Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 10 July 2007 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President.

(The sitting was opened at 9.00 a.m.)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

4. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

5. Community postal services (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Markus Ferber, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/67/EC concerning the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (COM(2006)0594 – C6-0354/2006 – 2006/0196(COD)) (A6-0246/2007).

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, firstly I would like to warmly thank the Committee on Transport and Tourism and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, for the excellent work they have carried out in the preparation of your report on the postal directive. This is all the more impressive as the preparation involved five other committees and nearly 600 amendments. Moreover, the dossier is highly sensitive politically and technically complex.

Our proposal is based on sound preparation. It is not the implementation of abstract theories dreamed up in an ivory tower or based on ideological zeal. Market opening is not an end in itself, but good for the consumer, good for business and therefore for the whole economy.

After months of discussion there is always a risk that we may lose sight of the original intention. Therefore let me just remind you of what our proposal actually entails. First and foremost, the Commission’s proposal aims to guarantee a high quality universal service for all users throughout the European Union. Postal users and consumers are entitled to top-class postal services. They must be accessible to all at affordable prices.

Secondly, based on detailed study and wide consultation, the Commission confirms in its proposal that 2009 is the target date for the abolition of any remaining exclusive rights and monopolies. Such exclusive rights and monopolies prevent competition and the positive effects it has had on innovation, quality and prices.

Thirdly, our proposal confirms the availability of a broad range of financing mechanisms Member States may choose from in order to finance any net cost or unfair burden the universal service obligation may impose on the universal service providers.

Fourthly, the proposal allows for more flexibility in terms of pricing of postal services so that they can better reflect actual costs, while maintaining the possibility for uniform tariffs for consumer or single-piece tariff mail. The Commission attaches great importance to the role postal services play for territorial and social cohesion. Uniform tariffs for consumer mail are a reflection of this. The proposal also reinforces consumers’ rights in terms of redress, for example.

Fifthly, the proposal seeks to amend provisions concerning authorisation and licensing to reduce unjustified barriers to entry. The proposal also clarifies rules on access to postal infrastructure.

Finally, the proposal provides for greater clarity on the role and independence of national regulatory authorities.

These elements build on the success achieved to date with the gradual opening of the market and will provide a framework that will allow the postal sector to develop its potential. It is truly the final step in a long process started the better part of two decades ago.

It is common knowledge that a ‘communications revolution’ is taking place. This is a significant challenge for all of us in our daily lives. It poses a threat for those postal operators that fail to adapt. No reserved area can protect any postal operator from the competition from other means of communication. The only option is to reform and to adapt and to turn the challenge into an opportunity. This fast-changing context makes it all the more necessary to finalise the reform process which started more than 15 years ago. The European Parliament has shaped this reform significantly at all stages. The Commission is ready to assist so that the internal market on postal services can finally be accomplished.

Experience with market opening to date has been overwhelmingly positive. Efficiency, quality and performance have substantially increased. A high-quality universal service at affordable prices is being provided throughout the European Union.

It is our joint responsibility that this continues to be the case. Full market opening is the right way forward. In the past months some have tried to portray market opening and the success of other postal operators as threats. However, most have now realised that these are challenges that we must face and that it is much more important to focus on how to face them. On the whole, the constructive approach prevails. This makes me optimistic that common ground on this important file can be found at the end of the day.

In conclusion, this Directive constitutes an essential element of the Lisbon Agenda. The time is now ripe to give EU citizens the choice they are entitled to and expect. Mail users and consumers will be the main beneficiaries of the directive. Market opening in 2009 will introduce controlled and regulated competition that will foster innovation, new business models and new services. It is not the question of dividing up the cake differently, or of introducing reform at the expense of the people working in the sector, but it is the question of increasing the size of the market and letting everyone benefit from this.

  Markus Ferber (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation of the postal services is one of the most important proposals under discussion in the second half of this term. We have been working on it since the third and fourth terms, and I would like to recapitulate everything that has been done since the Green Paper the European Commission submitted in 1992. It is important for us as a parliament to send out a clear signal today and tomorrow in the vote. Hopefully we will soon bring this development, which started in the late 1980s, to a successful conclusion.

What is the main issue? Quite simply, the issue is to move from an offer-based postal service to a demand-based postal service. We have had monopolies in the Member States for 200 years now. In the course of today’s debate, we will hear about many problems affecting the postal services. For me there can be only one conclusion: monopolies are not in a position to solve these problems. They can only be solved when there is fair competition – and that is something we value greatly – in the European Union, but fair competition where there is a strong emphasis on working conditions, but competition is nevertheless allowed.

That is the model that we in the Committee on Transport and Tourism have drawn up together, regardless of national and party boundaries. At this point I would like to thank all my fellow MEPs who participated and contributed to reaching this compromise. We can confidently say that by the end of 2010 the postal markets in all Member States will be opened up, while we have provided for a few exceptions up to the year 2012. Let us say clearly that those who come from a protected domain do not have the right to get involved where competition already exists. That is what reciprocity is about.

At this point let me point out that a common objection to this is that this runs counter to the EU Treaty. My only reply to that is look at the currently applicable Postal Directive. This explicitly proscribes entering a competitive market with profits made as a monopoly. Ten cases are pending in the DG Competition against Member States suspected of doing precisely this. If the current Directive therefore provides us with a tool to ensure this kind of reciprocity, then we should make use of it.

We have said quite clearly that there should be no change to the scope of postal services that should be available to every citizen of the EU. The universal service must be available to every citizen, regardless of where he or she lives, be it in the town or the country, be it at the heart or at the edge of Europe. That is the right approach. We have already shown that there is a legal entitlement to a certain level of service provision in other areas of market liberalisation.

The next big question was how can this universal service be funded? Together we have come up with a good solution. However, it is important that the Member States are given sufficient instruments. If you read the Directive carefully, you will find five instruments, four proposed by the Commission and a few more mixed forms which we have added, to allow us to organise this universal service so that it is available everywhere.

We have drawn up a clear schedule of what the Commission and the Member States need to do before the markets are opened. This will avoid anybody being taken by surprise when the measures are implemented, as it is all being done in agreement with the Member States. We have focused heavily on consumer protection aspects: the Commissioner has already set out the uniform tariffs which will enable citizens to continue to use the model of a standard letter. We also want to continue to guarantee the service for the visually impaired. Further to the Commission’s proposal we have also introduced a far-reaching complaints system to ensure that consumer rights will continue to be protected even under a liberalised regime.

We have dealt closely with the issue of postal employees. There are more than a million postal employees in the European Union, and they obviously want to know what will happen to them in a liberalised environment. I believe that we have found the right solutions, both as regards the definition of a postal employee, and as regards securing the rights they are guaranteed on a national basis.

I would like to thank everybody who helped us to reach this compromise, and in particular the Commission for its proactive support. I hope that the Council will also shortly be in a state to formulate a common position on the basis of our first reading.

  Pervenche Berès (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I owe the privilege of speaking in this debate to the unfortunate outcome of the review of the opinion initially drafted by my colleague Gilles Savary for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. On account of the vote that took place in that committee, the rapporteur did not wish his name to appear on this report.

We began the process of opening up postal services to competition 10 years ago, progressively reducing the monopoly of national operators while at the same time endeavouring to ensure that a universal service is retained. This universal service requirement is today reaffirmed in the Ferber report, which defines for this purpose three means of financing and recognises as a result that the single market would not be able to guarantee a daily service over the whole of our territories. The further period of two years granted to new Member States and to States with a difficult topography illustrates well the difficulty of reconciling full liberalisation and public service obligations.

The rapporteur wanted to include a fourth area, a fourth means of financing, that of the reserved area. Your Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs chose not to follow the rapporteur, either on the introduction of this notion of a reserved area or on an alteration to the timetable. It preferred to stick virtually to the Commission’s initial proposal to make 2009 the date for the opening up of the postal service to liberalisation. I wish to say that, in fact, in this exceptional case and speaking personally, I consider that the committee responsible was right not to listen to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. In saying that, I am expressing a purely personal opinion: I am not speaking as the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

  Stephen Hughes (PSE), Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs would have preferred to make the full accomplishment of the postal internal market subject to a new prospective study, showing that universal service could be maintained in each Member State, and looking at how to maintain or improve the employment situation in the postal sector. However, sometimes politics is about the art of the possible, and I know my good friend Brian Simpson negotiated the best possible deal he could with the rapporteur and the other shadows in the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

We are pleased at the clear emphasis placed on maintaining the provision of universal service and on the number of safeguards built into the report in the form in which it will come before this House. We are also happy about the report’s focus on the need to ensure good social and employment standards as liberalisation begins to unfold. This is an important point given that even Deutsche Post has expressed some disquiet over declining employment standards amongst some new entrants to the German postal market.

We accept that this was the best achievable deal at this late stage in the liberalisation process.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (DE) Mr President, unlike some of my fellow MEPs, I did know that Mr Ferber, his opening statement notwithstanding, is a man who is open to compromise and has reached a good solution. Mr Ferber presented the situation as it is: there are many differences in Europe, with liberalisation far advanced in some countries, and less so in others. Holding this process back would have been impossible, and probably futile.

The main point – and on this we were able to agree with the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, which was the first to get the issue moving – is that there is a comprehensive universal service that guarantees all citizens, regardless of whether they live in a city or in an isolated region, whether they are rich or poor, and which the post offices or postal services provide. Regulating this remains the responsibility of the national governments.

That was why we insisted, and I am pleased that the lead committee took up this idea, that we should take our time on this, without putting it off indefinitely, as some countries had already made proper preparations, but enough time for our citizens and also businesses and organisations to prepare, in order to ensure that industry and citizens get a proper service.

Another important issue is that of employment. Liberalisation and opening the market must not be based on the principle of ‘the lower the pay and the worse the conditions, the better’. The point is for there to be fair competition between the existing and new postal institutions. This too has been properly dealt with in the report.

For these reasons, it is my personal view that we have found a good solution. The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy has given its approval, and I am hoping that the majority in this House will agree to this proposal.

  Markus Pieper (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation of the postal market also has a regional dimension, because the reliability and quality of postal deliveries is a regional factor for the economy as well as for the population.

First of all I would like to thank Richard Seeber, the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. He asked me to take over his section. I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, for his very balanced report.

In principle, we welcome the opening of the markets. It is not an end in itself, but a tool for increasing the postal sector’s efficiency and quality of service. Liberalisation will, as has been the case in other fields, create far more jobs than the protected markets do. The Committee on Regional Development does, however, recommend that the impact of liberalisation be analysed more closely. How do free markets affect regional cohesion, and how do they affect regional competitiveness?

In the case of rural and isolated areas we must, together with the private providers, find market-like solutions that do not increase costs to customers or reduce the frequency of deliveries. In this regard, e-commerce and Internet mail order provides some interesting perspectives for the rural areas, including by providing equivalent substitutes for services previously provided by the state. But the Committee on Regional Development does say that the consequences of maintaining the universal service in the long term must be given further consideration.

Those Member States which consider it necessary would be given the opportunity to postpone the completion of the internal postal services market, which is planned for 2009. On these grounds we also welcome the extension of the deadlines for the new Member States, and for very remote areas envisaged by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

The resultant two-tier opening of the market must not, however, result in a situation where state-owned monopolies from protected areas offer services in liberalised Member States or regions. This is another form of distorted competition that the Member States and …

(The President cut off the speaker.)

  Marianne Thyssen, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the Commissioner stated a moment ago, we have been opening up the European market for postal services for more than 10 years now and, today, we are deciding on the final phase, on what should be done with the reserved area of postal items weighing up to 50 grams. Once this residual monopoly has been removed, we will have, in a few years’ time, a postal market that has every chance of becoming more dynamic, that will be fully open and that will be able to work in a competitive and transparent manner.

