community care spaces.

Could you please do all in your power, particularly with the Green Paper on mental health coming to the end of its consultation period on 31 May, to address the issue of community-based care and getting people away from institutionalised care, not just for children but for people with mental health problems as well.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Mrs Lynne, your opinion is clearly in complete agreement with the opinion of the Commission, as expressed in the relevant communications. For both of us, the way forward is de-institutionalisation, in other words transferring care as much as possible to local authorities, the community and of course families. I feel that in this situation we must also consider very carefully what sort of support to provide to family members or to the people who, although not direct family members themselves, have nonetheless taken over the care of another person. When we consider these things in an ordinary way, we think of financial support, but in my view it is also necessary to provide some form of qualification, since for families that have to assume such a responsibility it is very important to know something about basic nursing methods, and the basic principles that are to be followed, as well as the limits that such care can impose. It is an unbearable form of ethical torment to have the feeling that you can still go one step further when in reality it is no longer possible, so in this respect we can ease the burden on those that are providing help. In essence this is the Commission’s core strategy: a move away from institutions that are often inhumane, that often have a restrictive culture and that are often structurally incapable of accepting the individuality and quality of life of the people who come into contact with them, and in the direction of local authorities, natural communities and of course families, in the broader sense of the word.

  President. Question No 50 by Neena Gill (H-0374/06)

Subject: Consumer information and consultation on the issue of GMO

Many constituents have written to me about the Commission's proposal to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic. According to a recent Eurobarometer survey, GMOs are in the top five problems or risks that European citizens associate with food.

The concerns of my constituents are twofold: one that 0.1% contamination of GMO was already permitted in products labelled organic without their being aware of it. And two, that this has been increased to 0.9%. Can the Commission assure me that adequate research has been done on the long-term effects of GMO? And what information can the Commission give me that will help me to reassure my constituents that there will be no health consequences of this increase?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. The Member’s question gives the impression that the Commission has proposed to increase the acceptable level of adventitious contamination of organic products with GMOs from 0.1% to 0.9%. I am very happy to have the opportunity to clarify this matter, because the issue has been raised both with myself and with my services on many occasions and in many different fora. In my view, the concerns are based on a misunderstanding of our proposal and of existing legislation regarding organic products and GMOs. To read our proposal as ‘to allow 0.9% of GMO content in products labelled organic’ is a clear misinterpretation. I should like to explain why.

Not all consumers are aware of this, but currently there is no specific legislation on permissible GMO thresholds in organic products, there are no permissible GMO thresholds in organic products. The existing organic production rules ban the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products without laying down any threshold for the unintended presence of traces of GMOs. There is, therefore, no question of these rules ‘already permitting a 0.1% contamination of GMOs in products labelled organic’, as the honourable Member stated in her question.

These rules date from a period when GMOs were not generally cultivated or imported. This situation has obviously now changed. The proposal of the Commission maintains the ban on the deliberate use of GMOs or GM-derived products. However, we propose that an operator may rely on GM labels when assuring that no GMOs enter his/her production.

These labels provide for effective evidence as, today, GMOs or products derived from GMOs generally have to be labelled as GM according to Community legislation. This de facto means that the same 0.9% threshold for the unintended presence of GMO traces applies to organic products as to other products.

We believe that if we tried to impose a stricter labelling threshold for organic products, this would simply make life much more difficult for organic producers, because we realise that complete purity is unattainable in practice. Even so – and I would like to stress this – it does not mean, as the honourable Member states, that the proposal ‘increased the level of permitted GMO contamination to 0.9 %’. The operator will have to continue to take all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs!

What, on the contrary, would really change under our proposal is that a product labelled as GM could no longer be labelled as organic at the same time if the 0.9% threshold is exceeded, which is in fact possible today under the present legislation.

On the health aspects, it has to be considered that GMOs may only be placed on the market following a specific case-by-case authorisation procedure. The European Union has arguably the most stringent and tough risk assessment and authorisation procedure for GMOs in the world, and that covers both environmental and health aspects. For this reason, the discussion about unintended presence of GMOs does not relate to safety issues.

In conclusion, I really must emphasise once again that in relation to the adventitious contamination of organic products by GMOs, the proposal under discussion at present amounts to a very important tightening-up of the rules and not, as it has often been suggested, a weakening. This is very important. It is really a tightening-up of the situation.

  Neena Gill (PSE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for that very comprehensive clarification of a complex issue. As you appreciate, GMOs are in the top five of real concerns of European citizens, and public opinion in Europe is very sceptical about GM products and is very worried about ‘Frankenfoods’.

