President. The next item is Question Time (B6-0312/2006).
We will take the following questions to the Commission.
Part One
President. Question No 34 by Claude Moraes (H-0544/06)
Subject: Football
Is the Commission aware of the difficulty it may have placed many of my constituents in the recent interjection on UK football broadcasting rights? In some cases, football is now extremely expensive to watch, because people must pay for more than one channel subscription, with more than one company in order to watch certain matches. Is this a fair decision when it economically alienates people from enjoying a sport? How can people on low incomes afford to follow their teams, if they have to buy more than one subscription?
Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. The Commission believes that the result of the Premier League media rights auction, which was carried out in compliance with Commission Decision 38173, will have beneficial effects for English football fans.
The longstanding monopoly of BSkyB concerning the broadcasting of live Premier League matches has ended as a result of this auction. In the auction BSkyB acquired four packages – 92 live matches – and Setanta acquired two packages – 46 live matches. Setanta has now emerged as a viable competitor and will be able to exercise both commercial and pricing pressure on the former monopolist BSkyB. The choice for English football and sports fans has also improved. Setanta is now in a position to offer an attractive alternative sports programme, including live Premier League matches.
The Commission acted in full compliance with EC competition rules and to the benefit of English consumers. It remains to be seen whether costs for consumers will indeed increase. In a market where at least two players are present, individual operators will have to consider carefully whether they can continue to raise prices for their packages without losing customers. It is also far from certain that the acquisition by a single operator of all live Premier League rights would have led to lower costs for English football fans.
In the absence of any constraints from competition, it is not impossible that a single operator would have raised the prices for its sports services without compensating for the increase in price by increased choice, as is now available.
The Commission also notes that English football fans who last season wished to watch more than the 88 live matches offered by BSkyB in its basic sports package also had to sign up for a second subscription channel from BSkyB, Prem Plus. The concept of two separate subscription channels is therefore not a novel one for football fans in the UK.
Claude Moraes (PSE). – This is quite an exciting question for some of us.
This is not really an issue of dealing with monopolies, because we support the Commission on this prime objective. The issue in this case is that I have a constituent who has disability problems; he watches television and wants to watch just one subscription channel. I put it to the Commissioner that we might have something of a law of unintended consequences here. You have tried to do the right thing in dealing with a monopoly, BSkyB, but in fact, with Setanta, you have created a situation in which my constituents will have to pay two subscriptions to watch the same amount of football. Is that something that the Commission could investigate?
Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. The question is quite clear. One of our principal objectives was to end BSkyB’s longstanding monopoly concerning the broadcasting of live Premier League matches and I think that this objective has been achieved. In particular Setanta has now emerged as a viable competitor to BSkyB and will be able to exercise commercial and pricing pressure on BSkyB. The sale of the live TV rights to two rival broadcasters already provides consumers with a greater choice than before. How much of an impact this will have will depend on the commercial strategies of BSkyB and Setanta.
It is far too early to say whether the level of competition that this has introduced will be enough. However, given the position of third parties and of the national authorities, if the consumer does not benefit from the FA Premier League’s current process, it is inevitable that there will be more discussions at national level about these issues in the future and that would be the time to deal with the Premier League.
The Commission’s Article 9 decision cannot and should not prevent this. As the honourable Member is aware, not all the competition problems have been resolved, nor would I want the decision to be used against national authorities or courts should they wish to intervene further. I am extremely grateful for the efforts, help and support of the OFT and Ofcom in this case.
Glyn Ford (PSE). – Thank you very much, Commissioner, on this auspicious evening for German – or possibly Italian – football. Can I ask if you are serious? Trying to break up the TV monopoly over premiership football has been a complete dog’s breakfast. As a football fan, I still have absolutely no choice. I have to subscribe to BSkyB and another channel if I want to follow my team. Does the Commission appreciate that buying a random collection of football matches is not what 90% of people want? They want to follow their team. Why have you cut up the cake in the way you have? It should be cut up so that I can choose to watch my team’s matches, not get a couple of them and twenty matches I do not want to watch. Will you look at this again?
Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. I shall answer the first question. Am I serious? Yes, I am quite serious. I am aware that sometimes that type of decision is not welcomed by all the honourable Members, but I am also aware that I need to fulfil my responsibility.
I take the concerns expressed by British consumers and by the honourable Members very seriously, because I wish to reduce costs and increase choice for consumers, not the opposite. However, I also believe that the result of the Premier League auction will have beneficial effects for English football fans in both the short and long term. Consumer welfare cannot be measured solely by considering the position of a person who wants to watch all the matches of one specific team.
British sports fans will now have the opportunity to view a significant number of the live Premier League matches and other sports through Setanta, which offers seven channels at the moment, including, for example, live Scottish football, live European football and live rugby. They will be able to do so without having to subscribe to Sky Sports, an option which previously did not exist.
It is also worth noting that, according to press reports, Setanta is considering showing matches via a pay television service on the digital terrestrial platform Freeview, which would make Premier League matches available on digital terrestrial TV for the first time, so that is really something to offer.
Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Commissioner, multinational companies have had their sights on television broadcasting rights to sports events for many years, as have, recently, subsidiaries of the large sporting federations. The arrival of subscriber television in the life of citizens has radically changed its social role. Now, among other things, citizens are obliged to pay in order to enjoy sporting events and mobile telephony and the Internet are knocking at the door of this new phenomenon.
How is the Commission addressing this onslaught? Does this mean that citizens without the necessary subscription should be denied access to the Olympic Games, world cups and international events? Finally, what is being done about the list of sports which the Member States must propose and notify to the competent committee of the European Union, for which broadcasting on free rather than subscriber television is mandatory?
Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. I should like to underline once again that, when considering the application of EC law in the context of sport, it is important to draw a distinction between sport insofar as it generates economic activity and sporting rules as such.
Insofar as sport generates economic activity, it is subject to EC law, including the internal market and competition rules in the same way as other economic activities. So far so good! Of course, as reflected in the Nice Declaration, the Community takes account of the inherent social, educational and cultural aspects of sport when taking action under the Treaty. The Commission has followed this line in applying EC competition rules in individual cases and this approach has been confirmed by the European courts. When engaged in economic activity, sport governing bodies should, like any undertaking, ensure compliance with EC competition rules.