As we see it, the Commission proposal offered us insufficient guarantees for cautious liberalisation but, thanks to rapporteur Ferber’s negotiation skills and the sound cooperation of other fellow MEPs, a politically widely supported arrangement has been made within the Committee on Transport and Tourism which, primarily, offers postal companies extra time to put sound preparations in place. This is, given the fact that not all Member States have reached the same stage on the post-liberalisation track, a sensible route.

Moreover, the Ferber report represents a huge advance in other areas too. For example, employees in the postal sector need not necessarily fear adverse effects, even though we should, of course, remain vigilant in this respect. Equally crucial is our aspiration to guarantee users universal provision of service. Needless to say, mail must still be delivered on a daily basis and users must be able to post mail close to home.

Key to this is, of course, the national plan which Member States need to present to the Commission in connection with the financing of their universal service. All in all, we expect an even-handed document following the vote tomorrow, whereupon it will be up to the Council, and certainly the Member States, to deal with our voting result wisely.

  Brian Simpson, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I congratulate our rapporteur, Mr Ferber, on his work on this report. It is a long time since he and I first crossed swords on postal services many years ago. In fact, I think we may even have still had the Berlin Wall at the time, which just shows you how long this has been going on.

Postal services are a highly personal and highly political issue. That is why they are different to other sectors, like telecoms and energy, because post, as I have often said in this House, is about people; it is about frontline public service. That is why it is important and generates a lot of interest.

I know in the work we have done in committee we have tried to take on board the views of other committees and political groups. And, after a lot of hard work, and I have to say a great deal of good will, we reached an agreement, which I think is a good one.

I just want to say that this particular directive is not really about liberalisation. The argument as to whether we should liberalise the post was lost many years ago. Mr Hughes is right when he says that politics is about the art of the possible. And those who are a minority – and I respect them for their views – who think that we should stay with the old ways, stay with the monopolistic sector and reserved area, well, whilst I see the merits of their argument, in the real world, that is not where we are, that is not where we are living. The vast majority of our Member States have liberalised; the vast majority of those who have not would like to and so, therefore, it is a dose of reality that is sometimes needed.

Parliament agreed to controlled liberalisation and, indeed, in its last pronouncement agreed that that should be on 1 January 2009. Yet, since then, we have had the accession of the new Member States and my group believes that that means we need to think through what we did previously with a view to a different timetable and delaying the implementation for those who need it.

But I have to say that, whilst the Commission is strong on universal service, it is weak on how to finance that universal service within its proposals.

So let us look at the key issue. How do we guarantee a universal service, and a universal service that treats all citizens equally, irrespective of where they live? That is why we support the guarantee of access points in rural and peripheral areas. How do we finance that universal service? How do we have the national plans in place to enable that to happen? How do we protect the workers and their working conditions, and how do we ensure that the new Member States are not forced into competition that they cannot sustain? That is where the timescale is important.

They are the issues we have addressed in this report and in the compromise that we reached and I hope Parliament will support that compromise tomorrow.

  Luigi Cocilovo, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should also like to congratulate Mr Ferber warmly on his work. I believe that other committed colleagues have worked together on this issue and I do not believe that, however delicate and complicated it was, it was a ‘duel at dawn behind the convent’ between Mr Ferber and Mr Simpson: it was not a question of crossing swords but of realising that this is a sensitive sector, as are all the sectors where supply cannot be guided solely by economic advantage but must also be guided by the need to respond to the public interest. This may go beyond the solutions that are normal in supply and demand situations, based solely on the market and the market’s advantage.

It was necessary to find a difficult balance, since the reform, as already mentioned by the Commissioner and again pointed out by Mr Ferber, was not brought about by the market but in the interest of consumers. The market can only be one tool in achieving and guaranteeing as far as possible that consumers’ interests are served by reducing the costs of the quality of services. I too believe that the old monopoly industries were not up to meeting the challenges: it would, however, be dangerous to imagine that in these cases the only answer is to open up the market to competition. This is a move which, although useful, fundamental and important, is not sufficient in itself.

From this follows the search for a guaranteed universal service, with various options, avoiding the risks of ambiguity in interpretation and of disputes, which we have probably not eliminated entirely. There are various options, all directed – in view of the diversity of the various markets – towards the need to contribute to the net costs of a service which in many circumstances will never be covered exclusively through the operation of the market. To this end, as has been pointed out, fair competition is crucial.

I do not share the suspicion of the system of granting licences, which has been seen as akin to a guillotine, preventing or suffocating competition. Licences can be highly useful instruments in ensuring the suitability of a company and ensuring that competition takes place freely but within a framework of rules which, involving compliance with regulations on social security, professional qualifications, definitions of replacement services and public interest requirements, can transparently apply to all operators in the sector.

This will also be a tool to prevent those with the burden of the universal service from entering the ring of competition with their hands tied behind their backs.

  Roberts Zīle, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Thank you, Mr President, Mr McCreevy. I would also like to begin by congratulating Mr Ferber on the excellent compromise that he has managed to achieve in an extremely difficult situation, as demonstrated by the many hundreds of proposals which emerged from extremely diverse interest groups. I am also pleased that this is a case where the specific features of the new Member States have been taken into account, through the provision of the two-year extension and possibly an even longer deadline for the retention of the universal service. I would certainly like to acknowledge the fact that in many new Member States the postal service is not yet ready for real competition of this kind. Thus it is very important, on the one hand, that an improvement in the quality of postal services should be achieved in the new Member States – which is something that competition offers – but, on the other hand, we need to retain the human aspect of which Mr Simpson just spoke. I am also pleased that the Member States have an opportunity to choose one of a range of models to fund this period of universal service, and, finally, I am pleased that it was possible, within the committees, to reach a compromise in relation to preserving the protection of personal data in those cases where the provider of the current universal service has to hand over its database to other market participants. Accordingly, I very much hope that tomorrow’s vote will be successful, and that the lengthy work on the postal services directive will come to an end. Thank you.

  Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, competition has always delivered positive results when it has operated within a good framework. The same applies to postal services – wherever feasible. For the sake of fairness, however, it must be said that in the latest phase of liberalisation, consumers, particularly in rural areas, have noted a decline in service quality. Private does not automatically mean good, just as state-owned is not automatically good. What we need is good, positive and fair conditions.

The Commission rightly points out the importance of comprehensive service provision, particularly for rural areas. Services must not be allowed to concentrate only in the cities. The proposals on funding these services, which are more costly, are, however, largely unrealistic, only aimed at the large Member States and are defined in vague terms. The European Court of Justice will have its work cut out for it.

Another result is that many fellow MEPs have requested derogations. So now we have one law for Greece, whereby countries with many islands can liberalise more slowly. There is another law for Luxembourg, whereby small countries with a restricted population – an interesting choice of words – should liberalise later, and ditto for the new Member States. In summary, these are rather vague formulations. Nevertheless, I appeal to you: do not postpone your decision! Problems cannot be solved by shelving them. That is why I cannot agree to mere postponement, and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is with me on this.

What we need to end once and for all – and this is the crux of the report – is the option of demarcating a reserved area, which ultimately means that everything is subsidised, from profitable junk mail to loss-making private mail. This practice must end. However, in its generosity, the Commission continues to allow such state subsidies. This I regard as an erroneous approach. I am more in favour of a benefit-oriented approach. The compensation fund that is being proposed, while it may be feasible in large Member States, is not feasible in small ones, as the market has not yet adjusted itself adequately.

Direct mail is a goldmine. Letters weighing less than 50 g are the category that the private operators are waiting to get their hands on. They are not in the slightest bit interested in the Christmas card to auntie Maria who lives up the mountains. So what will the result of the report be, if it is adopted as it is? Overflowing mailboxes in the cities, mountains of junk mail, and good private mail service provision in the towns, but a gradual running down of services in the country. This will be the inevitable result, as governments will in the long run no longer be able, or want, to fund the service.

And how will the providers compete? At the price of the employees working there, and of the rural population. The private operators will only be able to take their cut if working conditions deteriorate: please bear this in mind during the debate. What we will have on our hands is social dumping, which we will not be able to reverse by some recital or other.

  Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, my colleague, Erik Meijer, will go back over the report by Mr Ferber.

For my part, I should like to give some actual illustrations, starting with this case of the draft directive and the Commission’s attitude with regard to it, of the liberal dogmatism that feeds the crisis of legitimacy in the European economic and social model and the arrogance that maintains the climate of defiance towards our institutions.

I recall what the European Trade Union Confederation said, from the beginning, about your draft proposal, Mr McCreevy. I quote: ‘This proposal will eliminate the reserved area sector which has proved to be the only reliable service’. It continues and again, I quote: ‘Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost since the liberalisation was launched. In the long run, this will have a far-reaching and negative impact on the European Union. The European Trade Union Confederation urges the Council and Parliament not to adopt the Commission’s proposal’.

For its part, the UNI-Europe postal network, which represents more than a million employees, considers, I quote: ‘That the Commission’s proposal would jeopardise the extent, the quality and the access to services currently enjoyed by European citizens’. It also – I am still quoting – ‘unanimously urges the Council and Parliament to reject the Commission’s proposal’ which has, according to the network’s General Secretary, I quote: ‘failed to guarantee the financing of the universal postal service for the citizen’. It is clear!

Furthermore, tens of thousands of petitions from users opposing this bad text have been sent directly to the Commission. For their part, nine of the incumbent postal operators have laid stress on the threat that is hanging over the future financing of the universal service. Better still, according to Luxembourg’s Minister for Communications, Mr Jean-Louis Schiltz, a majority of Member States have problems with the rules laid down for financing the public service if this directive is applied. The Commission’s answer to this avalanche of questioning is that its directive is the only realistic option. End of story.

That is precisely, Mr President, what is no longer acceptable to public opinion and likewise on our authority it is no longer acceptable to the greatest possible number of Members of the European Parliament. That is the meaning of our amendment calling for rejection, whether it be for 2009 or later. I will see you tomorrow for the vote.

  Michael Henry Nattrass, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, managing a postal system delivering to every part of the UK six days a week, as experienced by the British for more than a century, is a UK issue, not for EU rubberstamping. Efficient mail delivery encourages business, especially in rural areas. It is a public service. The Royal Mail may require subsidies to deliver to remote outposts, including Scottish islands. That is a matter for central and local British Government, not the EU. The EU concept favours more junk mail which is not required by the British, nor by their recycling bins. As usual, the EU wishes to micro-manage every aspect, destroying methods which have worked well for years, whilst dictating rules which limit innovation.

The EU meddling with the UK postal system is as foreign to me as Britain fiddling with the Flemish, Finnish or French letters. You may expect that I should welcome postdating of the full market to December 2010. In fact, I reject the entire directive on the simple British principle of mind your own business and we will get it sorted, not the apparent EU directive of stand and deliver while we envelop you in red tape.

In short, I mark this directive ‘return to sender’.

  Luca Romagnoli, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for an amendment to the directive on completing the internal market in postal services, put forward by Mr Ferber, has been met with a broad consensus, as demonstrated by its reception in committee as well as the compromises reached on this subject by the political groups.

As I have already stated on other occasions, I am by no means a card-carrying supporter of liberalisation, but quite the reverse. This is partly because, particularly in Italy, it has not produced the miraculous effects in terms of improving services and prices that consumers so often hear alluded to. In fact, in Italy – and I challenge my fellow Italian Members who are champions of liberalisation to prove the contrary – the liberalisation of various sectors, from insurance to energy, rail and postal services themselves, has resulted in higher costs and greater difficulties in using services.