The issue for us is: one, we have to get the right information out there and, two, how do we assure that with the Commission proposals, as you have outlined, this information reaches the public at large? I can read you a number of emails that I have received in which people are very concerned. Recently the WTO confirmed the ruling against the EU in the case of GMOs. What implications are there for this in what you have just stated as the policy?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Then I am quite sure we received the same emails. Therefore, today is a great opportunity for me to clarify some of the misunderstandings.

I believe the most essential step was that we were able to agree in the Council in November 2002 on the traceability and labelling of GMOs. That was crucial. The final outcome might not have satisfied everybody, but it was important that products that are produced directly from a GM product – for example, tomato ketchup produced directly from GM tomatoes – must be labelled. Therefore, consumers can actually choose whether they want to buy those products. Farmers can now avoid, for example, soybeans that have been produced by GM methods and buy the conventional type of feed for their animals. That was a major achievement.

The WTO dispute we had with the United States does not change anything.

  John Purvis (PPE-DE). – I wonder if the Commissioner would be helped in her information campaign if she were to tell us how much it would cost producers of organic food to reduce the ceiling from 0.9% to 0.1% on GMO content. What would it cost the organic producers? What would it cost their customers, and what would be the impact on availability of organic food for the customers? Can she give me those figures?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. No, but I can give you an idea of the consequence: if we were to reduce the ceiling to 0.1%, it would have dramatic consequences for organic producers. It would be so expensive that, in my judgement, the availability of organic products to the consumer would be reduced dramatically, because the price would be out of proportion to the price the consumer is prepared to pay. To give you a clear figure is simply impossible, but we have calculated and made it clear that if anyone did wish to reduce the ceiling to 0.1%, that would have a serious impact on the survival of organic farmers.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Commissioner, to date we still have no long-term studies of the effects of genetically modified organisms. In view of the European public’s marked scepticism about genetic engineering and the recent WTO ruling, is the European Union planning to make any studies of the medium and long-term health damage caused by genetically engineered food?

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Before allowing the import or the growing of any GM product, the European Food Safety Authority has to have the possibility to go through all the details – both from a health point of view and from an environmental point of view – to calculate the risk or the consequences for either health or the environment. So, from my point of view these two areas are covered by all EFSA’s efforts to try to have the ruling in place before allowing either import or growing.

Part Two

  President. As they deal with the same subject, Questions Nos 51, 52 and 53 will be taken together.

Question No 51 by Maria Badia I Cutchet (H-0328/06)

Subject: Community regulation to reduce international roaming mobile telephone charges

Let me begin by congratulating the Commission on its initiative in drawing up a Community regulation to reduce international roaming mobile telephone charges. This is a significant step towards achieving not merely political but economic governance of the European Union.

Excessive roaming charges need to be eliminated. 2006 is European Year of Workers’ Mobility, and the EU's efforts to encourage European mobility in general, and not merely of workers, should ensure that mobile telephone users should not have to pay higher charges just because they are abroad.

As the Commission knows, current market prices penalise Europeans for being outside their country of origin, and the prices charged for roaming calls also vary for users from different European states.

In order to guarantee that the new regulation meets not only the criterion principles of competitiveness and of the internal market, but also of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, could the Commission tell me what the bases used for this regulation will be?

Question No 52 by Seán Ó Neachtain (H-0336/06)

Subject: Reduction in roaming charges in Europe

How long does the European Commission believe that it will take for a reduction in the cost of roaming charges for the consumers of Europe to come into effect, and how much of a reduction in the cost of roaming charges will be involved?

Question No 53 by Gay Mitchell (H-0340/06)

Subject: International roaming charges

Will the Commission outline the specific procedures currently taking place in the second and final phase of consultations on the regulation that is aimed at bringing down international roaming charges?

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. We all know that the international roaming prices are very high. Parliament and the national regulatory authorities have drawn our attention to that fact several times. They have called for action at EU level to solve the problem, and rightly so, because the high roaming costs prevent citizens and businesses conducting cross-border activities from benefiting fully from the internal market.

As a first step, in October 2005 I launched a website to provide consumers with transparency on prices. At the same time I publicly declared that six months later I would benchmark the progress. Should there not be a drastic price reduction, I would regulate. In March 2006 we compared the roaming prices to their level of autumn 2005. We saw that in 19 Member States the prices were more or less stable, in four Member States they had gone up. On that basis I announced a regulation and we started public consultation. The public consultation came to an end on 12 May. We had 150 contributions. My services and I are now analysing those contributions, and will draw our conclusions and present them together with an impact assessment before summer 2006. At the same time, in July, the Commission will present a draft regulation.