I said that not all competition problems have been resolved, nor would I want a decision to be used against national authorities or courts should they wish to intervene further. It is clear that competition in itself creates economic activity; this makes competitors more alert and that is beneficial for the consumer and, in most cases, results in more diversity, more quality and a better price.
President. Question No 35 by Robert Evans (H-0555/06)
Subject: Montenegro
In light of the recent referendum, what immediate changes in the relationship between the EU and Montenegro are envisaged and what additional support is the Commission now considering?
Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. Following the referendum of 21 May 2006, which was conducted according to international standards and resulted in the victory of the pro-independence vote, the subsequent declaration of independence by the Montenegrin Parliament, as well as the reaction of the European Union at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 12 June, Montenegro and the European Union are now in the process of establishing diplomatic relations.
The Commission intends to submit a proposal to the Council shortly, requesting authorisation to negotiate with Montenegro a Stabilisation and Association Agreement based on the negotiating directives of 3 October 2005, which concerned the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.
In the same context, I would like to inform the House that we shall present a modified negotiating mandate for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia. Both countries, Montenegro and Serbia, have a concrete European perspective, like the other countries of the western Balkans. Here the Stabilisation and Association Agreement is the first stepping stone, while the ultimate goal of this process is EU accession at a later stage, when each of the countries is able to fulfil the necessary conditions. This European perspective of the Western Balkans was confirmed by the European Council in the middle of last month.
The Commission will intensify its monitoring of developments in Montenegro, which will now have to face, on its own, all the responsibilities of its relationship with the European Union, including implementation of the European Partnership and the need to substantially strengthen its administrative and institutional capacity.
This autumn the Commission will issue a separate annual report for Montenegro, which will include specific recommendations for the way ahead in the country.
Montenegro, like other countries in the region, will benefit from assistance under the forthcoming pre-accession financial instrument as of 2007. Finally, the Commission intends shortly to open an office in Montenegro, which will be responsible for dialogue with the authorities and with civil society, the monitoring of reforms and the implementation of the financial instrument for pre-accession.
Robert Evans (PSE). – I should like to correct you, Madam President. You said that the question concerns the ‘problem’ of Montenegro. I believe it is a challenge rather than a problem.
I am delighted to hear the Commissioner say that the Commission is considering opening an office in Podgorica. I welcome that initiative very much. Does he feel that this would be helpful in promoting tourism in Montenegro? I believe that the Adriatic coastline there offers great opportunities. He spoke about possible membership of the European Union. Has he any idea of the timescale? What sort of period would he like to see before an application for EU membership came from Montenegro?
Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. The question by the honourable Member is extremely pertinent and important, especially from the point of view of the Republic of Montenegro and its citizens. The primary duty of the European Commission office in Montenegro will be to promote European integration and to promote the relationship between Montenegro and the European Union. Thus indirectly it will certainly help to facilitate such economic and social development, including the development of tourism activities that will benefit the country and citizens in time.
As regards forecasting when Montenegro might be able to meet all the conditions of accession and thus accede to the European Union, I will leave that to the betting agencies. From the point of view of the Commission and the European Parliament it is more important that they ensure the quality of the accession process rather than its speed. We have to emphasise substance more than schedule when we talk about accession negotiations or the pre-accession phase as now faced by the Republic of Montenegro.
Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, I would just like, once again, to ask you to make it absolutely clear that Montenegro has exactly the same prospects for accession as all the other countries in the region under the Thessaloniki Declaration, and that, with particular regard to the issue of minorities, Montenegro has an exemplary policy in this domain.
Secondly, I would just like to ask what the situation now is with regard to Serbia. With whom are you negotiating – the former federal level, or the former republic level in Serbia?
Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. The honourable Member raises a very critical question. I can assure him and all of you that the Republic of Montenegro has the same prospects for the ultimate goal of EU membership as the other countries of the western Balkans. It is therefore in the same position as all the countries of that region.
Minority rights are a critical condition. They concern all the countries of the region and we are stressing the need for minority rights to be respected in all the countries in that region, as well as in other candidate countries. That is mentioned in our report, which will be presented next autumn, most likely in October or November.
As regards the level of negotiations with Serbia, until recently we had negotiated with Serbia and Montenegro at two levels, on the basis of the twin-track approach, with the State Union on the issues that fell within the competence of the State Union and with the two republics on the issues that fell within the competence of the two republics. Now we want to consolidate the substance of the negotiations achieved so far. Once the Council has adopted the new negotiating mandate for Montenegro and the modified mandate for Serbia, we can continue the negotiations on the basis of this consolidated result – in the case of Serbia, of course, once it is cooperating fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
This method minimises any technical disruption, and with Serbia, for instance, we can resume the negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement immediately once Serbia is cooperating fully with the ICTY.
President. Question No 36 by András Gyürk (H-0577/06)
Subject: Examinations of the energy market during the past month and their outcome
In the past month, the Commission has conducted on-the-spot inspections of a number of major energy undertakings with the aim of establishing how competition is developing on the European gas and energy market. Ensuring fair competition on the energy market is of decisive importance to healthy European economies. Since, in parallel with these measures, we are debating the launching of a possible common European energy policy, and the findings from the inspections must be used in devising the strategy, I propose that we should publicise the inspection process at the appropriate level, with reference to its results.
I should therefore like to ask the Commission what the current state of play is in the examination of the sector and what the main results of the measures so far taken have been. When can a final result be expected? Is the Commission planning any further steps to complete the internal energy market?
Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. As the Commission confirmed on 17 May 2006, it has indeed recently carried out on-the-spot inspections of a number of major energy companies in Europe. It is not possible to comment further on these ongoing investigations.
As you are aware, inspections are carried out under Articles 20 and 21 of the EC regulation and form a normal part of the Commission’s enforcement activities in the competition field. In general, inspections are carried out because the Commission has reason to believe that the companies concerned may have violated the anti-trust rules established in Articles 82 and 81 of the Treaty.
Article 28 of the regulation prohibits the Commission from disclosing information acquired during an inspection, except in limited circumstances. However, as required by Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission publishes all its decisions in due course.
The Commission is also carrying out a sectoral inquiry into competition conditions in the EU gas and electricity markets. This is a distinct exercise from the individual investigations and inspections to which the honourable Member refers, but the extensive information about the functioning of the energy markets that is gathered during the sectoral inquiry will of course help to inform any enforcement action taken by the Commission in individual cases.