So much so that, in Italy, despite coming from a certain Marxist tradition, people are becoming champions of liberalisation and becoming ministers. These are not just communists, but communists who, in order to meet the market, actually become ministers, after having sat in passing on these chairs, but with little in the way of commitment or helpful contributions. Thus from communist ministers there is agitation which then affects the various categories, from lawyers to notaries, then taxi drivers, and then bakers, and this confirms the justice of consumption and competition. So this is how, in addition to my ideological convictions, I, a people’s nationalist, have also seen a concrete demonstration that the free market certainly does not cure all ills, but instead often feeds them.

In the hope, however, that at least in my country greater competition in the postal sector – which is, moreover, a public sector which, having been partially privatised, has experienced nothing but a rise in costs compared with a service that is wholly of a European standard – in the hope that all this will finally produce an improvement in the service, I intend to support the Ferber report. I must not omit to say that, in Italy, the service offered by private operators in the sector of deliveries is often excellent and seems to have created more employment than that lost in the public service. Neither can I disregard the fact that, while the large commercial customers do not need any special protection with regard to bad services, small customers are in the opposite situation with regard to the universal service.

It is right for the universal service to be guaranteed for at least five days a week in all Member States, and we must not go back on this. Similarly, I wonder who could oppose the wish for faster, more regular and more reliable postal services or a fair system of reimbursement or compensation, as referred to many times in the Ferber report? The issue is complex and, as is usual here, there is not enough time to analyse all the aspects, both positive and negative, of the report.

I hope that from January 2011 the fact that exclusive rights to provide postal services will not continue will bring universal benefits for all. It will also be the first time that I find myself forced to change my mind about the positive nature of liberalisations.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a postal services directive is a further step towards a very important objective: completing the internal market in postal services, since services of general economic interest play a fundamental role within various countries, in terms of both economic development and social cohesion. It is thus vital that, while fully opening up the market, we guarantee the sustainability of the universal postal service, through the proper measures to fund it.

There are, however, still some criticisms to be overcome. I will mention just two: above all it is important that we define more clearly the criteria for granting authorisations to operators intending to supply both universal postal services and non-universal postal services. This is in order to ensure that all those in the field are subject to equal competitive conditions and the same obligations, both in the supply of the services and the contribution to funding. On this point, the Commission’s original text seems clearer than the text proposed in Amendment 44, which removes various postal operators and designated suppliers from the system of conditions applicable for the granting of licences.

A second aspect relates to the regulation of access to the postal network. In general, in fact, subject to the general principles of transparency and non-discrimination, I cannot see the need for additional regulation. Some Member States have already laid down access criteria on the basis of the needs and characteristics of their own national postal services markets: regulating access cannot, in fact, be defined in a generalised manner, but depends on the situation existing in each individual national market.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the Postal Directive is a particularly important proposal. It affects not only a million postal workers, but practically all citizens. That is why we did not try and make it easy for ourselves in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. I would like to thank the rapporteur, as the amendments and compromises have enabled us to take major steps forward, and significantly improved the report of the Commission.

What was important to me was, firstly, that service provision should remain at the centre of attention. Secondly what is the future role of the Member States? This should be clearly defined. Service provision should remain the main point, but to me this does not mean that tomorrow you can have lower wages, poorer services, and in the end higher prices, too.

Unlike some of my fellow MEPs, who have a more pessimistic view of the whole matter, as I see it, the Member States have been given an important role in the current proposal. You can utilise your role by maintaining service levels as regards distribution and collection. What citizens respect in terms of services has already been covered in the draft. Social dumping can be avoided if the Member States so wish. In our country, too, there have been petitions on the subject of postmen, to the effect that postmen should keep their present role. Not only did we make allowance for this important function in the draft, but we also stated clearly that Member States may maintain this profession.

As for financing, there is a variety of models. My opinion – although this is not feasible for the time being – is that secure financing should be offered to a part of the reserved sector. But as we are only on the first reading, perhaps the second one will bring in some amendments.

Monopolies must be eliminated, but not at any price. I have already stated our conditions regarding the price: service in the first place, keeping the profession in the second, and guaranteed funding in the third. And finally: to me, the elimination of monopolies does not mean letting new monopolies take their place. It would therefore be good if Parliament again carried out a detailed discussion of the entire principle of liberalisation, particularly as regards service provision for citizens.

  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, we acknowledge the attitude of the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, on this occasion, since, still on the basis of a radical and simplistic position of liberalisation, which furthermore revealed national interests, he has decided to accept, from the outset, compromises that will attract greater support from this Parliament on such a crucial report as this one.

I would like to acknowledge and congratulate Mr Simpson in particular, however, who has achieved the compromises, and who has done the difficult and thankless but successful work of achieving our group's fundamental objectives: Firstly, to maintain and protect the strictest definition of a universal service, as one that ensures economic, social and territorial cohesion, with a daily presence throughout our territory, at an accessible cost and by means of a high-quality public service.

To that end, it was necessary to clarify and guarantee sufficient financial stability, and we did not therefore agree with the Commission's rather unclear position and we do not therefore believe that the work that the Member States must do is a mere formality and we demand that the Commission take it very seriously.

We also believe the social safeguard clauses to be crucial, and we demand that the Commission and the Member States implement and apply them fully. We therefore urge the unions, operators and regulators to work thoroughly on them, so that that work can run in parallel with that of the Member States.

At a time when we are working to combat precarious employment, unemployment amongst women and in favour of high-quality services close to the citizens, it seemed to us to be highly irresponsible to bring about a worsening of these conditions. We therefore believe that the challenges for the future are to ensure stable and secure funding of the universal service and guarantee quality employment in this sector.

Parliament will be watching very closely to ensure that that is the case.

  Dirk Sterckx (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I support the compromise which the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs have reached. I think that an open European market for postal companies is the only way of addressing the competition with the electronic alternatives. These companies need to modernise, they need to adapt to new circumstances; and, if you have the cushion of a monopoly, then you are unlikely to go out and find new customers. Then you will carry on as before.

We also have a clear timeframe: 2011. Everyone knows where they stand then. We would stress the importance of the public service, not simply to citizens, in fact. This public service is also extremely important to small companies. Also, a tough question is how we compensate for the possible loss of this public service?

This is where the Member States could play a key role, as Mr Grosch has already mentioned, but I should nevertheless like to say that this compensation should not be used to allow postal companies that have always been performing badly to continue in the same vein. We must make the postal sector more efficient, and I think that this will be one of the key effects the proposal on which we will be voting tomorrow will have.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – A Uachtaráin, is é prionsabal na seirbhísí domhanda an ghné is tábhachtaí de na moltaí seo, dar liom. Ciallaíonn an prionsabal sin go gcaithfear seirbhís poist a chur ar fáil do chuile theach agus gnó san Eoraip, cúig nó sé huaire sa tseachtain. Mar sin, beidh ar chuile Bhallstát an córas sin a chur i bhfeidhm agus go gcinnteoidh sé go mbeidh an tseirbhís sin ar fáil i ngach Ballstát. Agus tá seans láidir go dtacóidh an Pharlaimint anseo leis na moltaí seo a chur i bhfeidhm ó 2011 seachas 2009 agus aontaím leis sin. Maidir le cás na hÉireann, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an socrú atá idir an Post agus Banc Fortis na Beilge. Postbank atá ar an gcomhaontú seo agus cuirfidh sé seirbhís bainc ar fáil do chustaiméirí an idirlín agus trí oifigí poist ar fud na hÉireann níos déanaí i mbliana agus creidimse gur rud dearfach é seo mar tá an Post á réiteach féin i gcomhair na hiomaíochta atá le teacht sna seirbhísí san Eoraip agus tá súil agam as seo go dtacóidh sé seo leis na hoifigí poist faoin tuath in Éirinn agus ar fud na hEorpa a choinneáil ar oscailt. Go raibh maith agat.

  Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to make two points. The first concerns the matter of what is actually going on beyond the discussions. The question being asked is actually, first of all, whether putting postal operators into generalised competition makes a relative reduction in prices possible and, if so, whom does it benefit; then, whether it makes for good working conditions and, if so, for whom, and all of that while ensuring the quality of services.

As Members of Parliament, we have been informed by trade unions, but also by the postal operators themselves, that the experience of Germany or Sweden offered no positive answers to these questions. In Germany, we had net losses of 29 000 jobs within the Deutsche Post, of which 15 000 have not been compensated for by the creation of jobs by new operators, not to mention that we are witnessing an increase in casual jobs. In Sweden, price reductions have been of benefit only to large enterprises, at the expense of individual consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises.

Therefore, contrary to what Mr Simpson said, it is not for theoretical reasons that we are advocating keeping the reserved area; it is not because it was decided, in 1997, that the die was necessarily cast. I think that we have to look at the facts, and the facts show that, in many countries which have anticipated the opening up to competition, the results have not been up to expectations. That should give us cause for thought.

My second point concerns the responsibility of Member States. Indeed, as Mr Grosch said, the proposal presented to us leaves a great deal of autonomy to Member States, both in terms of working conditions and provision of services. Having said this, I consider, for my part, that it is not our responsibility as European elected representatives to define a European law and leave to Member States the option of doing or not doing it. That is the reason why our amendments introduce, in the body of the directive, in its articles, requirements in relation to working conditions and pay and in relation to universal service provision. In my opinion, that is the important difference between the Verts/ALE amendments and the compromise amendments supported by the PPE-DE and ALDE Groups as well as some of the Socialists.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Mr President, more than a century ago, the failure on the part of private postal companies to come up to the mark led to the state taking over. Since then, this has been the best guarantee for postal deliveries on time and at the same price wherever this may be. Differences between densely populated areas, where the delivery of post is profitable, and sparsely populated or remote areas, where the delivery is expensive, fell by the wayside. The sorting and delivery of mail came into the hands of professional people who delivered quality. In many cases, the postman and the post office became a lifeline, not only for rural residents, but also for the economically weakest city dwellers.

For many years, we have noticed that private companies are keen on buying the most profitable sections, for which they ideally use temporary staff, including students, housewives and the elderly, for whom postal delivery is not vital in their lives. They prefer not to pay these people by the hours worked, but by the number of letters handled, and replace postal offices by contracts with supermarkets.

As a result, customers have to make do with less quality and the number of staff is cut down drastically. Politicians who condone this development actually cause a problem instead of solving it. We will soon face the risk of the government needing to subsidise in order to keep the most loss-making sections of postal delivery above water, while the profitable sections will be creamed off by large international companies.

Whilst the compromises struck between the three largest groups may provide a delay and weaken the original proposal, they do not offer anything in the way of sustainable solutions. My group has tabled amending proposals and has supported those of others, but we consider the option of rejecting the proposal and continuing the existing situation to be the best by a long shot.

  Johannes Blokland (IND/DEM). – (NL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Ferber on the result achieved. After years of study and debates, the free postal market is within reach. The main gain of this report is the fact that a deadline has been set for opening up the postal market. This means that suppliers know where they stand. It gives them a chance to adapt their management accordingly, if they have not already done so, as a result of which the sector’s authority is bound to increase as a whole. This is necessary in order to be able to wage the war on electronic communication.

Another gain is the attention to the specific situation in the Member States. The proposal recognises the mutual differences socially, geographically and economically. The Member States have allowed enough room to address these national areas for consideration in the way that suits them best.

I will not deny the fact that some companies in Europe face tough times. Practice, however, has taught us that operating in a market-oriented manner is useful for sharpening the mind and taking opportunities that arise. I hope that all postal companies in Europe are willing and able to wage this war.