I have noticed that in the meantime, understanding that the Commission will act, some market players have announced price reductions. That is a very interesting move and is in the interests of our consumers.

  Maria Badia i Cutchet (PSE). – (ES) I would like to thank you, Commissioner, for this initiative, as I did when I was preparing the question, and also for the explanations that you have given to us, which show the level of interest and concern concerning this issue.

I would like to say that this Regulation needs to be set in motion as soon as possible. You have already explained this, but I think that this is an extremely important issue for encouraging mobility within Europe, both in terms of employment and in general. I hope that this Regulation will come into force as soon as possible.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – I would also like to thank the Commissioner for her initiative to date and her efforts in this regard, but I would like to ask her if it is the intention of the Commission to reduce the roaming charges completely? In the internal market procedure, why should there be a difference? We should have the same charges throughout Europe. This would, I believe, be the remit of the Commission and I would expect that to be the intention.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – I should like to express my thanks to the Commissioner. Roaming prices for a four-minute call still vary from as little as 20 cents for a Finnish consumer calling from Sweden to EUR 13.05 for a Maltese consumer in Latvia. Revenues from international roaming charges total about EUR 10 billion and regulation should save the consumer between 40% and 60%. Could the Commissioner confirm that it is her intention that whatever regulation is needed will pass into law by summer of next year?

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. I would like to thank honourable Members for their help in this matter. It is indeed a very important matter, not only for our citizens who want to take advantage of mobility, but also for workers. I am thinking most of all of the small- and medium-sized businesses that send their workers on trans-border activities. This is very heavy on those businesses, so we should try to bring the roaming prices down to the real costs. That is why we will now have to analyse what we have received as input with these 150 contributions.

I announced in March that my intention is to switch to the home price tariff. Under which conditions this will happen is something I am considering at the moment on the basis of the inputs to the consultation. I can assure Parliament that the intention is to put a regulation before the Commission in July and then it will be in the hands of Parliament and the Council to see whether they can use the fast-track procedure to get this regulation accepted. Once this regulation is accepted it will go directly into implementation and that means, I believe, that before summer or in summer 2007 consumers and workers could profit from much lower roaming tariffs.

  Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – As you can see, getting rid of roaming charges is one of the Commission’s most popular initiatives. I would like to return to the first question from Mrs Badia I Cutchet. She asked about the legal basis of this regulation. What will the legal basis be and how will you cooperate with DG Competition on this initiative?

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. The DG Competition makes ex post regulations on the basis of a complaint that has been introduced, whereas the Internal Market and Services DG can work on the markets in ex ante regulations. Here we are talking about Article 95. I have consulted with the legal services to find out if Article 95 is the right basis. I will certainly continue to do so throughout the process. I am convinced and satisfied by the answers from the legal services that Article 95 provides an appropriate basis for our proposal.

  Sajjad Karim (ALDE). – Commissioner, yesterday I was reading a British paper whilst I was travelling to Strasbourg. It is a rather lengthy journey, so I had plenty of time on my hands. I read an article setting out all the telephone providers’ arguments as to why you do not understand their objections.

Is it not the case that those same companies benefit from access to the single market and from the European Union whilst foisting charges upon EU citizens? Is this not another example of the European Union standing up for the interests of European consumers over the overwhelming power of monopoly companies?

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. The internal market works to the advantage of businesses, big and small, and consumers. The fact is that the internal market has worked to the advantage of developing the GSM system, which has become a world standard. We are very proud of that. But the anomaly is that although our citizens have one of the best – if not the best – telephone systems in the world, both fixed and mobile, nevertheless when they cross a border they are somehow punished for doing so and cannot take advantage of the common market. That is exactly why I thought it was indispensable for the Commission to step in.

I am not the regulating kind of Commissioner; I always prefer the market to solve the problem by itself. That is why the market had been warned a long time in advance. It had been warned by Parliament; it had been warned by the national regulators; it had been warned several times by the Commission, and it did not move. The Commission had to resolve to put a regulation on the table before the first market forces began to move a little in the right direction. I believe that it is time the Commission gave back the advantages of the internal market to the small and medium-sized businesses and to our consumers.

  Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE). – I would like to join in the praise for the tough stand the Commissioner has taken, but I want to reinforce what she said about not wanting to over-regulate. Can she confirm that she has taken real notice of the European regulators, who have, I think, been fairly critical of her initial approach and are being very cautionary about what she is proposing to do? Would she please confirm to me that she is not intending to impose regulation in the marketplace that would require operators to deliver services below cost, because that would mean low-income users of mobile phones subsidising the premium rates of customers such as MEPs?

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. I have the impression that at the moment the low-income consumers are subsidising the consumers in large industries which are able to negotiate special prices with the mobile operators. We would like to reverse that position and see fair prices based on markets and cost for the consumer, not the unfair prices we have now. Most of all, we would like to give back to the consumers the advantages of the common market and promote mobility rather than being a barrier to it.

I have read the advice of the European Regulators’ Group with great interest and I am working very closely with that group. It shares my objective, which is to bring about substantial reductions in international roaming charges. Our services are meeting members of the group today to discuss with them the details of how this should be done. That is why I am unable to give details of our regulation at the moment, because I have to see everything that is on the table – 150 contributions – and to listen to the national regulators. Having done that, I will draw up a paper on a draft regulation for the Commission and I am sure that Parliament will discuss this paper thoroughly later on this summer.

  President. Question No 54 by Brian Crowley (H-0330/06)

Subject: The safest use of the Internet

Can the European Commission outline what initiatives it is pursuing to promote the safest use of the Internet in Europe?

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. The Commission is pursuing several initiatives to promote the safest possible use of the Internet in Europe. Since 1996 the Commission has been active in the fight against illegal content such as child pornography, or racist content, as also in the protection of children from accessing legal but harmful content such as adult pornography, violent content and gambling.

Parliament is examining the Commission’s proposal to update the Television Without Frontiers directive in order to cover all audiovisual media services. A basic canon of rules will then apply to all audiovisual content, whatever the means by which it is distributed, including television and the Internet. These will relate to safety, protection of minors, prohibition of incitement to hatred, and include some qualitative restrictions on advertising targeted at minors.

We also have a recommendation on protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services, which provides guidelines for national legislation about electronic media. On the basis of this recommendation, in 2005 we launched the Safer Internet Plus programme. That programme has established a network of 21 hotlines throughout Europe, which enable the general public to complain about illegal content found on the Internet. These hotlines investigate and refer complaints to the appropriate organisations, police, Internet service providers or hotlines in other countries.

We also have a network of 23 awareness-raising projects, which provide advice to children, teenagers, parents and educators about the risks of the Internet and the way to deal with them. This is done either directly with the help of brochures, websites and TV spots or through the intermediary of multiplier organisations like schools. Then there is the filtering and parenting software, which is a key means to protect children from accessing harmful content. The Commission will provide guidance to parents on the effectiveness of filtering software and services. A study is under way and due to be completed by December this year.

The Commission is also actively involved with the Internet and the mobile phone industry with a view to promoting self-regulation as a means of limiting the flow of harmful and illegal content. The Commission has taken legislative measures against spam, spyware and moleware, which are also viruses. A full list of these will be communicated to the honourable Members.

I would also like to say that at international level the follow-up conference to the World Summit on the Information Society will tackle all these negative aspects of the new technologies. Let me say today that I am sure that with the help of Parliament the Safer Internet Day in spring 2007 will become a real important awareness-raising day in all our Member States.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Thank you very much for your answer, Commissioner. I also think it is a very good thing that the World Information Summit is to be held again. But do you think that the measures you have taken really will be enough? What measures do you plan to take if this bad material nevertheless continues to be found on the Internet? Are parents and guardians also being trained and made aware of these matters, by the Commission among others?

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. (DE) Mr President, I am afraid Mrs Schierhuber is right. This bad material is on the Internet and it will continue to be. We are doing all we can to get it removed from the Internet, but it is a world wide web and we do not have access to these contents everywhere. That is why the most important thing is to provide both parents and schools with the necessary information so that they can prepare children for what they will find on the net.

With this in mind, all our information campaigns and awareness campaigns will, I hope, culminate in a very successful Safer Internet Day early in 2007. I would also like the European Parliament to support us, with Members taking related initiatives in their constituencies. A coordinated campaign would surely benefit our children all across Europe.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – I should like to thank the Commissioner. However, considering that to date the prohibition of these unwanted sites has not been so successful, what confidence do you have that your proposals will eradicate such undesirable sites from the Internet?

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. As I have already said, it is a worldwide web and everybody can submit content to it. That is why we need not only to raise the awareness of educators and parents but also to lobby internet providers, as I do regularly, to take responsibility and to establish self-regulatory measures.