The main preliminary findings of the sectoral inquiry were published in February 2006 and identified a number of existing barriers to competition. For example, national wholesale energy markets are still highly concentrated, with few new competitors entering the sector. There is also far too little integration between the national markets. Infrastructure and supply functions are so closely connected that it is difficult for new suppliers to enter the market, which means that consumers are denied choice. There is a lack of transparency, so new competitors also cannot get hold of the information. They need to get a foot in the door.
Finally, prices do not appear to respond to changes in supply and demand. Tackling these problems will require a combination of regulatory and structural reform and robust enforcement of competition rules. The Commission is committed to taking any necessary enforcement action if that proves justified.
The sectoral inquiry will be completed by the end of the year. The Commission will then decide whether any further measures are required in order to improve competition conditions in the gas and electricity markets. The information gathered through the sectoral inquiry will also play an important role in the ongoing formulation of a common European energy policy, as agreed by the spring European Council.
The Commission is also conducting a review on implementation of the European regulatory measures in the energy sector. This work is being led by the Commissioner in charge of energy, Mr Piebalgs, and the Commission will report to Parliament and to the Council at the turn of the year. That report will also reflect on any further action that is needed to complete the integration of Europe’s energy markets.
All the information gathered during the sectoral inquiry and the review of implementation of the liberalisation directives, together with other information received through consultation with the stakeholders, will of course play a key part in the formulation of a common European energy policy.
András Gyürk (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you for your reply, Commissioner, even though you were unable to go into any specific details about the investigations. With your permission, my additional question will also be of a general nature. Like you, I believe that there may be problems with the development of the internal energy market. My question is: will competition policy instruments be sufficient to resolve these problems in the future, or does the Commission feel that it may be necessary to set up a European energy regulation body, which would obviously deal primarily with cross-border transactions? Thank you very much.
Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. The honourable Member rightly touched upon the question of whether this is enough. I have explained to the honourable Member that the Commission has already initiated a number of investigations where it appears that anti-competitive behaviour contributes to the problems identified by the energy sector inquiry. However, competition law cannot open markets by itself, as the Member will be aware. We need to complement our enforcement through an improved legal framework, increasing transparency, improving cross-border coordination, etc.
Regulatory changes may be needed for us to reap the full benefits of our energy markets. Once we have the full report of the inquiry into competition conditions in the energy sector, we will reflect further on what changes may be required. My colleague, Mr Piebalgs, is looking at the level of current implementation of the existing liberalisation directives in the energy sector. Depending on the results of that review, further measures to liberalise the markets will be considered. Full structural unbundling is one option to consider. The Member will certainly conclude that we will take measures when we can see that there is something rotten in the state.
Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, at the moment, energy trading, and particularly energy imports, generate high profits at international level. Discussions are currently underway regarding reinvesting these profits in Europe, which would mean OPEC, Russia, and perhaps China too in the near future, cornering the European market. What is your view of this future situation with respect to competition?
To give a practical example, Gazprom is buying up the larger energy companies in Europe. What action will the Commission take in this respect, in order to safeguard the security of our energy supply in future?
Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. As the honourable Member rightly mentioned, there has been quite some change to the whole energy market scene. Europe needs stable relationships with the main producers outside the EU too. However, this does not and must not prevent us from ensuring that there is an integrated, competitive market within the EU.
An open and competitive, flexible and interconnected single EU market will guarantee a secure energy position for the future as it will make the European market attractive to external suppliers; so that is all part of the game.
Such a market will also be open to embracing new energy mixes. It will be able to muster the internal strength needed to master the international challenges in this field.
Second Part
President. Question No 37 will not be taken, since it deals with a subject that is already on the agenda for today’s sitting.
President. Since they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together.
How does the Commission assess the situation in Russia with regard to human rights and prison conditions, in particular for the prisoners Platon Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky?
What comment can you make to us about human rights violations in the Russian Federation and how do you assess the situation for prisoners in Russia in this regard, in particular for Platon Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky?
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. The Commission follows the human rights situation in Russia very closely and, through the EU’s political dialogue with Russia, as well as the regular human rights consultations, we are able to raise issues relating to democracy, human rights and the rule of law with Russia.
We have raised concerns about the situation of prisoners in Russia in the human rights consultations and we have reminded the Russian authorities of the need to respect internationally recognised standards. In that respect, Russia’s agreement to publication of the reports by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture would be a positive step forward.
With regard to the specific situation of Mr Khodorkovsky and Mr Lebedev, we are aware of the concerns expressed about the judicial process – the verdict and the sentence – and their current situation. The European Union has repeatedly underlined the need for the judicial system to be seen to operate fairly and transparently if it is to command the confidence of both the Russian population and the international community. We will continue to monitor the issue of the prison conditions in Russia, including the situation of those two gentlemen.
Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, many thanks for that very detailed reply. I would just like to follow up by asking whether the Commission Representation in Moscow has already got in contact with the families of the prisoners, or whether it could do so.
Secondly, the prisoners have clearly been subjected to unjustified punishments that also contravene Russian law: penalties that could extend their sentences and imprisonment far away from their homes are both contrary to Russian law. I would therefore just like to ask you to draw this to the attention of the Russian authorities.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. (DE) The lawyer for these two gentlemen contacted our delegation again just last week, and we are of course in ongoing contact. I would be pleased to take up the issue you raised in your second question, namely whether the penalties lengthening their sentences and imprisonment too far away from their families are too severe. We will happily take that up.
Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Do you not see a connection between the examples of contempt for the freedom of the media, the restrictions on civil society in the new Act on NGOs, the human rights violations in Chechnya and the conditions under which these prisoners are being held? The connection is that they do not actually comply with Russian law. These men were convicted in Moscow Oblast, so they should also serve their sentences there, but after their show trial, which I witnessed myself, I do see a connection there. If it is possible for something to be treated with contempt here, then it will be.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. (DE) Every one of these cases must be assessed separately, for they concern very different things, all of which, of course – as you so rightly say – have to do with universal human rights and people’s fundamental freedoms.
However, the issue of the NGOs, for one, is very definitely being reviewed, and the legal position on them largely corresponds to that in other countries. What matters is the manner in which the laws are applied, and that also, to some extent, is the case with the conditions under which prisoners are held; that too is very much an implementation issue, and that has to be our starting point.
Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – I should like to ask you about the Khodorkovsky case. Recently Anatoly Yermolin, a deputy in the Russian Duma, spoke in the European Parliament and reminded us of the attack on Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He was injured recently. Mr Yermolin stated that only the attention of Russian democratic forces and especially the democratic countries of the West can save his life. Do you think that the Commission is paying enough attention to that case?
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. I can confirm that the Commission will continue to follow the issue of prison conditions in Russia, as I have just pointed out, including the situation of Mr Khodorkovsky and Mr Lebedev. It will do so with a view also to considering whether the EU as a whole should raise this matter at the next round of human rights consultations.
Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) It was, of course, the dispute about Mr Khodorkovsky that was the ultimate trigger for the current energy policy situation, since it was by nationalising the energy sector and creating a monopoly in it that President Putin exerted pressure.
What I would like to know is what shape bilateral cooperation with Russia in matters of energy policy will take in the future.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. (DE) I can tell the honourable Member that, where energy is concerned, we are only just beginning negotiations, but we have already – at the European Summit in Sochi – addressed in no uncertain terms the important issues of transparency, reciprocity and rules that are fair to all, and these will of course form an important part of the partnership and cooperation agreement, the mandate for which the Commission has just adopted, as soon as we start negotiating with the Russians. These basic rules will, then, have an influence, and there will be agreements specific to each sector later on.
President. Question No 40 by Nicholson of Winterbourne (H-0511/06)
Subject: Recognised operational guidelines when dealing with hostage-takers
In recent years Iraq has suffered from a distressingly high number of hostage-takings. Most reported instances are high profile because they involve foreign aid workers, journalists and reconstruction engineers. Yet the number of kidnappings involving foreigners in Iraq is actually very small when compared to the thousands of Iraqis taken hostage. Experts agree that the hostage-taking in Iraq is perpetrated by a large number of criminal and terrorist groups for a multitude of reasons – but more often than not the motivation is financial. Particularly worrying therefore are the recent indications that a number of EU Member States have paid enormous ransoms to criminal and terrorist groups in return for the freedom of kidnapped nationals. The paying of ransoms is a particularly unwelcome and short-sighted step, as far from discouraging hostage-taking, it encourages its proliferation, putting foreigners and Iraqis alike at greater risk.
In this context, what steps can the Commission take to establish common guidelines and codes of conduct for EU Member States when they are faced with this threat in Iraq and beyond?
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Of course we very strongly deplore the critical security situation in Iraq and the situation that makes life extremely difficult for Iraqis and for the foreigners there. We condemn all forms of violence that hamper the day-to-day life of ordinary Iraqis and prevent the country from entering into the state of peace and stability it really deserves.
The practice of hostage-taking constitutes a serious threat to the population. Informal reports indicate that the reasons for kidnapping range from political to purely criminal motivations and there is no excuse for that. Kidnappings are devastating for all those involved and our sympathies are extended to families, friends and colleagues and whoever is affected. It is, however, within the competence of the Member States to pursue the individual cases of EU nationals taken hostage.
Regarding the Iraqi nationals, it is very important that Prime Minister al-Maliki tries to stop the violence through national reconciliation initiatives, although we also have to concede that the situation is not yet stable. This is the difficult situation we are in at the moment. Certainly paying ransoms is not a viable solution to the problem of hostage-taking in Iraq and the Commission has made it clear that it discourages such action.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (ALDE). – Commissioner, thank you for that full substantive answer, which I fully support. I wanted to draw your attention to the kidnapping of a Member of Parliament and minister, Taiseer Najeh Awad al-Mashhandani on Saturday. Sadly another minister, the Deputy Minister for Electricity, Mr Raad al-Hareth, was kidnapped this morning with 19 bodyguards. As I said in my question and as you have commented, many thousands of ordinary Iraqis out of the sight of the media are kidnapped every day.
Kidnapping is a crime that leads also to child slavery, to human prostitution internationally, and to child soldiers, as well as to the miseries you have already commented on in Iraq. I know that the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which came into being in September 2003, brought out a manual which is being published this year. I believe that this action, which only talks about several hundred kidnappings a year, is simply inadequate in the United Nations.
Can the Commissioner call upon the European Commission delegation to the United Nations, on behalf of all of us, to make very strenuous representations to strengthen the fight by the United Nations against this particularly heinous form of crime?
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. I can only say that I would indeed immediately support such action and I will instruct the Commission delegation to the United Nations to see whether more can be done. I completely agree with you: there really are so many heinous acts there that we must all try to do as much as we can.
However, I have to repeat that ultimately, of course, this is also the responsibility of each and every Member State; but we will certainly try to support those actions that the UN has already taken.
Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Since we know that Iraq is of immense economic importance to us, in other words that it is important not only in terms of the human rights situation but also in terms of the economic situation, what, then, can the Community do to make the country more stable? What Community programmes or cooperation programmes can be put in place to make Iraq more stable and more secure?
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. (DE) There are masses of programmes for this purpose. The fact is that we have, ever since 2003, been working very hard to stabilise Iraq, and we have spent to date EUR 513 million in doing so. We have also, for example, set aside another EUR 200 million for this year, although I have to say that the programmes are very broadly based.
There are on the one hand programmes that are run through the World Bank and UN funds and are aimed at meeting the population’s basic needs for such things as, for example, education, health care and water.
There are also, however, programmes the primary object of which is to build up the most important ministries, those being the ministries of commerce and energy.
Provision is also being made for efforts to make Iraqi society more democratic, such as the elections and referendums, which were held under UN supervision, and for which the Commission gave financial support; we will, of course, continue to strive to make a contribution to national dialogue and reconciliation.
Another EUR 200 million – which is a lot of money – has been set aside for this year.
President. Question No 41 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0524/06)
Subject: EU-Russia cooperation
It is now time to begin the practical work in preparation for the renewal of the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, as the current agreement is due to expire in 2007. How does the Commission envisage the future agreement? Is it intended that the agreement will be limited to the four road maps for common spaces? Is it intended to widen the scope of the current agreement or, indeed, to narrow it? How will the Green Paper on a European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy, adopted by the Commission in 2006, be reflected in the new agreement?
Various signals are coming out of Russia regarding a possible future agreement. Some Russian politicians and political analysts are expressing the opinion that the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement signed in 1997 was not helpful to Russia because it was unfair and had been dictated by Brussels. What is the Commission’s view of statements of this kind?