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, the fact that the European market is big does not necessarily mean it is effective; it must provide opportunities for growth, opportunities for employment and the potential for social cohesion and must be of a high and competitive international standard.

Our experience tells us that free competition helps in this direction, and that competition, as a market modus operandi, must take account, if it is to have the anticipated positive results, of actual economic, social and territorial conditions.

The rapporteur, Mr Markus Ferber, has managed – and I thank him for that – to combine these parameters, which is quite a feat on a subject such as postal services, which is not simply an economic activity, but is connected with the tradition and everyday life of European citizens and with the image they have of the efficacy of their country.

I consider it important that, at the heart of our work, our core ambition should be to safeguard an efficient and viable universal service and I support the amendment tabled by Mrs Barsi-Pataky and other honourable Members, including myself, to retain proper preparation of the application of free competition, so that today’s directive can be applied up to liberalisation and can safeguard incoming, outgoing and advertising mail.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the reform of the postal market is a very sensitive issue, because the impact of the market opening will, of course, be different in every country, depending on the geography, the level of urbanisation or the quantity of mail which people tend to send. It is also, as Mr Simpson said, a network of people with which everyone comes into contact.

I have mixed feelings about the compromise that is the subject of tomorrow’s vote. On the one hand, it is certainly the case that, in terms of key areas, it is far removed from the original Commission proposal and from the rapporteur’s position. I am grateful to Mr Ferber for his flexibility in this respect.

The definition of universal provision of service has remained intact. The deadline has been extended by two years. By this date, the Member States will need to notify which model of funding they think likely; and, socially, we have managed to ensure that, via the licensing scheme, the same wage and working conditions can be imposed on all operators. This is essential.

Many question marks remain, though. Is sustainable funding of the universal provision of service possible in a fully liberalised market? Under all circumstances? Unless we assume, of course, that the taxpayer will foot the bill. We have received insufficient guarantees on that score. I think it would have been preferable if, instead of focusing on a date and before deciding on going ahead with liberalisation, we had first checked in every country whether the opening up of the market would be the best way of further modernising the system and guaranteeing quality provision of service.

The compromise is a step forward, but is not enough. There is still work to be done. The ball is too much in the court of the Member States, and consequently I shall definitely be supporting some amendments that did not get adopted in the committee but were re-tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, among others.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if many of us are in agreement in thinking that fully opening up postal services to competition in 2010 is likely to encourage the conception of services on a European scale and will have a strong impact on the creation of jobs, there are also many of us who say that this modernisation of the postal sector must not damage the current quality of postal services, which are a part of the economic and social life of all our territories and particularly the most remote ones.

I mentioned it before in February 2006 when I spoke about the legitimate fears of our fellow-citizens, of postal workers and the historic operators. I know too that some fears remain in people’s minds. Since then, Parliament’s work, with its various sensitivities, has made possible a greater flexibility in defining the universal service as with its financing, particularly with the introduction of the compensation fund which would allow the cost of the service to be shared more equitably between the operators, according to whether or not they participate, wholly or in part, in carrying out the service.

While closely monitoring the implementation by the authorities of the different countries, and particularly my own, of an ambitious definition of the universal service, we shall pay close attention to its financing mechanisms which make it possible to have a quality postal service for all of our territories, and especially for the citizens, the employees, but above all for European citizens as a whole.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, regarding the debate on the liberalisation of postal services, I would like to express my satisfaction at the amendments implemented by the Committee on Transport and Tourism to the draft put forward by the European Commission.

They meet the expectations of the new Member States half way. Firstly we should note the extension of the deadline for full liberalisation of the postal services market for the new Member States by two years. It is needed by the postal enterprises of those countries so that they can carry out the necessary restructuring in a way which will enable them to compete with the powerful postal enterprises in the old Member States.

Secondly, we should point out the additional subsidies for enterprises providing ‘universal services’, or the establishment of a special fund to which all operators contribute, or the provision of state compensation to operators providing such services.

This solution is hugely important for countries such as Poland, where a large proportion of the population lives in rural areas, often in very remote settlements, which significantly increases the costs of providing postal services.

  Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has been said on many occasions in this House that what is happening now, what we are debating now, is inevitable, but consumers should have no fear. The provision of service will improve while prices fall.

I do not intend to mince my words when I say that we all know that there are no such guarantees. We know this from experience, for example in Sweden and the UK. Certainly within smaller postal markets, the replacement of the state monopoly will lead to a private monopoly, and we all know that this means that there are no guarantees of the improved provision of service or price cuts.

Quite frankly, though, what is closest to my heart is the position, the future, of the employees who currently work in the postal sector. I am expressing this sentiment based on experience, for example in the already liberalised section of the Dutch postal market, where we notice that many permanent jobs have changed into uncertain part-time jobs. We have to be honest with the citizens of Europe in that area too. By definition, things do not improve following liberalisation.

I am also stating this on the strength of my own, personal experience. My father worked in the postal sector for 40 years, as did my uncles and cousins. These were jobs to be proud of, of which many people were proud, in fact. I know that this world of yesteryear, the world of old certainties, will not come back. It is not out of nostalgia or misplaced romanticism that I would urge us to go back to that era, but it does leave me with, how shall I put it, an uncomfortable feeling about the uncertain future of many people who currently work in the postal sector, who are proud of this, or people who are proud of their postmen.

It is also casting much doubt over the question whether this is now the message which we as the European Parliament should send out. Fine promises to the consumers, which we know we will be unable to keep. Or announcements of far-reaching changes for the employees, the impact of which we know can be enormous. This is not my idea of a social Europe.

  Patrick Louis (IND/DEM). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competition has its virtues but, in a market economy, before we can just laisser faire, there is much to be done. Therefore, town and country planning is one of the conditions of the attractiveness, the economic effectiveness and the quality of life. Full privatisation of the postal service can be damaging to town and country planning and, consequently, to the good of the people.

France is not a flat country, with a uniform topology. Therefore, according to the location, delivery costs for small items of post differ widely. Privatising the service means that sooner or later it will be charged for at its actual cost or abandoned. Consequently, rural or remote areas, which are already in danger of becoming economic deserts, will suffer a competitive disadvantage which will plunge them into the deflationary spiral.

We must, therefore, in this House, admit once more that our countries are different in nature and culture. We must, therefore, give each one them sovereign freedom to find the solution that suits them. The internal market is not an end in itself, it is only a tool at the service of the good of nations. Let us not forget that in the higher interest of our compatriots!

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Ferber for the work he as rapporteur has done on this sensitive issue affecting many citizens in Europe, because offering varied and efficient service to consumers and companies no longer works with old state monopolies without market incentives. This is why it is a good thing that, by the end of 2010, these monopolies will have disappeared, and more room will be created for innovation and the new provision of service.

The Council is divided but, under the aegis of Mr Ferber, this House is once again taking the lead in offering a solution for a sensitive subject. The proposal that is now before us is, as I see it, an even-handed one. It provides a clear date for lifting monopolies and laying down reciprocity.

A level playing field, however, is of vital importance. As for the conditions for market access, justice must be done, as it is being done, to different interests. This is why there is a range of possibilities for the Member States where the financing of service is concerned, which also entails the risk, though, of bureaucracy, intransparency and, indirectly, opportunities to protect the market. This is why the European Commission has the huge task of carrying out very critical assessments of the Member States’ funding arrangements and conditions and of checking whether the competition is fair.

Mr Meijer is trapped in the previous century, because the postal market has been undergoing major changes for many years. E-mail, the Internet and other communication technologies have brought about many changes and have changed the postal market beyond recognition. Whilst this is irrevocably at the expense of jobs, a liberalised market also dares us to be creative. New services and new activity lead to new employment, as experience has shown. This employment is more future-proof than holding on to old state monopolies.

  Robert Navarro (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I must first of all convey to you apologies from my colleague, Gilles Savary, who has been held up in Bordeaux.

At a time when the future of the public postal service is being decided, I should like to highlight one particular point: that of the financing of the universal service. The proposal before us today is to replace what is left of the residual monopoly and serves to finance the universal service in a way that is simple and transparent, with an array of complex systems that are hardly transparent and of which the sole merit would be to ensure free and undistorted competition in the postal sector. This array, however, includes compensation funds and we know that they are an open door to constant litigation and public subsidies which can lead to proceedings against Member States or a system called ‘pay or play’ which has never been tried and which could also open the door to endless disputes.

Basically, this white elephant that is being set up is the consequence of a purely ideological choice, which has nothing to do with the real efficiency and quality of the postal service. In the end, this system will lead to a progressive reduction in the range of the universal service and to the end of the uniform tariff while having a definite effect on jobs and administrative costs.

That, we cannot support. The postal service, especially in rural areas, is more than simply a commercial service, it constitutes a tool in the service of social and territorial cohesion, and dismantling it is not the way to reconcile Europe with its citizens.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, for a Liberal, the compromise that is before us is, in all honesty, not a cause for celebration. After 15 years of debate, the date of entry into force has been brought back after all. Moreover, the compromise contains the necessary protectionist provisions which prevent the market from being opened up completely and make for many legal uncertainties.

In many cases, the debates are nationally biased. Particularly the Member States that have carried out insufficient reforms in recent years are clearly opposed to swift and full market operation. In this way, they withhold the benefits of competition in respect of companies and consumers and, with it, more efficiency, quality and innovation. In this way, they insult – excuse the word – the Member States and postal companies that have been doing the necessary groundwork for years.

With even more astonishment, I have been following the discussions on this matter by the Council, which is once again conspicuous by its absence. Despite all fine intentions and strategies such as those of Lisbon, protecting your own market is very fashionable in 2007. Accordingly, I cannot support the fellow MEPs who praise the compromise, or those who paint all kinds of horror scenarios and/or mention social dumping.

  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, we Greens are trying to assess liberalisation by the most impartial and ideology-free criteria possible. What will it do for the consumer? What will it do for working conditions? What will it do for the environment? My fellow MEPs Mrs Lichtenberger and Mr Jonckheer have already described the economic policy and social impact. But the present proposal is an environmental nonsense: at 8.00 the yellow mail van arrives, at 9.00 the blue mail van, at 10.00 the red mail van and at 11.00 the black mail van. None of the vans are being used efficiently: in other words, at a time when we are all talking of climate change, we are messing up the logistics of letter mail completely, and causing unnecessary traffic on the roads.

It is this blind addiction to liberalisation among conservatives, liberals and some of the social democrats that endangers the important European Project in the eyes of the public.

  Etelka Barsi-Pataky (PPE-DE). – (HU) The full opening of European markets is an important step towards eliminating the remaining obstacles on the European single market. Parliament’s political agreement makes it possible for postal service providers who currently still enjoy a monopoly position to prepare for competition by the end of 2012. I congratulate the rapporteur on this agreement.

Our aim is for European legislation to make everyone competitive, so that this legislation may not represent a disadvantage to companies that will be in competition upon liberalisation of the market, but should instead open up new perspectives. In order to do so, the sources of income currently guaranteed by the directive now in force must be available to the companies and postal services in question until the end of the derogation period.

40 of my fellow Members and I have submitted an initiative, which decisively and unambiguously lays down what these entitlements are. I ask Parliament to support this initiative. On the other hand, we expect postal services to use this derogation period to become truly competitive, and to do so in such a way that this is not at the expense of smaller regions.

My fellow Member Mr Becsey has frequently called attention to the fact that the parliamentary agreement gives us the opportunity to put obligatory universal services on a more secure financial basis, and the citizens of Europe expect us to do so. I draw the attention of each one of us, therefore, to the fact that there is still a great deal for us to do even after the directive has been accepted.