I really believe in self-regulation in that field. If many stakeholders self-regulate, there will be a result. In the revised Television Without Frontiers Directive, the basic values of our societies will also apply to the Internet. This will be of the utmost importance, and responsibility will lie with those working in online services.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Commissioner, you cannot control what is on the web, but you can control access in the following way.

With the advent of broadband, the Internet is on all the time. A lot of new computers have just one password to turn on the computer and do not have a separate password to control access to the Internet. Therefore children can wander in, broadband is on and they can access the Internet straight away. If there was simple control on access and more passwords on computers themselves, then parents, schools and others would have greater control. I ask you to look at that issue, particularly as broadband means the Internet is on all the time.

  Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. We have a real problem with the new technologies, which is that for the first time in human history maybe children know more than parents and educators. That is why we have to provide parents with very simple software, simple filters and parenting devices so that they can take their responsibility. That is why we have launched a study to find out what filters and services exist for parents. At the end of the year, when we present this study, it will be most beneficial to organise an awareness-raising campaign on those filters in order to inform parents what they can do to help their children. Very often parents are lost in such cases because they are not very familiar with technology – at least not as familiar as the new generation is.

  President. Questions Nos 55 to 58 will be answered in writing.

As the author is not present, Question No 59 lapses.

  President. Question No 60 by Margarita Starkeviciute (H-0366/06)

Subject: Financial services in WTO Doha round

Political attention within the EU on WTO negotiations has tended to focus on agricultural and textile production and has somehow ignored the far more significant economic potential of commercial services, including financial services.

Poor access to finance, including a wide range of innovative financial products, hinders the economic growth in developing countries, especially in the SMEs sector, while the EU Member States cannot bring to fruition the enormous potential of financial services.

What action is the Commission taking to incorporate new and improved GATS commitments on financial services into multilateral and bilateral requests to its WTO trading partners?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Let me assure you that the Commission is well aware of the significant economic potential of commercial services, including financial services. This is an important part of the WTO negotiations and it has not been ignored, even if it has received less publicity than other parts.

The Commission has highlighted the importance of access to finance in developing countries on many occasions, for example in a communication that it co-sponsored last year in the WTO.

Financial services are clearly one of the European Commission’s priorities in the services negotiations and, therefore, figure prominently in the European Commission’s bilateral services requests. Furthermore, the European Community was one of the co-sponsors of the recently tabled financial services plurilateral request and is particularly active in plurilateral and bilateral negotiations with our trading partners in Geneva.

Unfortunately, the offers in financial services on the table so far are mostly disappointing. This applies particularly to many countries in Asia. Certain ASEAN members, with very low existing commitments, have not made any financial services offers and larger players, such as China and particularly India, also have room to improve their offers.

In short, most of our main requests in financial services have not been addressed by our trading partners. That is why the Commission will continue to press very hard and at all levels to convince our trading partners of the need to correct the situation by submitting substantially revised offers in July this year.

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – (LT) I am very sorry that Mr Mandelson, a Member of the Commission, was unable to attend and I would not like to ask a question which is perhaps not in your area of expertise.

I believe that in your work you are able to say whether the Commission is considering possibilities to broaden the financial services dialogue. Because now I have an impression that everything is focused on agricultural products and textiles, whereas in fact, once the trade structure has changed, the financial services sector would be in an ideal position to help changing the trade structure.

Is the Commission devoting much time to debating the expansion and development of financial services?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Yes, we do that and we impress on our trading partners the need to correct this situation. We believe that they are in a position to submit substantially revised offers concerning financial services by July this year. We will continue to insist on it but, as you know, trade negotiations are bilateral and plurilateral negotiations: we need to receive this offer from them and we are trying hard to put pressure on them to make such offers.

  David Martin (PSE). – I am aware that Commissioner Mandelson has pushed financial services quite hard and I am pleased to hear from the Commissioner that he is intending to do so. Does he agree with me that it is somewhat ironic that a country like India, which has call centres from European companies selling insurance, mortgages, loans and other financial services to Europeans, denies those very services to its own people, and will he press India in particular to reform its protectionist system for financial services?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. We are asking the Indian authorities to improve access to these services and I hope they will comply with our request.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Will the European Commission step up pressure on emerging economies and on previous developing countries to open up their services markets? This is the core question and I believe that, for the European Union, the symmetry between the Union markets which have already been opened up in the agricultural sector, on the one hand, and the corresponding opening up of other countries in the services sectors in general, on the other hand, should be strengthened. This should also apply to access to the market for non-agricultural products.