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Just today, we have approved a recommendation to the Council with draft negotiating directives for a new agreement with Russia. Following internal EU discussions, the Commission then held exploratory talks with Russia, which have now resulted in broad consensus on a general approach.
As a result of the last EU-Russia Summit in Sochi, we were able to agree on the following. Firstly, the aim is to conclude a new, legally-binding, very broad and comprehensive agreement, which should be durable and capable of facilitating the future development of relations. Secondly, we would agree to avoid a legal vacuum. That means no withdrawal from the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement that exists at the moment. We are both committed to implementing the ‘roadmaps for the four common spaces’.
This agreement should adopt a strategic approach to the relationship and it should emphasise that respect for common values represents an essential basis. It should also build on the objectives of these common spaces. In particular, we want to include the further development of our trade relations, depending on the progress of Russia’s accession to the WTO. Of course, as I said before we want to further consolidate the energy relationship, on the basis of the most important principles, which are reciprocity, fairness and equality.
Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – Thank you for your answer, Commissioner.
There are some signs that Russia is increasing the pressure in regard to energy policy. For example, a Polish company is now buying a Lithuanian refinery, Mažeikių Nafta, and Russia has immediately started to interrupt the oil supplies. Would it be possible during the G8 meeting in St Petersburg to pay attention to the question of energy policy?
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. It is very important to note that this energy question shows that today we have an interdependent relationship with Russia. That means that we are an important customer for Russia. We buy 25% of its gas, 27% of its oil and some of its uranium. That is also highly important for Russia. So that will certainly be one of the major questions raised during the G8 meeting with Russia. It was also a very important and central question during the Sochi Summit.
With regard to other questions, there will be a sort of monitoring centre, which will very carefully control and check what has been done on the other side. But I believe it is most important that first we find the right principles. Those principles should be anchored and then we can fine-tune these questions in sector agreements and take a very concrete approach.
Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – During yesterday’s meeting with the Finnish Government in Helsinki, Mr Barroso said that a free trade agreement with Russia is possible. However, there are some governments who think that this can be achieved only if Russia becomes a full member of the WTO.
What does the Commission think about this and what is now the way forward after this initiative by Mr Barroso yesterday?
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. I have indeed said before that, in the long term, further development of our trade relations is possible, but it depends on the progress made with regard to Russia’s accession to the WTO. Of course, this depends first and foremost on the WTO. Then we have to see how we take the idea of a free trade agreement forward. It is certainly a mid- to long-term goal, that is clear.
Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, you described the situation as regards Russia in a great deal of detail, and I am very grateful to you for that. What I would like to know is whether you – or the Commission – think that Russia and other states in its orbit are capable of being reliable partners in the future where the supply of energy is concerned, and – since you have yourself quoted the figures – to what degree the European Union is dependent on either Russia or Ukraine. Can we have confidence in their reliability?
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. (DE) On the basis of the experience we have had with Russia over many years, its reliability as a partner can be taken as read, but we also have to realise that the difficulties with Ukraine were a wake-up call for us.
That is why it is so very important that we find, in future, a solution to energy supplies that is both market-based and transparent, for we in the Commission are fundamentally persuaded that, while prices must reflect the market, the adjustment of market prices, among other things, in Ukraine must happen gradually rather than overnight, and that no pressure must be brought to bear.
President. Question No 48 by Marc Tarabella (H-0502/06)
Subject: Right of residence for European Union citizens
I welcome the contribution Directive 2004/38/EC(1) makes with regard to better integration of European citizens.
However, I regret the use of the expression 'droit de séjour permanent' in French, which is a contradiction in terms as the word 'séjour' implies temporariness.
Moreover, can the Commission guarantee that full equal treatment of EU citizens and nationals of a country includes the issuing of a real identity document and not simply a residence permit, as is the case in Belgium for example? The residence permit is not of the same value as the identity document and the name itself is scandalous and insulting to citizens who emigrated decades ago and have spent their working life and raised a family in their host country.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Madam President, the Commission does not believe that the expression ‘right of permanent residence’ is necessarily a contradiction in terms since the notion of residence, which is understood to be the period during which a person lives in a place, may be long, or even permanent. Furthermore, this notion has not been the subject of the kind of remarks suggested by Mr Tarabella, whether during the preparation of the text by the Commission, during the discussions on the directive at the Council or here, in the European Parliament.
As regards the second observation, the Commission notes, as a preliminary point, that, as stipulated in Article 18 of the Treaty and confirmed by the case law of the Court of Justice, the right of residence derives directly from the Treaty for EU citizens whose residence papers serve only to acknowledge that right.
In line with that idea, one of the major objectives of Directive 2004/38/EC was to simplify the administrative formalities attached to the right of residence. In accordance with this text, EU citizens do not have to obtain a residence permit in their Member State of residence, as simply registering with the competent authorities is enough, and this, I might add, is only required if the host Member State deems it necessary. In that case, a registration certificate is immediately issued to EU citizens, on presentation of their identity cards or passports and of proof that they fulfil the conditions attached to the right of residence. After five years of continuous lawful residence, EU citizens obtain permanent right of residence, which is no longer subject to any conditions, and, if they should request it, the host Member State must send them a document attesting to this right.
To conclude, as the same Directive 2004/38/EC also stipulates, the Member States, acting in accordance with their legislation, shall issue to their citizens an identity card or passport indicating their nationality or, as the case may be, renew such documents. It follows that a host Member State may not issue identity cards, in the strict sense of the word, to non national EU citizens. These citizens must always have their identity cards, or passports, as issued by their countries of nationality. These should refer, as stipulated, to their identities and nationalities and, if required by the host Member State, citizens should have a certificate, issued by the latter, stating their right of residence.
Marc Tarabella (PSE). – (FR) Thank you, Commissioner, for that information. I wanted to speak on behalf of the many non-Belgian citizens of the European Union who live in Belgium, and in some cases have been doing so for several decades, who have built their careers and their professional and family lives there and who – although you have replied to me on this matter – actually find the term 'residence' shocking, because they are not ‘residing’: they have chosen that country, which is their host country and will continue to be so until the day they die. What may appear shocking, in fact, is that, when these citizens board a plane in Belgium to go to another country in the Union, the document granted to them cannot be used as an identity card, and they are asked for their passports.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, this situation, which has been described as ‘shocking’, is certainly one of the consequences of the application of this directive.