  Alain Hutchinson (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, against the current of the majority which seems to be emerging in this House, I should like to let the voice of the most humble of our fellow citizens be heard, the voice of those for whom public services constitute an important heritage, because they themselves have no heritage at all.

I should like to underline the harmful, disastrous effects brought about by the multiple liberalisations voted for in this Parliament in the areas, for example, of energy, transport and, today, postal services. Disastrous effects in the sense that liberalisation brings about major drawbacks for a large number of our fellow citizens, linked as much with a noticeable decline in the quality of these services since liberalisation – one only has to look at what is happening in Sweden – as with an almost systematic increase in the price of these services or again with the large numbers of public sector job losses, which are very meanly replaced with poor quality jobs.

That is the reason why, Mr President, I shall vote, along with the francophone Belgian Socialist delegation, against the liberalisation of postal services, while trying to improve the content of the proposal by means of amendments which could safeguard a part of these services, in particular the amendments which reintroduce the possibility, for each Member State, of choosing the model of the reserved area in order to finance the universal service from which every citizen should benefit.

  Ona Juknevičienė (ALDE). – (LT) I regret that we will not be opening up the postal market in 2009. Both consumers and service providers will be worse off for this. I am happy that this subject is now being widely discussed in Lithuania. I hope that in my country the postal market will be opened up well before 2013. I agree that the future of universal services should not be decided just by market forces alone; regulatory measures are needed. However, I do not think that temporary financing is necessary, especially if it is to be provided from state funds. Some people fear that, when the postal market is opened up, many people will be out of work. However, research and the experience of other countries shows that when the market is opened up, postal services expand. Most job positions will remain. New job positions will be created in the establishments of the new operators. I will vote for this document, which, although not bold, is nevertheless a step forward.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like first of all to congratulate Mr Ferber both on the considerable efforts he has made for several months, and even several years, and also for being so open and willing to listen because, as he knows, we have not always shared the same points of view on this complex issue.

At a time when Parliament is preparing to vote on the last stage of postal liberalisation, that of mail weighing less than 50 grams, I should like to say I am pleased about what seems to me to be an advance for users. Competition is, indeed, synonymous with improvement in service, as is demonstrated by the efforts towards modernisation undertaken by several national postal monopolies since they have known that they will have to compete with new operators in their national market.

Competition is also synonymous with improvement in competitiveness for a sector with a turnover that is going down and which, if nothing is done, will collapse under the deficits and will ultimately lose all its appeal in the eyes of users. I do not want to give any specific example, but we all have in mind examples of countries where the public sector no longer operates properly the postal service to which users are entitled.

That being so, if tomorrow we confirm the last stage of liberalisation, competition is not for me an end in itself. It must remain a means of service to users, and I am glad that the text voted for by the European Parliament explicitly states that delivery of mail to every citizen of the European Union, wherever he may live, is an obligatory principle. I am also glad that the text explicitly states that the operator who is to take on the universal service, and who will therefore have increased costs, will be able to be financed by levies on the activities of its competitors who are not subject to the same obligations, that is, it will be able to be financed, if necessary, and why not, by public subsidies. This type of financing will be legal and every Member State will be able to have recourse to it. To what extent? That is the question that the second reading and the time until effective liberalisation must allow us to answer.

For my part, I repeat a request to the European Commission that I made in parliamentary committee and by means of a written question without receiving any answer: when does it intend to publish guidelines for calculating the cost of the universal service? Members of Parliament as well as Member States need to know what are the Commission’s directions as to what it does or does not regard as participating in the universal service. When all is said and done, we shall need clarification on this point before the second reading if we are to continue to support this text.

  Zita Gurmai (PSE). – (HU) The European postal sector provides 1% of the EU’s GDP and employs close to 3 million people, and thus indirectly, through family members, affects some 5 million people. According to the study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, there are enormous differences among the various Member States in the level of preparedness for full liberalisation. Most in jeopardy are the new Member States’ universal postal service providers and those employed in the sector.

Rapid liberalisation can cause state postal operators considerable loss of business. In Great Britain, full market opening began on 1 January 2006, and within one year the Royal Mail has lost business to the amount of 2 million business letters to the competition. Numerous jobs can also be placed in jeopardy: in Germany, for instance, according to the director of the Deutsche Post, the opening of the market may cause as many as 30 000 jobs to be abolished in the event that it should lose a 20% market share of delivery for letters of low weight, a service on which it still has a monopoly.

Upon thorough consideration of the matter, it is no coincidence that the majority of the committees of the European Parliament do not consider 2009 as an acceptable date for full market opening, but propose instead a later date, with 2013 having been mentioned. It is clear that we need to support full extension of the four basic freedoms, including the Community principle regarding services, but an indispensable condition for this is that each Member State be given sufficient time, and a precise timetable that can be monitored by the Commission, in order to prepare itself at a technical level.

As regards liberalisation, moreover, in order to ensure free competition it is very important that all postal operators in the sector be subjected to a unified set of operating conditions, which guarantee that a unified set of qualitative criteria and operating conditions be applied to the new operators entering the market. Brian Simpson, thank you for your outstanding cooperation, and for having listened to the voices of the new Member States.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) I hope that you succeed, Mr Ferber. Better late than never! Swedish postal services were deregulated as long ago as 1993. What I would say to my fellow Members Mrs Lichtenberger, Mr Wurtz and other sceptics is that Sweden is an excellent example of an open postal services market that works. Every survey shows that customers are more than satisfied. The service has improved, and there are longer opening hours and greater accessibility. There are now 40% more village post offices than there were in 2001. Those of you in Belgium who have concerns might bear in mind that, in terms of surface area, Belgium can fit into Sweden 15 times over. There are almost 350 inhabitants per square kilometre in Belgium, compared with 22 in Sweden, where the topography is quite different. The post arrives on time even in my rectangular and sparsely populated country, and the state does not need to earmark extra money in order to ensure that services covering the whole country are properly provided.

New times require new solutions. Do not be afraid, my friends.

Finally, Amendment 79 is about honest reporting and about creating greater openness and clarity with a view to preventing unfair competition and cross-subsidy.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, I have to accept it: the fight against the wholesale liberalisation of postal services can no longer be won, in the Council or here. I have therefore resigned myself to fighting for consideration to be given to the very particular situation of the post in my small country. In fact, our market is a very attractive catch and consequently especially coveted because its clientele represents 70% of the volume of mail with, on top of that, one of the highest demographic densities and a rate of 455 items – letters or parcels – handled per person per year, that is, one of the highest volumes in Europe. In addition to that there is a manpower cost that is more than double that of its competitors, for historical reasons that have nothing to do with any inefficiency of the post.

Econometric models show that in the event of full liberalisation, the part of the market served by our post would be reduced to a tiny fraction of 4%, releasing in excess of 940 jobs out of 1 500 postal jobs, most of which are untouchable because of the protected status of state employees. Tariffs would have to be increased by five times in order to finance the cost of 100% national coverage of national territory and to maintain deliveries five times a week, in the event of financing by subsidies from the State budget. At a total of EUR 36 million, they could risk scuppering the Maastricht criteria with regard to public deficit. It is therefore also justified to postpone the deadline for liberalisation until 2013 in my country’s case.

That is why I am asking you to vote for my group’s Amendment 62, which will make it possible to reduce the negative impact of full liberalisation in my country, at least for a certain time.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, on the quality of his report, and also Brian Simpson for his efforts to reach a consensus on extending the timescale for market opening and ensuring the functioning and financing of the universal service.

The final phase of liberalisation of the postal services was a long way from achieving a competitive market where consumers, workers and firms stood to gain the most. The path adopted in the Commission’s proposal neither gave sufficient guarantee of the universality of the service, nor clarified the way in which it would be financed. I, therefore, supported Brian Simpson as to the need for the Commission to present studies on the costs of the public service obligations to be carried out in the national plans, and on the rules for financing the universal service, adapted to the different characteristics of the Member States and their regions, including the ultra-peripheral regions, where the cost of providing such services is usually higher.

Only after the Commission has given its approval should the opening of the postal service under 50 grammes go ahead, which is why I support the compromise of setting the date for December 2010, or December 2012, for the new Member States, or, as I would prefer for all, December 2011.

I also agree with other possibilities expressed through amendments still on the table in plenary since the opening up would be a bad step for employment, growth and the maintenance of the universal service unless the public service and its functioning are safeguarded. I reiterate, however, that the approval of a new date in tomorrow’s voting, based upon an undertaking that may carry some complementary amendments, is fundamental for the evolution of these services.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ‘The postman has something for everyone’, as the advertisement for the Austrian postal service goes. The same can be said of the Ferber report. Liberalising the sector will have something for everyone if it is properly organised, and if it is guaranteed that the services provided will be for everyone, that mail will also be regularly delivered in the Alps and not just in the industrialised areas, if it is guaranteed that employees will have good and secure working conditions, and that universal services will also be financed in those areas that are not particularly lucrative.

The Ferber report in its present form has good answers to all these questions, which means sensible regulations for the postal service, its employees, and above all its customers. With this report, we will ensure that Europe has something for everyone!

  Nicole Fontaine (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot stress it enough, we are producing legislation at this moment on the postal service for almost 500 million European citizens. Consequently, we must do it with both economic will and wisdom and properly assess the impact that our decisions will have on a population that is so vast and geographically diverse.

With economic will, because the principle of progressively opening up to competition all economic activities is not only inherent in the very notion of the internal market without internal borders, but it has been part of the founding Treaty of the European Union since 1957 and it is beneficial in many respects, as Christine de Veyrac has very rightly said. It is the duty and to the credit of the Commission to act in such a way that this fundamental principle is implemented without undue protectionism.

With wisdom, however, because the first objective of the Union in the very terms of the Treaty, is the ever closer union among our peoples and not only of our States. To advance, Europe must be perceived by its peoples as a plus and not just another constraint, without any apparent justification in their eyes.

I pay tribute to our rapporteur, Mr Ferber, for his careful attentiveness throughout this lengthy process, as well as to the draftsman, particularly of the opinion of our committee, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Hannes Swoboda. I should like the vote tomorrow to be in line with the recent European summit and to be exemplary in this respect. The future simplified treaty, decided upon unanimously by the Heads of State or Government, will, indeed, redefine competition as a means for the Union and not as an objective. It will make the protection of its citizens an objective for the Union. Therefore, it will recall the specificity of services of general economic interest giving pre-eminence to the general principle of free competition.

This is an excellent roadmap, because in all the geographical areas of our countries, as has been said many times, guaranteeing the quality of the postal service is a particularly sensitive subject for peoples, because it affects their personal, economic and social daily lives. Even if things have to change, we must make the necessary transitions with moderation and conscience.

As shadow rapporteur of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I think that the compromise proposed by Mr Ferber is balanced and I invite you, ladies and gentlemen, leaving aside dogmatisms, of whatever tendency, to support it with your vote.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I wish to thank all Members of Parliament for their comments. With its vote, Parliament will be taking a clear and a strong stance. This should motivate the Council to come to a conclusion rapidly.

In closing, let me stress a few key points. Many Members raised the financing of the universal service as the principal challenge. We ought to remember that there is a big diversity of national situations and that there is not necessarily any net cost of the universal service. It is, therefore, necessary that the third Postal Directive gives the broadest possible flexibility to share out any unfair burden or organise compensation mechanisms. As far as we can see, the amendments do not aim to change this approach.

The Commission also notes the amendments relating to the date of full market opening. This question will also be essential in discussions with the Council. Some Member States want more time, other Member States have opened up their markets already or will do so before 2009 and a substantial number of Member States agree with the Commission’s proposal in this respect.