Without these preconditions, the Doha Round will not have symmetrical results. There will be no balance as regards its results.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. I can confirm what I already said. We are working all the time with those countries so that they improve or strengthen the services offered, including financial services. It is part of our negotiation strategy. It is not that we are only taking a defensive position on agriculture; we are active in all areas that concern the trade negotiations. We firmly believe that trade concessions should be reciprocal.

  President. Question No 61 by Bart Staes (H-0299/06)

Subject: Biofuels

On 8 March 2006, the Commission published its strategy for promoting biofuels (COM(2006)0034 final). However, there are social and ecological questions to be asked about this. For example, it is necessary to organise compulsory certification of biofuels. This is intended to ensure that all biofuels placed on the market comply with a set of social and ecological criteria in order to be eligible for tax concessions. Another unsatisfactory point is that the Commission suggests that, in exchange for the use of biofuels, vehicle producers will not be expected to make as much effort to develop and market more economical vehicles.

In the light of these problems, how does the Commission intend to ensure the ecological integrity of the use of biofuels?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Biofuels are needed for two main reasons. Firstly, our energy security depends on developing alternatives to oil. Among the solutions that can be put into practice today, there is none with the same potential as biofuels. Secondly, the transport sector is not contributing enough to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Biofuels can significantly contribute to this aim.

The EU has decided to achieve rapid development of biofuels use. The Biofuels Directive, adopted in 2003, set a reference value of a 2% market share for biofuels in 2005 and 5.75% in 2010, compared with a 0.2% share in 2000. In adopting national indicative targets under the Directive, Member States have been somewhat less ambitious, but, overall, the target is a share of about 1.4% in 2005.

In the light of this, the review of the functioning of the Biofuels Directive, which the Commission is due to carry out this year, is particularly important. We have just launched the public consultation exercise for this review. The public consultation poses a number of questions. First of all, will the 5.75% objective for 2010 be achieved through the present policies and measures? If not, what can be done to ensure that the objective will be achieved? Should the Community set objectives for the share of biofuels in 2015 and 2020? The Commission has taken no position on these questions so far.

Turning to the question of environmental impact, it is important to start from the basis that biofuels bring a number of environmental benefits. However, it is also true that their production can have some adverse effects on the environment. I believe that second-generation biofuels can have even greater environmental benefits and their introduction should be accelerated as much as possible.

The Commission will make sure, therefore, that the promotion of biofuels continues to bring benefits in environmental terms, as well as the benefit of security of supply. For that reason, as part of the review of the Directive, the Commission is asking for views on the introduction of a certification system. This could ensure that only biofuels whose cultivation meets required environmental standards count towards objectives in the Directive. The initial reaction of environmental NGOs, fuel suppliers and other stakeholders has been encouragingly positive.

As regards car manufacturers' obligations, carmakers have voluntarily agreed to limit average CO2 emissions from new cars to 140g per km by 2008/2009. The Commission does not consider that the use of biofuels should in any way reduce the objectives agreed upon with the car industry.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Thank you, Commissioner, for your response. I am delighted that the Commission would like to further sustain our mobility as a priority. That is absolutely vital. While I take note of the undertakings you have given, there is something I would like to ask you. What is at issue is not just the production of biofuels here in the European Union, but also the production and possible purchase of biofuels from outside it. We have received reports that this production is done under circumstances which are not ideal, these include deforestation of the Amazon, social exploitation and the excessive use of pesticides. What does the Commission intend to do about this?

You have also responded to my question about the automotive industry, but what you left unanswered is the question as to whether the automotive industry should not commit to producing cars that are more economical in their use of petrol. That is, after all, what this debate is all about. A reduction in fuels ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. The same environmental sustainability standards should apply outside the Union as well. As I said in my answer to the first question, we should look upon the issues in our trade negotiations.

The development of biofuels should not be at the expense of the rainforests. It must also be done in a sustainable way. I believe that we have all the means to follow that path.

On the car industry’s obligation to make more efficient engines and more efficient cars, we will follow that path as well. It does not replace the other path, however: they are two separate tracks going in the same direction – security of supply, competitiveness and sustainability. But on the matter of improved standards for cars, the answer is the use of biofuels. Only both combined can give the necessary result.

  David Martin (PSE). – Firstly, I welcome your reply, Commissioner. I would urge you along the route of certification. You are right, it would be quite wrong if, for example, the use of palm oil led to the destruction of forests in Indonesia. So I would push you in that direction.