Clearly we are also pursuing what you rightly define as ‘concrete cases’; and I assure you that if we were to establish that there had been violations in the implementation of this directive – which not all Member States have transposed into national legislation – we should exercise the powers that the Commission has in such cases.
President. Question No 49 by Sarah Ludford (H-0504/06)
Subject: 'Passerelle' clause
During their meeting in Vienna on 27-28 May, EU Foreign Ministers apparently failed to reach an agreement on a Commission proposal to use the bridging or 'Passerelle' clause of the Nice Treaty to move more competences in Justice and Home Affairs from the third to the first (Community) 'pillar'.
What is the reaction of the Commission to this failure, and what other concrete proposals will it put forward to increase effectiveness, democracy and transparency in decision-making on JHA issues?
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. The Commission is convinced that the moment has come to make full use of the possibilities offered by the current Treaties and particularly bridging clauses. That will set in place the conditions necessary for reaching our goals in the interim period before the entry into force of the Constitutional Treaty.
However, the Commission can confirm that it is on the whole ready to contribute to the debate on the use of the bridging clauses as shown by covering this matter in the political review of the Hague Programme presented on 28 June. Initial reactions from the vast majority of Member States have been very positive, and it came out from the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers of 27 and 28 May that most Member States endorse the Commission’s approach as anticipated in the communication of 10 May on the future of Europe.
This determination to make progress was confirmed by the June 2006 European Council conclusions, which call upon the incoming Finnish Presidency to explore, in close cooperation with the Commission, the possibility of improving decision-making and action in the area of freedom, justice and security, on the basis of existing treaties.
However, this is clearly an issue that needs to be carefully prepared at the highest political level. The Commission welcomes the intention of the Finnish Presidency to have an in-depth debate as the logical next step.
The Commission is convinced that Parliament will help to stimulate this debate as usual in institutional matters. I know that President Borrell has recently again encouraged the Commission to take such a way forward. I am convinced that it is a matter of the utmost importance for the Parliament and a unique opportunity to bring freedom, security and justice matters closer to the citizens, thus increasing the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the legislative process.
You will probably know that just yesterday the Prime Minister of Finland confirmed, at our meeting in Helsinki, his full determination and the determination of the Finnish Presidency to hold further discussions, starting with the informal Council of Interior Ministers, which will take place in Tampere at the end of the September.
Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Thank you, Commissioner Frattini. In the six weeks since I tabled this question much has happened, especially the Frattini package of last week, if we can call it that. I sincerely congratulate you and the Commission on that excellent package of four bold and ambitious papers.
Have you considered how we might reach out to citizens with a communication strategy to make sure that they understand the situation – not the arcane details, but that they understand, for instance, that Member States have not implemented the anti-terrorism laws? Pressure needs to be put on their governments to translate the rhetoric into action, to achieve progress on fighting crime and terrorism and upholding human rights.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Yes, of course we are thinking about this communication strategy. In my own view, the best way to show the public how important it is to abolish powers of veto is to give them concrete examples. One such example is an initiative concerning a minimum standard with regard to procedural rights, where we are still in a stalemate after two years of discussion precisely because of the unanimity system. Again, for example, when we talk about cross-border police cooperation, we are still blocked after 18 months of very difficult discussions because of unanimity. These are concrete examples for the public. Does the public think it is useful to have procedural rights or police cooperation at European level? Then please help us.
Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – (LT) How do you propose to ensure all this cooperation and informing of the public, if the Commission is behind in preparing an information system, which would allow the Schengen Agreement to work in the new and old Member States, so that information can be exchanged? In Lithuania, we have heard that the new Member States will not be able to join Schengen on schedule and the package you proposed just now will probably be difficult to implement because there is no information system in place which would hold the required data.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, I can only confirm what the Council of Europe stated just a few days ago: that is, our pledge to make every effort to meet that deadline of autumn 2007.
I am aware that there are some technical problems, but I am also aware of the political decision that the Council of Europe confirmed some days ago, which we are obliged to respect and to cause to be respected. We are committed to this.
President.
Question No 50 by Zdzislaw Kazimierz Chmielewski (H-0512/06)
Subject: Situation of disabled persons in prisons
There is really very little interest shown in the issue of disabled persons serving prison sentences. To all intents and purposes, no EU programme even those such as the programme to combat social exclusion, the programme to combat discrimination, the employment incentive measures programme, eContent or the European Social Fund covers the issue of the social rehabilitation of disabled prisoners. Furthermore, very little of substance is to be found in EU documents from 2003 which, as everyone knows, was the year of the disabled.
There is thus an obvious need for the Council, Commission and Parliament to address this important issue. I should accordingly like to know what stage has been reached in the drafting of appropriate EU regulations governing disabled persons in prisons. One of the most pressing needs is for appropriate educational programmes to be introduced with a view to enabling such persons to adjust to labour market requirements.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Competence concerning disability is generally a matter for Member States under the subsidiarity principle. The needs of all people with disabilities are taken into account in all Community policies in order to achieve equal treatment. These include disabled ex-prisoners.
The importance of employment opportunities for people with disabilities is well recognised and is reflected not only in the European employment strategy but also by the European Council. You will remember its conclusions of spring 2006.
In terms of other programmes, the Commission’s disability action plan contained in its Communication COM(2005)604 outlines what has been done with respect to all people with disabilities in the European Union.
Concerning the possible competence of the European Union under the third pillar, there is currently no EU legislation governing the status of disabled persons in prisons. That is mainly due to the fact that any action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters that aims at approximating rules applicable in Member States is, according to the available legal basis, conditional upon the requirement that such an action is necessary to improve cooperation between the Member States.
Many proposals made by the Commission provided for in the Hague Action Plan aim at facilitating the social rehabilitation of offenders, even if they are not specifically devoted to the rehabilitation of disabled prisoners. There is, for example, a project presented by Austria, Finland and Sweden on the transfer of prisoners.
I will consider, together with my colleague Mr Špidla, how measures undertaken or planned in this area of competence could be supported and complemented by measures that can be taken under the third pillar.
Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to ask a general question. If, in accordance with the rule of law, the disabled are quite rightly obliged to respect the law like all other citizens – they can be sent to prison, for example – why do the principles of equal participation not apply to the job market? Why are disabled people not given the full opportunity to make use of their qualifications? Why can modern democracies not meet the standards expected of civilised societies in this matter?