Parliament suggested to further request the Commission to provide assistance and guidance on the implementation of this directive after its entry into force but before 1 January 2009. The Commission has always been ready to assist Member States and has done so on many occasions. It has, however, done so autonomously, which, as Members will understand, is of particular importance in the framework of its responsibilities under Title VI of the EC Treaty. So let me be clear: the Commission will not leave Member States alone once a legislator has adopted this important directive.

The Commission wants the internal market for postal services to be a success. We want this for our customers and for the operators, and for the many thousands of postmen and postwomen who ensure that the post is one of our most cherished services. The Commission will do what it can within its powers to contribute to this.

A large number of amendments are on the table. I have arranged for an overview of the Commission’s position on the amendments to be handed over to Parliament’s services for inclusion in the report of proceedings⁽¹⁾. Once again, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, and to stress the importance of taking this sensitive and important dossier forward.

Commission’s position on amendments by Parliament

A. Amendments that the Commission can accept, can accept in principle/in part and/or can accept subject to rewording:

1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 63, 65, 75, 76, 79, 80, 82, 83

B. Amendments that the Commission cannot accept:

5, 6, 7, 10, 19, 21, 22, 23,24, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 50, 54, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 81, 84

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Wednesday.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), în scris. – Apreciez ca extrem de favorabila sustinerea Parlamentului European pentru diversificarea activitatii operatorilor poştali prin furnizarea de servicii ale societăţii informaţionale, amendament la care ţin pentru că asigură atât supravieţuirea operatorilor tradiţionali de poştă în era digitală, cât şi posibile surse alternative de finanţare pentru serviciul universal.

Am convingerea că cel mai important factor de progres este concurenţa, aceasta conducand la o mai bună calitate a serviciilor şi la preţuri mai mici.

În România legislaţia prevedea deja data de 1 ianuarie 2009 pentru eliminarea zonei rezervate, iar în unele state membre liberalizarea totală a avut deja loc.

Textul aprobat de Parlament este un text de compromis care permite liberalizarea totală a serviciilor poştale, dar dă dovadă de solidaritate cu statele care au nevoie de mai mult timp pentru acest proces. Directiva propune şi solutii pentru finanţarea serviciului universal, fara însă să fixeze o modalitate de calculare a costurilor. Asteptam solutia Comisiei pana in septembrie.

Este esenţial ca serviciile poştale să fi accesibile şi disponibile chiar şi într-un cătun cu doar câteva familii, situat în vârf de munte sau pe o insulă, iar calitatea locurilor de munca din domeniul serviciilor postale sa fie asigurata si dupa deschiderea totala a pietei.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner McCreevy rightly pointed out that this is an important piece of European legislation. He also called upon the Council to be guided appropriately by these proposals. Unfortunately, the Council is not present in this important legislative matter. Perhaps it might be an idea to tell the Portuguese that today is already 10 July, and that they have had the Presidency since 1 July.

  President. – Thank you for your speech, we shall send a telegram to Lisbon.

(1) See below

6. Financial services policy (2005-2010) – White Paper (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Ieke van den Burg, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on financial services policy 2005-2010 – White Paper (2006/2270(INI)) (A6-0248/2007).

  Ieke van den Burg (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, in drafting this report for the European Parliament, I have wholeheartedly congratulated Commissioner McCreevy and his predecessor, Mr Bolkestein, on the success of the financial markets legislation and regulation and the executive work of the European Commission in this respect. We have no disagreements about that. We may differ, though, with respect to the assessment of further steps and the priorities for the follow-up.

I think this is linked to a difference in perspective. For me, it is not enough just to look at the success of this financial sector as such. I see this sector as instrumental, and want to assess whether it provides the right infrastructure for economic growth, wealth and well-being. That is why in my report I focus first on the strategic question of who is profiting from this success.

Are end users profiting to the same extent as the few large multinational financial conglomerates that have acquired dominant positions at the top of the financial markets? Who is profiting most from the increased liquidity in the markets? Is it KKR, Blackstone and the other private equity firms that do billion-dollar deals, or is it the companies that are covered because they see credit ratings tumble down to junk status? Do entrepreneurs still dare to invest in long-term research and development projects for the development of innovative new products and services, or are they squeezed in ever shorter cycles of financial planning and reporting? Is the huge increase of complex financial products derived from the traditional bonds and equities really leading to a better allocation of capital, or does it contribute mainly to greater speculative profits for the hedge funds that master the rules of the pyramid game? Are citizens in the recently-acceded Member States better off now with the invasion of foreign banks and insurance companies in their countries, or are they confronted again with monopolistic structures that only provide them with standard, mediocre-quality products at prices higher than in the countries where they have their headquarters?

These and similar questions seem to me to be fundamental to answering the question of what kind of follow-up is required, and the first preliminary message in my report is thus to make more in-depth economic analysis about that.

I shall turn now to the priorities outlined in my report. The first message deals with one of my great concerns, the enormous market concentration at the top of the market, with 30 to 40 major cross-border financial players and a high concentration in several Member States. In the competition report that we adopted at the last part-session, we voiced our concerns and suggested that Commissioner Kroes put on her list of possible enquiries and further investigations the activities at the top of the financial market of investment banks, credit rating agencies, accounting firms, etc. We repeated this suggestion to her last week.

The second issue is the financial stability risks of these new developments of alternative investments – hedge funds, private equity. I do not have to go into detail there because the papers daily show that there are currently more concerns at the developments. Prudential supervisors, central banks, the ECB and our counterparts in the USA, whom we will visit next week, also raised these concerns and I think it is high time that we dealt with these risks.

The third issue is the retail markets. My answer to the lack of integration at the retail side is not just to overhaul this system and open up the borders but to make a more precise focused strategy, particularly for mobile users, who have a real need in terms of accessing and working with service providers in different Members States, so that could be more of a stimulation for pan-European financial products such as the pension product that was presented some weeks ago by the European Banking Federation.

Demand for microcredit is an important issue, as are pension systems, access to basic services, financial education and stronger consumer input and, finally, better regulation and the future architecture of supervision. On this issue, I think the main difference is that your mantra is ‘less is more’, as you said last week. We think that we need a focused regulation. As regards the architecture of supervision I would say that it will be high time to discuss the future architecture in the autumn and not just wait and see what will happen, although there are a lot of good developments.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to commend the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and in particular the rapporteur, Mrs van den Burg, for the initiative she has taken and the hard work put into this report.

It is no easy task to tackle the very wide-ranging policy area of financial services in one report, as it ranges from banking to clearing and settlement, and hedge funds to payment systems. The report you have drawn up is an admirable achievement in that respect.

I would also like to say how pleased I am to see such an apparent convergence of views on so many aspects of financial services policy. Although we may approach subjects from a different angle sometimes, it is very encouraging to note how, in many respects, we are on the same page.

The European Parliament and the Commission are united in wanting Europe’s financial markets to go from strength to strength. We all want deep, liquid, dynamic financial markets that act as a real catalyst for investment and growth and ultimately bring benefits to all our citizens. We also want our regulatory and supervisory systems to be stable, fair and efficient and we all want to strengthen Europe’s place on the global financial stage. It is essential that we keep working towards these goals.

I warmly welcome the considerable attention given in the report to the issue of supervision. This is an absolute priority for the Commission in 2007. We are working intensively on our proposals to strengthen the Lamfalussy process due in the autumn this year and we agree with the concerns of the European Parliament on the issue of burden-sharing between home and host supervisors.

With regard to retail financial services, it is striking that many of the subjects touched upon in this report are included in the consultation on the Green Paper on retail financial services, which closes this week. I would argue, however, that we should not limit our ambition to finding solutions for the ‘mobile consumer’. We need our policies to make a difference to all consumers, even those who continue to shop locally. I welcome the support given in the report to initiatives on financial education, an issue on which the Commission is preparing a communication to be adopted towards the end of this year.

I acknowledge the concerns raised in the report with regard to alternative investments such as hedge funds and private equity. As I have stated on other occasions, I believe that we have the necessary regulatory safeguards in place already, but agree with you that constant vigilance will be essential. I also welcome some recent industry-led initiatives to develop voluntary standards or best practice on valuations, disclosure and risk management.

The concerns you express on market concentration in certain specific areas are understandable, although we have yet to receive indications of a problem of market distortion in the investment banking area. Work is already under way to mitigate some of the potential problems, for example through the International Organisation of Securities Commissions’ Code on Credit Rating Agencies, which we closely monitor. These initiatives must be given time to prove their effectiveness. Developing a knee-jerk reaction to a far from unsubstantiated problem would be much more damaging.

I welcome the European Parliament’s support for our regulatory dialogues with key international partners. On global accounting issues, steps are being taken, particularly through the establishment of working groups of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group, to make European views and inputs more influential in the global accounting debate, something I can only applaud.

However, we cannot take our eyes off the main goal, and that is the continuing convergence process between US GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. I trust we can rely on your continued support as this process continues.

In summary, I can only reiterate that, as far as financial services policy is concerned, even if one or two notes clash slightly, we are certainly singing from the same hymn book.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I approve of the European Commission’s priorities regarding financial services policy until 2010. It is indeed necessary to consolidate the progress made towards an integrated European financial market that is open and competitive, and to eliminate the last economically significant obstacles so that capital can circulate freely in all of the European Union, at the lowest possible cost and with an appropriate level of prudential supervision, so as to ensure financial stability.

It is also essential to improve cooperation and convergence with regard to supervision in the European Union and to deepen relations with other global financial marketplaces. It seems to me vital to continue the consolidation of the financial services sector, and, more particularly, the integration of retail markets. The more financial markets, which play an important role in the good functioning of modern economies, are integrated, the more effective the distribution of economic resources will be, and the better the economic results will be in the long term.

With regard to retail, it is necessary to go further in order to progress integration. We need to consider particularly the issue of harmonisation of national rules for the protection of consumers. Efforts must be followed up. The European Union’s financial services sector conceals a considerable potential for economic growth and employment that has not yet been fully exploited. The internal market for retail services is far from being complete; a more effective risk capital market is essential to promote new and innovative businesses and to strengthen economic growth.

With regard to this, I should like to highlight the importance of promoting the competitiveness of European banks in relation to their competitors, particularly the American banks. It is important, finally, to ensure that Community structures are set up in respect of regulation and supervision. The fragmentation of prudential supervision constitutes one of the major obstacles to consolidation of the financial sector. That is why the requirements of cooperation and exchange of information between the supervisory authorities must be strengthened. We should also ensure the security of cooperation in a crisis situation.

  Othmar Karas, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, yes, we must continue to strengthen the financial market. The financial services action plan until 2004 contributed to the development of an integrated and smoothly functioning European capital market which has become a world leader, not least because of the strength and soundness with which it is regulated. We are not finished by a long chalk, though, as the present report shows. The rapporteur originally envisaged 43 items. There were 217 amendments to these. Together with the shadow rapporteurs – I would like to excuse Mr Hoppenstedt – 35 compromises were drawn up, and there were 141 Committee votes.

On this issue we are all headed in the same direction, because we need a stronger internal financial market. CEPS, CESR, CEIOPS and lead supervisor are all terms expressing the quest for an ideal structure for European financial markets supervision. The latest crisis simulation to check financial stability in the European Union has shown clearly that we have still been found wanting.

Better coordination between the competent supervisory bodies is needed to guarantee appropriate management and thus financial stability in times of crisis. A similar simulation is planned for 2009. What all the variants in the EU have in common is that the main focus of supervision continues to lie with individual institutions rather than with the institutional group. What we need, therefore, are supervisory structures which will continue to develop. We need stronger coordination between the national supervisory authorities. We do not need centralised supervision, but we need to promote the dominant supervisory culture which is marked by identical aims and values.

  Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, as you know, for my group, the market is not an end in itself, the market has to finance a strategy. The European Union has just renewed this strategy exceptionally on 9 March, around what I shall call the strategy of 20: in 2020, 20% of…, etc., I shall not go on. That is why we need to integrate a coherent financial market.

Much has been done, but there is still much more to be done. Among the things still to be done, there is of course the matter of retail markets. On that subject, we think that a very particular approach should be central to the Commission’s strategy. Of course, it will be necessary to encourage financial education, it has almost become a fashionable subject and you will have the support of my group when it comes to developing this kind of education. It is necessary also, however, as we pointed out when considering the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), to investigate the conditions in which financial products are proposed to investors, to consumers and small savers: it is the question of the conditions in which financial products are marketed that we must also take a close look at.

There remains the debate that has just begun, with much fuss under the German Presidency, in relation to alternative funds, hedge funds. The very fact that a code of conduct could have been thought of at international level shows how much this debate has changed. For all that, the actors in this market benefit from opportunities created by integration. That gives them certain responsibilities and duties. From this point of view, I think that my group does not share the point of balance that has been achieved. If we wish to guarantee the safety of the system, we must take the discussion further, including when it comes to looking at the conditions in which prime brokers are judge and judged in the matter.

Next there is the question of market structures. The legislation that we are adopting has an impact on market structures and we cannot ignore that. In defining our legislation segment by segment, we must have a clear idea of the financial market we want in order to better respond to the financing needs of the European economy. A financial market whose main beneficiaries are the big investment banks located outside the European Union – is that really what we are dreaming of? I do not think so. We must integrate a strategy that allows each actor to find its place in the overall balance.

Then, of course, the major subject that is before us is the matter of supervision. I entirely share our rapporteur’s views on this point. The power and legitimacy of Level 3 committees, the supervisors, must be strengthened; each national supervisor must have an obligation of European convergence. In this way, we shall ensure the safety of the system and we shall be able to use this integrated supervision as a better tool to put in place a European market.

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) As colleagues have already noted, European financial market leads the world, and we should keep implementing policies that would enable Europe to remain the premier world market. What kind of policies do we envisage, fellow liberals? First and foremost we need a policy that is effective and open to innovation and new products. Priority should be accorded to self-regulatory mechanisms without creating barriers to the advent of new financial products. Regulation is applied so that equal competition conditions can be ensured for both large and small enterprises. I would particularly wish to highlight the words 'small enterprises'. Very often the Commission only considers the interests of large enterprises.

We also want there to be appropriate supervision. Appropriate supervision does not mean finely detailed supervision; it means supervision conducted according to certain principles. For these principles to be applied uniformly in the various countries, we would like to see national governments and likewise the Commission, and the Members of Parliament themselves paying more attention to ensuring that national supervisory bodies cooperate more widely among themselves and with other bodies in the financial sector.

We would also like to see the challenges of financial market consolidation and systematic risk assessed so that it is clear to consumers who will pay in the end if one or another institution, a large European institution, fails to work successfully. We would also like to see a financial market in which the interests of retail clients are heeded – the interests of a million ordinary EU residents.

What kind of market should that be? At the retail level the market has to rely on an open structure so that a wide range of financial products are accessible and to avoid a situation in which only the products of one bank are offered in certain countries, and so that people in all countries may have an equal opportunity to avail themselves of the variety and innovative potential of the EU market. We would like to see the creation of certain products to be available across the EU so that workers are able to circulate freely from one country to another. There is also talk about various pension products and mortgage credits.

We also want a cost-effective market. What is meant by costs that suit a retail consumer? That does not mean regulation; it means transparency. There has to be a clear cost structure for financial services so that every retail consumer may choose a suitable package according to his circumstances and how much he can afford, and we hope that in this way the European financial market will remain the most competitive in the world.

  Sahra Wagenknecht, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report’s section on Alternative Investment Vehicles, amongst other things, mentions hedge funds and private equity firms, regarding which this House must make a clear decision. Hedge funds are known the world over for their aggressive policy of exploiting labour, plundering enterprises and recklessly destroying jobs, and they are rightly compared with locusts.

The wording of the report falls far short of addressing these dangers. We need clear and unambiguous definitions. The guidelines for hedge funds and private equity funds must regulate the following: minimum requirements for the equity capital of these funds, all gains on disposal to be subject to the income and profit tax in the country where the management company has its headquarters, duty to register, duty to disclose asset structure, the ownership structure and ongoing transactions, and much more.

Our group has tabled amendments to this end, and hope that you will take them into consideration when voting.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS MORGANTINI
Vice-President

  John Whittaker, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, the financial services action plan is a huge, complex body of regulation. In the vain attempt to harmonise financial products and to legislate risk away, the only effect will be to drive business out of the European Union. Even the City of London is now realising that the costs of compliance with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive are likely to be far greater than any benefits from greater market access. And there are always unwanted side effects. The rapporteur complains that not enough is being done for the retail consumer of financial services. She says the basic needs for every citizen are access to a bank account, financial transfers at low cost and the possibility to save or borrow money. But the largest impediment to retail banking is the highly bureaucratic know-your-client procedures that banks must follow as a result of the EU’s own money-laundering regulations. In English, we would call this ‘shooting yourself in the foot’.

  Petre Popeangă, în numele grupului ITS. – Consider că o lucrare având ca obiectiv stabilirea unei politici pe termen mediu în domeniul serviciilor financiare este una a cărei necesitate şi importanţă nu pot fi puse la îndoială.

Concentrarea pieţei, mijloacele alternative de investiţii, accesul la finanţare în sectorul cu amănuntul, riscurile sistemice, îmbunătăţirea prevederilor legale şi altele reprezintă categorii importante de activităţi a căror aplicare la nivel naţional, ca şi impactul acestora la nivel global, justifică asemenea acţiuni iniţiate şi la nivelul Uniunii Europene.

Necesitatea unui asemenea demers rezultă în primul rând din necesitatea asigurării unei transparenţe sporite şi a unui spaţiu de acţiune uniform pentru concurenţă, dar şi din necesitatea separării diferitelor servicii furnizate consumatorului şi, nu în ultimul rând, de gama limitată a produselor cu amănuntul oferite de către grupurile financiare care operează pe pieţele naţionale.

Cantonându-mă din lipsă de timp doar la domeniul protecţiei consumatorului, menţionez că, deşi acesta este considerat la nivelul Uniunii Europene ca fiind una din activităţile prioritare, practica demonstrează că în anumite zone nu se ridică la cotele necesare fie datorită insuficienţei prevederilor legale, fie din lipsa unor garanţii certe că furnizorii de servicii sunt organisme fiabile şi solide din punct de vedere financiar.

Cu aceste câteva precizări, menţionez că susţin aprobarea propunerii raportorului privind Carta Albă a Comisiei referitoare la politica serviciilor financiare în perioada 2005-2010, ca şi a propunerilor referitoare la organizarea de dezbateri pe tema fondurilor speculative, puncte de vedere care constituie, de altfel, şi poziţia autorităţii competente din România faţă de problematica pieţelor de instrumente financiare.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur.

There are certain things we have to ask ourselves as we proceed with the financial services and the reform process, and that is whether we want the European financial markets to be vital and dynamic and at the centre of the global financial development. The answer is obviously ‘yes’.

However, we also need to be sure that they can be attractive globally and that they can attract capital and vitality. That gives us some aims, because we must have regulations in place to ensure transparency and credibility, and we should avoid regulations aiming to regulate the competition, the product and the services. It should be the opposite. We should ensure that we have fundamental common rules that give way for the new future-oriented financial services here in Europe. This is a balance where I would like the final outcome of the report to be more open-minded, advocating opening up for competition. I should like to stress that there should not be any sort of economic patriotism in the financial sector in Europe, because that would hinder the dynamic development and growth of European financial markets. With regard to the future of the financial services in Europe, we should head for the words of the French Revolution: liberté, égalité, fraternité. That is competition and that could create dynamics in the European financial markets.

  Harald Ettl (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, a well-functioning, integrated capital market would be an important foundation for the European economy in the current climate of rapid globalisation. We should thank the rapporteur not just for focusing on the economic success of European capital markets, but also the spread and the resulting benefits as well as the potential risks.

Financial services are a good thing when they meet our society’s demands and benefits it, but this requires heightened controls. Leaving the market to its own devices encourages abuse. Even if hedge funds and private equities were able to secure market diversification, the danger of systemic risks with excessively negative impacts, for instance, through failures in asset management, conceals an uncontrollable potential for crisis. For example, the business practices of hedge funds change rapidly. Even the financial market authorities in London are noting a growing number of instances where disclosure requirements are flouted.

Clever market players are always finding new ways to disguise their activities, as we frequently hear from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. The result is some clever surprise tactics in corporate takeovers. The employees who are ultimately responsible for sustaining the value of national economies will increasingly become the toys in the hands of capital interests. In order to prevent this without jeopardising the prosperity of the market, and to provide better profit distribution we need more input from the competent committees. The economy should not decide on its own what is good for it, but politics have to regulate and monitor the economy, to the long-term benefit of society in the European Union in the long term.

  Sharon Bowles (ALDE). – Madam President, I have three words of caution, or three points, on our report. Firstly, where I have disagreed most in this report is in the fashion zone, where it is de rigueur to criticise private equity and, even more so, hedge funds. It can be good to look at things, analyse and discuss, but it is then wrong to prejudge what is needed as the outcome just in order to be fashionable.

Secondly, in paragraph 6 we refer to the concentration of financial services provided to large listed companies. It may be proper to mention audit firms in this context as their consolidation has left us with less than a handful that can do large audits. However, it is not correct to suggest that investment banks are in a comparable concentration, given that none of the top three have a 10% market share. Indeed, viewed in that light, to mention investment banks dilutes the very point we wish to make about audit firms.

Thirdly, with the regard to the issue of supervision, this is very interesting, but cooperation and changes are under way. Levels 2 and 3 have to bed down and be refined. How can the next stage be evaluated before outcome of the last is known?

  Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to start by expressing my heartfelt thanks to the rapporteur for her work, with which she has succeeded in uniting a broad political spectrum in the European Parliament.

The single market for financial services in the EU has been a success story. The recommendations of the Commission, their implementation by Parliament and the Council and in Member States will result in the European financial market gradually becoming more attractive than the US financial market. This is further illustrated by the fact that European stock markets are being bought up by Americans so that they can secure their influence on them. This has led to new developments, and begs the question of how we should approach the new events on the market.

A main point is the future of controls in Europe. The development of trans-border banks is a case in point. I will mention only UniCredito, the Bavarian-based HypoVereinsbank, and Bank Austria. We also discussed ABN Amro and the Bank Santander that was bought up in Britain. We have to ensure that the supervisory authorities keep an eye on these events, so that we do not have a single supervisor for each Member State, but that there is Europe-wide cooperation. That is not a request for a European supervisor, but we must bring European development further to the centre of attention.

Basle II and the lead supervisor were the first step in this direction. I wholeheartedly support the Commission to take a courageous approach in Solvency II. I hope that the national supervisors and national finance ministries will become more cooperative in this respect, and show more support for the amendments than they have shown so far.

We also need to give some thought to how we will shape the transatlantic relationship in the future. The way things stand, the SEC – the American supervisory authority – always has an indirect effect on regulating the European market. This should not be happening. We need a European response to the SEC which seeks to prevent this from happening. I cite the example of an Austrian bank which had to get rid of its clients because it was being bought up by an American fund, and the clients were Cuban.