The other problem we have with biofuels is that while we are getting cars produced that can take biofuels and getting drivers willing to drive the cars, there is still a great difficulty in most parts of Europe in finding petrol stations that will stock biofuels and enable the consumer to take advantage of this ecologically friendly system. Will he do what he can to encourage more petrol companies to have a biofuel pump in their stations?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. We recently adopted the biomass action plan and a communication on biofuels. Both these documents have been discussed in the Council and there is definitely a need for Member States to pursue a more proactive policy to bring biofuels onto the market. The Commission encourages this as far as it can, but many measures could be introduced by Member States themselves. It is not for the Commission to ensure that there are enough petrol stations stocking biofuels. For example, I wish there were more of them in Brussels.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, I am very glad that it is at last being recognised throughout Europe and the world that we need to be independent of the politically unstable regions from which the European Union gets much of its energy. My question to the Commission is this: will the Commission also bring pressure to bear on the engine, car or, indeed, the motor vehicle industry? We know today that biofuels can be produced without esterification, but engines have to be designed so that people can drive using both fuels. Is any thought being given to this?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. (DE) I do not believe we need to do anything to achieve our objectives in the engine industry at present because admixture is permissible and technically possible in small quantities. Of course we will need more flexibility in the future. The car industry will follow our political trend.

The most important thing at present is to show that the European Union really is prepared to do that. In reality, only very small technical changes are required to increase the use of biofuel. The most important objective should be to bring biofuel on to the market in as many Member States as possible, since it is not available everywhere yet. In some States it is already. The Commission is therefore trying hard to persuade those States that have not yet done enough to achieve their own objectives.

  President. Question No 62 by Bernd Posselt (H-0301/06)

Subject: Energy dependence

What are the next steps for the Commission with regard to reducing the European Union's dependence on gas and oil imports from Russia?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. I think this will be rather a long answer because it cannot be answered in just a few sentences.

I would like to start by saying that today Russia plays a very important role in securing Europe’s energy supplies. Currently Russia provides almost 30% of the EU’s oil imports and 45% of our gas imports. Or, to be more exact, 25% of our consumed gas. As a result, Russia is the largest single external energy supplier.

A considerable amount of our Iranian imports are also provided by Russia, so the EU and Russian markets for crude oil and oil products, as well as natural gas, are tightly interlinked with numerous pipelines, maritime and rail links and numerous contracts that our companies have concluded with Russian suppliers.

A broad relationship and energy dialogue was established between Russia and the Commission in 2000. Moreover, the common economic space agreed during the EU-Russia Summit in May 2005 includes cooperation in a wide range of energy-related activities. So the energy dialogue aims to discuss issues related to energy policy and market developments, infrastructure developments, and EU-Russia cooperation in multilateral energy fora. I believe that Russia will remain an important supplier for the EU in the future.

Taking into account the expected growth of energy consumption in the EU, I expect Russia to continue to supply around 25% of the gas consumed in the EU which, in absolute terms, would mean an increase in supplies. The European Union and many countries worldwide are becoming ever more dependent on imported hydrocarbons. I would like to reiterate that in the long term there are only three countries that have a lot of natural gas resources: Russia, Iran and Qatar. At the same time, the EU will import 70% of its energy in 2030, compared with 50% today.

Over time, the remaining fossil fuel resources will become more concentrated, as I said, in a rather small number of countries. As a consequence, energy interdependence is becoming a global issue, with major shared concerns, such as increased demand for limited resources in the world, the lack of investment in new production and the climate change issues.

Therefore, a broad range of actions at EU and Member-State level are required to address these challenges. It has been highlighted in the Green Paper. I have just highlighted one of the actions in my answer to the honourable Member’s previous question about biofuels. That is one of the actions that we indicate.

The Green Paper emphasised opportunities, such as policies to improve first of all energy efficiency and energy savings, as well as enhancing the market penetration of renewable energy sources. It also highlighted external policy options, such as strengthening the framework for energy relations between the EU and Russia in order to give more confidence to both sides, as well as policies and measures to diversification of the geographical sources and transportation routes of external energy supplies to the EU.

In this context, it is important to underline that the EU is making continuous efforts to improve energy relations with other energy-producing organisations – such as OPEC, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the countries of the Caspian Basin and north Africa – as well as with the consuming regions in the framework of the International Energy Forum, the International Energy Agency, G8 and through bilateral agreements and dialogues.

This policy of diversification is not directed against our current suppliers: it is a necessity dictated by the global energy security challenges and by the challenge posed by global warming and other environment-related issues.