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, I am well aware of these real problems. I believe that action by Europe outside the ambit of obligatory European laws, which cannot be introduced in this area, can be offered in the context of the struggle against discrimination.
We are ready to look at any possibility, including measures that would help the social rehabilitation of ex-prisoners. As I have said, I shall consider this with Mr Špidla. Such prisoners have been found guilty, but they are disabled and therefore face greater difficulties.
President. Question No 59 by Georgios Toussas (H-0515/06)
Subject: Punitive dismissal of trade unionists
The dismissal by the Wackenhut Security Transport Company of Petros Kefalas a trade union activist, the Secretary-General of a Company Employees and White Collar Workers Union and a leading company unionist, for lodging a protest with the Director-General against the unfair dismissal of a colleague, was a retaliatory measure designed to intimidate the workforce and discourage union militancy at the workplace. The dismissal was the work of a 'tripartite coordination body representing the government and the two sides of industry' which is now seeking to 'legalise' the measure with the 'endorsement' of the SEB Confederation of Greek Industry whose members are subjecting employees to intimidation and harassment.
What view does the Commission take of such punitive dismissals of trade unionists and the climate of intimidation being created at the workplace and what does it think of moves to restore trade union backing for Petros Kefalas?
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, freedom of association is a general principle of Community law; the European Court of Justice has clearly recognised this.
There is an important article – Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – which envisages the right to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in trade union matters. Freedom of association must therefore always be respected.
We also have Article 137 of the Treaty of Rome, which more specifically states that its provisions shall not apply to the right of association. What is the consequence? There exists a freedom of association very clearly set out in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights; but the Treaty does not acknowledge the authority of the Commission to intervene, for example, against a private business that violates the right of association. In these cases it is the task of the national authorities, and in particular the judiciary, to guarantee respect for this right.
This is clearly a matter to be resolved by the courts, simply because there is no concrete provision in the Treaty that would empower the Commission to intervene.
Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Commissioner, punitive dismissals of workers are becoming general practice. The company Wackenhut, following the dismissal of the trade unionist Petros Kefalas, unleashed a new action against Nikos Besis, which is still ongoing.
A short while ago, I left a hearing of trade unionists who represent workers at the Opel car factory. Over and above the individual differences which exist, Opel too is threatening to dismiss thousands of workers.
In our opinion, the new employment legislation being formulated is also creating and inflating the sails for the dismissal of thousands of workers. What measures is the Commission taking in order to safeguard trade union representation and the application of employment legislation to job targets?
Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (FR) Madam President, you have excluded me from the list. My question was included on the list. If that is what the Commissioner wants, then I will bow to his wishes, but if it was your decision, Madam President, then you should know that it is genuinely unacceptable to thus deny a Member of Parliament the opportunity to debate in this House with the Commissioner. I would also inform you that you have not asked me to take the floor for six months now.
President. That cannot be so, Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, for we have very often both been here for Question Time, and I know that I have very often given you the floor, since you are among those who – I am very glad to say – are very assiduous participants in it. Nevertheless, the fact is that we can still only have questions in blocks of time, with twenty minutes per Commissioner; that is how it is laid down in our Rules of Procedure, and the second part, with questions to Commissioner Frattini, had taken us well over twenty minutes already. It is at that point that I have to interrupt. The questions will be answered in writing. We have now moved on to the third part of Question Time, as the Rules of Procedure require. I am sorry. There is nothing intentional about this.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, I should like simply to confirm to the honourable Member that the definition of trade union representatives and therefore their protection is a definition that exists in a large majority of Member States. From this it clearly follows that tangible protection is feasible.
I share your general concern about dismissals carried out as reprisals against trade unionists. In many countries the judiciary takes very firm and decisive action in such cases. I believe that when grounds of reprisal have been ascertained, the judiciary should take particularly strong measures. It is the only possible course of action, but such action may not be taken by the institutions of the European Union.
President. Question No 60 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0537/06)
Subject: Greek legislation providing exemptions from execution of court judgments
Article 20 of Law 3301/2004 (Greek Government Gazette 263, 23 December 2004) exempts the Greek Government, local authorities and legal persons governed by public law from the obligation of executing certain types of court judgment, such as interlocutory measures and orders for payment. Article 4E of Law 3388/2005 (Greek Government Gazette 225, 12 September 2005) extends this exemption to include legal persons governed by private law in the broader public sector. Legal commentators claim that these provisions infringe citizens' rights. In its answer to a previous question (E-4752/05), the Commission stated that: 'Before the Commission can submit any comments on this legislation, it is necessary to complete its examination of the documentation that has just been received and if necessary also ask the Greek Government for clarifications.'
Has the Commission examined this matter? What are its comments on the provisions concerned at this point? Does it consider that they are consistent with Community legislation? What measures does it propose to take?
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, we have replied to a previous written question. I can only confirm to the questioner that we received the supplementary documentation from the complainant not long ago.
The subject is extremely complicated, in that it involves different areas of Community law. This is why – as I have been informed – the Commission staff have not yet finished their study of the supplementary documentation. I can assure the questioner that our intention is to speed up considerably the study of these supplementary observations and to give a definitive response, even though this is a matter of extreme legal complexity.
Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) That is more or less what you replied about a year ago, that you are examining the matter. I therefore ask you: when we have laws prohibiting the enforcement of judgments by the Greek courts vindicating workers in matters of insurance measures and payment orders, how does the Commission have the right to filibuster and procrastinate, thereby justifying the arbitrariness of the Greek Government at the expense of Greek justice?
A short while ago, in reply to my honourable friend Mr Toussas, you said that it was a matter for the courts. When the law prevents the enforcement of court judgments, will the Commission again remain inert?
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, honourable Member, I wish to express my regret in this connection and can also understand your disappointment.
We started to study these supplementary documents the moment they reached us, that is to say at the end of last year, in December 2005. Like you, I am perfectly aware that a long time has elapsed; but there are – according to what I have been told – legal difficulties that do not only concern the regulation that the complainant considers to have been violated.
There are other provisions that are affected; and I can only tell you that I shall pass on a request to the competent Directorate-General and to Mr Špidla that this technical study should be considerably speeded up. Like you, I am aware of the situation.
Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, my question is not a supplementary question on this matter; I too merely wish to express my surprise, because I had question number 54; this is my second term of office at the European Parliament and this is the first time in my experience that the list setting out the order of questions has not been adhered to as announced.
I too would like you to tell me if this is an invention of yours today or something you are being accustomed to, something you have the right to do because, if it is, then we too have no need to carefully monitor the order of questions in order to be ready to come and listen to the Commission's reply.
I thank you in advance and trust that this will not happen again, because it is an insult to us, given that we submit our questions in time and respectfully wait our turn.
President. As you yourself said, that was not a supplementary question, but I really would ask you to have another look at what the Rules of Procedure say about how Question Time is organised. It was conducted perfectly correctly, and the order of questions was not disrupted. Those questions that cannot be dealt with orally will be answered in writing, and your Question No 54 will be one of those that gets a written reply.
Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, I should like to ask the Commissioner to organise evening classes for the honourable Members on what comes within the jurisdiction of the Member States and what comes within the jurisdiction of the Commission, so that the honourable Members do not have to keep asking the Commission to act as guardian on national matters.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, my answer is simple: I absolutely will not allow myself either to request lessons or to give them to anybody, still less to this Parliament. I am listening respectfully to what you are telling me.
Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) It really is a serious matter when an honourable friend from Greece expresses herself in such a manner against her fellow Members in plenary.
Allow me to say the following, without political chitchat and with a sense of responsibility and a sense of the time which is so valuable to us all: the European Commission and the Council and numerous members on the opposite bank have very pragmatic sensory organs in their concern to address problems which have to do with employers, and the mechanisms of the European Commission and the Council and the Member States are quickly activated.
However, when it comes to the workers' problems, we see deliberate filibustering ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
President. Since that is not a point of order, I shall not allow the honourable Member to speak further.
President. Question No 61 by Proinsias De Rossa (H-0547/06)
Subject: Transposition of Posting of Workers Directive in Ireland
Further to its answer at the February II part-session to my question H-0060/06(2), what response did the Commission receive from the Irish authorities to its request for 'further clarification' with regard to the transposition by Ireland of the Posting of Workers Directive (96/71/EC)(3)?
Does the Commission now believe that the directive has been correctly and fully transposed by Ireland in line with the criteria established by case law of the European Court of Justice?
What action has the Commission now taken or is it proposing to take in this matter?
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Following the Commission’s reply to the honourable Member’s question earlier this year, we have asked the Irish authorities for clarification as to the implementation in Ireland of Directive 96/71/EC. The deadline for the submission of observations by the Irish authorities has not yet passed. Once these observations have been received, the Commission will assess them and of course, if necessary, decide on a further course of action.
In the meantime, we have adopted a new communication concerning guidance on the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. In this communication we have announced the adoption in spring 2007 of a report that will examine the situation in all Member States, of course including Ireland.
Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Would the Commissioner agree that at this time, when migration throughout the European Union is increasing, implementation of the posting of workers directive is crucial in order to ensure that there is no race to the bottom and that migrant workers are not exploited by unscrupulous employers? That is unfortunately what is happening in Ireland at the moment, as a result of the failure of the Irish Government to properly implement this posting of workers directive.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, honourable Member, I certainly share your opinion that full and firm application of the directive on the posting of workers is essential.
I too am totally convinced that inconvenience to workers who are posted and transferred must be completely and fully avoided. That is why, as has already been said, we are not confining our study to individual cases like the one that has been verified in Ireland, which we are assessing specifically; we have decided to carry out a full appraisal, country by country, of the extent to which the directive has been put into effect. This is because, as you have said, we cannot limit ourselves to one specific case that has developed into a crisis: we must know whether and to what extent Member States are fully applying this directive, which is very important.
Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – On the issue of the race to the bottom, I should like to ask you to comment on the statement by the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, when he said that when enlargement happens in January, Ireland may not open the market to workers from Romania and Bulgaria, because other Member States are not so doing and because of the concerns as to what will happen to the Irish market in relation to this race to the bottom and the rights of workers. Could you comment on that in particular, and would you urge other Member States to do what Ireland did in relation to the new Member States already here?
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I can only say that Ireland, which up till now has been one of the few Member States to recognise the full right to mobility of workers from the new Member States, has not encountered any particular inconvenience as a consequence of this decision.
You know perfectly well, honourable Member, that the Commission gives strong encouragement to all states – let us say the old Member States of the European Union – to open their labour markets to the new Member States of the European Union and their workers.
We have found – Mr Špidla has done so in one of his documents – that the flow of workers between the new Member States and those old Member States that now permit it is not so great that it is likely to distort the working conditions and internal labour market of those countries, which also include Ireland.
I do not wish to comment on what the Prime Minister has said; but I will say that the Commission envisages that countries must recognise – even if after a transitional period, which we hope will be brief – that the citizens of the new Member States of the European Union have the right to free movement.
Jim Higgins (PPE-DE). – The point I would like to raise with the Commissioner relates to the whole question of the transposition and implementation of directives. One of the problems with the refusal by Member States to implement or transpose directives is the Commission’s tardiness in taking punitive action against such Member States. The whole process of taking effective action against those who refuse to implement Community law needs to be speeded up urgently.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Commission’s attitude reflects its need to understand the situation before taking any decisions.
We are dealing with a complicated subject. Next spring, when we shall have an overall appraisal of the stage reached in the application of the directive, we shall take action against those states who do not apply it or who apply it incorrectly. This does not rule out the possibility that in individual cases, such as the one in Ireland that has been brought to our attention, the Commission will have specific powers to take action against the country if the responses given to us are unsatisfactory or if, despite the responses of the Irish Government, it emerges that there has been a violation or a non-application of the directive.
It is clear, however, that the Commission must know exactly how things stand before taking any initiatives, especially if such initiatives lead to action against a Member State.
We are talking here of a cardinal principle of the rule of law: if there is an accusation against anyone, for example a country, they must be put in a position to defend themselves before judgment can be passed on them.
President. Thank you, Commissioner; that brings us to the end of Question Time.
Questions which had not been answered for lack of time would receive written answers (see Annex).
I have to say that Questions Nos 69 and 86 are not permissible and will therefore not be answered.
That concludes Question Time.
I hope you all have a good break and, to those who will have the chance to watch an exciting football match this evening, I would ask you not to get too excited about it, as there can be only one winner.
(The sitting was suspended at 7.20 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)