Together with the Austrian Presidency of the European Union, I recently sent a letter to the Russian Energy Minister, Mr Khristenko, on the issue of energy cooperation and in particular gas interdependency. In this letter we reiterated the importance the EU attributes to deepening energy relations with Russia, the EU’s most important energy supplier. Furthermore, we stressed that the importance the EU attaches to diversifying sources of supply should not be interpreted as limiting deliveries of Russian gas to the EU market, particularly as demand for gas in Europe is forecast to rise.

In this relationship with Russia, the EU is promoting such principles as market reciprocity, fair transit conditions through Russia and third-party access to infrastructure in Russia. Therefore, the short answer to the questions that have been asked is that we are looking for diversification, but it is extremely important to establish measures on the demand side, because only with demand-side measures, energy efficiency and savings can we actually establish our energy independence more strongly and, at the same time, look towards our goals of sustainability and competitiveness.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, I believe President Putin’s politicisation of Gazprom is just as dangerous as the politicisation of OPEC by a few Gulf States 30 years ago. Energy independence is therefore very important. Could we not therefore do more to promote heating materials derived from renewable raw materials, that is from biomass, elephant grass and even from grain? Europe could provide for itself with these.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. (DE) Of course. That is one thing we are concentrating on. I probably did not say so much about it in my answer. We must make the best possible use of our own resources. The available biomass, wind and water power will not of course be enough, we will still need to buy energy from Russia and the OPEC States. But my answer today is: we must all do our homework at home, because that is the only way we will achieve our objective.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) I thank the Member of the Commission for his detailed reply. I agree that Russia is an important energy supplier and it is definitely essential to maintain the dialogue with Russia in the field of energy.

However, there is a good Russian proverb saying that God saves those who save themselves. And the European Union would do well to bear in mind certain official statements from Moscow.

I would like the Member of the Commission to comment on the statement made by the officials that apparently Russia will divert its energy resources to Asia, if Members of the European Union do not fulfil certain conditions.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. I followed President Putin's last address to the nation. He emphasised two issues that concern energy: first, he said that Gazprom has shown remarkable progress since he addressed the issue of energy efficiency. It is very important that Russia recognised that. He also said that Russia could play an important role in the creation of a common European energy policy. As regards the Gazprom announcement, I consider it one of the companies that have a monopoly. None of them would ever be willing to give their monopoly up. As regards diversification, we should accept that Russia will look for the most lucrative market. If the price is better in China, I am afraid it will try to sell the gas to China. The United States has higher prices and, with the development of LNG, competition between big consumers will grow. But, at the same time, I believe that the existing infrastructure that brings Russian gas to the European Union and highly diversified gas use in the European Union will make the European market very attractive to Gazprom and Russia in general. We are anticipating, as a result of dialogue, that Russia will follow in the gas sector the path currently being followed in the oil sector. That brings benefits to Russia and at the same time supplies the market well. I hope our dialogue will be able to bring about such a result. I know it is not easy but that is our goal. Geographically we are the best market and historically our companies have had very good relations. At the same time, I take very seriously the announcement by Gazprom that they would like to build a pipeline to China. That is no big surprise.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – On the question of reducing the European Union’s dependence on gas and oil imports from Russia, I would ask you, Commissioner, to elaborate on two issues. Firstly, is the EU in a position to counter the Russian pipeline monopoly in the transportation of oil and gas from Central Asia to Europe? Secondly, is the European Union able to secure reciprocity and greater transparency on the part of Russia’s energy sector?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. The first question was about gas transport from central Asia to Europe. There are two paths that we are following. One is definitely related to the Energy Charter and transit protocols under which such rights could be enjoyed. As for the other, I recently visited Kazakhstan to find out about the building of a trans-Caspian pipeline that can independently bring gas towards the European Union, bypassing the Russian gas transit system.

As regards transparency and relations, at this stage there is some reciprocity. In the EU Gazprom is treated as a company that has a complete pipeline monopoly in production and transport. So it is clear that whenever a situation in the internal market is evaluated, then it is evaluated on all aspects.

We are looking for more transparency and more mutual understanding. In October this year, we will have a conference on energy policies. It is also fairer to the Russian side also to ask questions as to what Europe’s views are and how far Europe is going in creating a common energy policy. It is also clear that they do not always have all the information and understanding as to what our goals are. Our goals are fair trade in these resources and fair markets. That, from my point of view, is beneficial not only for us, but also for Russia.

That is how I see that the best results could be achieved.

  President. Questions which had not been answered for lack of time would receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes questions to the Commission.

(The sitting was suspended at 7.30 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KAUFMANN
Vice-President