Commissioner, the Commission regularly deals with regional banks. Quite rightly, too. Mrs Bowles, I do not want to anticipate the result of the discussion, but we need to discuss hedge funds in an open debate. What we cannot say is let us avoid the issue because we are afraid of the result.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, financial services are a strategic source of efficiency and prosperity in a globalised economy. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs van den Burg, on her report, which represents an in-depth reflection and a valuable contribution to the future of the financial services policy, establishing important guidelines for taking advantage of their potential.

Firstly, by increasing our strong points, following the approach of the March resolution of eliminating obstacles with a view to facilitating trans-European acquisitions and acquisitions of shares in banking, insurance and investment companies, so that our operators can take advantage of the internal market and prepare to compete with global driving forces.

Secondly, by reducing weaknesses. There is a clear example in ratings activities, where this weakness exists as a result of a regulatory vacuum and the absence of European operators. The report proposes suitable ways to deal with both issues.

Thirdly, by controlling risks, both those that affect general financial stability and the operative risks that result from distortions or incorrect operation of the market and unfair practices or insider dealing, or those that result from the excessive concentration of certain top-segment financial services activities amongst large companies, such as ratings agencies, the large audit firms and investment banks.

These are dealt with correctly too. On the one hand, through close monitoring on the part of competition authorities in order to prevent abuses and barriers to new entrants, and on the other, by calling upon the Commission, in line with its sectoral studies approach, to examine the situation in depth, and finally, to make progress on the integration of European financial supervision.

With regard to the architecture of financial supervision, although the current system is not perfect, it is working reasonably well and deserves to be treated in an evolving manner as the rapporteur proposes. Cooperation between supervisory authorities needs to be strengthened, and that will only be possible if we take a European view, that is to say, by moving towards a common European culture and by means of practices that enable national supervisory bodies not just to have similar practices, but also competences and mandates that make it possible to use new techniques and instruments.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Madam President, as I indicated earlier, the report under discussion shows that Parliament’s and the Commission’s thinking on key financial services issues is very much in harmony. Both our institutions are thinking ahead beyond 2010, which is the date that our current policy works towards. We are aware of the potential innovations and hazards that lie around the corner. We are working on how to make our supervisory structures work better. We are building strong relationships with our regulatory partners in other jurisdictions, knowing that our interlinkages will only increase.

We are constantly looking for ways to ensure that our financial markets work to the benefit of all citizens.

Given the positive collaboration between the institutions I am sure we will be successful.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 11 July 2007.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE), in writing. – First of all, I would like to warmly congratulate the rapporteur, Ieke van den Burg, for her excellent report on the White Paper on the financial services policy 2005-2010. This report and the White Paper are indeed of the utmost importance since it is obvious that the creation of a genuine European world leading capital market in line with the objectives of the Lisbon agenda relies profoundly on the viability and consistent nature of the Community’s financial regulations. Besides the viability of the financial regulations in line with the objectives of better regulation, it is necessary to foster the transposition of Community law by the Member States in order to achieve efficiently the thorough implementation of the Financial Services Action Plan (FSAP). It will of course be necessary to assess the real effects of the implementation of the FSAP for its beneficiaries and, in this respect, I fully support the rapporteur when she calls for a more in-depth examination of the economic effects of the FSAP measures in the light of the Lisbon Strategy. Consistent implementation and continuous evaluation of the financial regulations are indeed the key elements for a successful achievement of a dynamic European world leading capital market.

  Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE), in writing. – This past spring has been an appropriate time to discuss the future of financial services policy in the EU. Groundbreaking changes are afoot, both on the regulatory side and in the markets’ own development. Seldom has a week gone by without a significant development with direct impact on the functioning of European financial markets, and on how we, as legislators, should address them.

The growing number of marriages between stock exchanges is probably the most visible. As banks and other trading venues are attracting larger volumes of trade, it is only normal that exchanges seek to pool their strengths. The upgrade and modernisation of our trading infrastructure will benefit investors, and spur more innovation in financial instruments.

The big question now has to do with supervision. We should not approach this only from a worst-case-scenario viewpoint. It is true that there are legitimate concerns as regards the regulation of various private pools of capital. Nor is it yet clear what happens if and when something goes wrong. But for now, let us work towards a convergence of practices in the Level 3 committees. In the long-run, Parliament signals it is willing to see something more unified on the European supervisory scene.

7. Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A6-0247/2007) by Jacek Protasiewicz, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century (2007/2023(INI)).

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE-DE) , rapporteur. – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, with this debate we are winding up several months of discussions in the European Parliament on the issue of modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It has been quite an emotional and sometimes heated debate, but this is not really surprising, seeing as it is an issue affecting almost every European, regardless of their age, walk of life or place of living.

However, intensive discussion has not been confined to this House. The publication of the Green Paper has given rise to wide public debate throughout the European Union, and has involved numerous trade unions, employers’ organisations, local businesses and workers’ organisations and various non-governmental initiatives both in the old and in the new Member States.

During these months, I have gained the impression that the majority of the participants in the debate agree that changes in labour law are necessary because of the challenges brought by this century. What challenges were they referring to? There were four main challenges. Firstly, the positive and negative consequences on European economies of advancing globalisation. Secondly, the rapid development of the service sector, which is rapidly giving rise to new jobs both in the new and old Member States, although these differ in nature to the jobs once created by industry. The third challenge is the sea change in technology, and particularly new communications technology, which is having a major effect on our present way of working. Another great challenge is demographic change, which even now has radically changed the situation in the European jobs market, and will change it even more radically in the near future.

Whilst there has been broad agreement that change is necessary, what direction these changes should take is not quite so clear-cut. Some MEPs have been in favour of greater flexibility in European regulation, arguing that this will increase employment and reduce unemployment. Others, by contrast, support a greater protective function for labour law. Some MEPs support greater harmonisation of national legal systems, saying that this is a requirement of the process of creating a single European market. Others steadfastly support the principles of subsidiarity, citing differences in the traditions and models prevailing in various Member States, and underlining that such diversity is a good thing because it allows best practice to be found through a practical exchange of experience, and is preferable to new, usually inflexible community regulation.

The initial draft of the report that I prepared as a draft position of the European Parliament, favoured greater flexibility and opposed harmonisation. It also proposed clauses giving a positive assessment of the influence of ‘atypical’ forms of employment on job creation in the European Union and challenged Member States to apply active employment policy methods and support adaptability designed to protect people rather than specific existing jobs.

In the introductory draft report, I also pointed out the need to improve EU and national regulations to free businesses and citizens from unnecessary costs and red tape. I pointed out in addition that excessively restrictive labour law may discourage enterprises from taking on new employees, even at times of economic growth. Furthermore, I drew attention to the key significance of education to improve the chances of workers and the unemployed of finding new jobs. In this context, I proposed that we appeal to the European Commission, Member States and employers to invest in lifelong learning and improve the quality of education for young people, in particular as regards the needs of local and regional jobs markets.

Finally, I drew attention to the great importance of mobility in improving the situation on the European labour market. That is why I proposed challenging Member States to remove the barriers imposed on the citizens of other Member States and opening up their domestic labour markets.

The first draft of the report provoked a lively reaction from fellow MEPs. The heated debate and the 490 amendments proposed to the original text were subjected to further discussion and negotiations with all political groups. At this point, I would in particular like to thank my colleagues from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and in particular Ole Christensen and his advisors, for their contribution.

The result of the negotiations was put to the vote at an extraordinary meeting of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on 18 June in Strasbourg. I must admit that the result of the vote was not completely what I myself had wished for. I also have the impression that we lost a considerable contribution put forward by myself in the initial draft which, in my view, was not properly addressed in subsequent debates, which was that any reform of the labour market, including the reform of labour law, should serve to create new jobs in Europe in order to effectively face up to the challenge of the 17 million people who are currently out of work. These high unemployment levels are a direct threat to the values on which the European social model is based, and we must do everything we can to radically reduce them.

There are over 60 amendments to the report in its present form. Almost half of them support the approach of creating new jobs. I hope that the results of the voting will be satisfactory enough to enable me to recommend that this House adopt this report, and that it will be an important vote in the debate which the European Commission started by publishing the Green Paper in November last year.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. – (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Green Paper has created a good opportunity for discussion on the need to improve labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It elicited a huge response from a broad range of interested parties. These responses contain useful information on national legal systems and on fresh problems in the European labour market caused by cross-border mobility and the expansion of international trade throughout the EU.

The quality of responses to the Green Paper was astonishing, and I believe that this is the outcome of consultations and discussions led by the governments and some parliaments of Member States, along with the social partners and other interested parties at both EU and national levels. Some of the problems that emerged during the course of this public consultation had already been the subject of European Parliament negotiations and resolutions.

I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, the political groups and the MEPs for their contributions to the wording of this own-initiative report.

The report attempts to establish how to make practical use of the debate on the Green Paper, in the form of practical measures that would enjoy broad support. The Green Paper also fully recognises the Member States’ competence in labour law and their own labour relations and traditions, and progress on collective bargaining. The debate has brought to the fore how useful labour law can be in resolving issues relating to cuts to the workforce in a fast-changing world with large mobility of capital and technologies.

Labour law and collective bargaining are intrinsically linked. Labour law provides a basis on which the social partners at all levels can negotiate compromise agreements on employment relations, lifelong learning, flexible working time arrangements and the organisation of the labour market, which would facilitate movement between jobs and from one type of contract to another. It will come as no surprise to anyone that, in responses to the Green Paper among social partner organisations, there has been a wide variety of opinion on how to move forward. Sharp divisions emerged during Parliament’s negotiations on this report and in parallel negotiations at EU and national levels in relation to the following points:

– the status of full-time, standard contracts of indefinite duration in comparison with new flexible forms of work and the emphasis on measures to resolve labour market segmentation;

– the approach when amending non-standard contracts, some of which lack appropriate guarantees of employment security; this mainly involves cases of multilateral employment relations; flexibility is often called for without suitable employment protection and without any actual chance of achieving genuine security in the framework of more stable labour relations;

– the Green Paper’s emphasis on individual employment relations has raised the issue of whether sufficient attention has been given to the collective dimension of labour law and the benefits of social dialogue;

– it has been said that the Commission should have restricted this debate to the social partners at EU level and should not have opened up public debate in which EU bodies, EU Member State governments and EU- and national-level social partners were involved;

– there were also arguments over the contribution the EU could make to supporting labour law reform and to developing minimal social standards applicable to all forms of labour contract.

I feel that the report in principle advocates:

– an examination of flexibility and security as two mutually reinforcing factors contributing to improved productivity and job quality;

– adopting an approach that, when it comes to developing employment security, takes account of the life cycle;

– providing basic protection for all workers regardless of the type of contract that they have signed;

– help for workers to change jobs quickly and sustainably;

– ensuring that efforts to modernise labour law are in keeping with the approaches of better lawmaking and of cutting the excessive administrative burden, in particular as regards compliance with legal provisions on small businesses;

– proper implementation of EU legal provisions on work and on improving information for employees and workers concerning the minimum EU provisions in force, with particular regard to the fight against illegal work.

We believe that the principles of non-discrimination, gender equality, flexible working time for the purposes of reconciling work and family life and the opportunities to gain an education and vocational training are the very cornerstones of employment security, essential for a smooth transition from one job to another, and from one type of employment contract to another.

The report acknowledges how complicated it is to distinguish between categories of worker and self-employed persons. There is a prevailing fear that increased cross-border mobility may affect the correct implementation of the Community acquis. I welcome Parliament’s positive attitude to finding ways of resolving the problem, whilst respecting the Member States’ right to establish whether employment relations are involved in a case.

I feel that the report also emphasises the benefits of dialogue between the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the EU in this regard. We must make the most of the ILO’s expertise and experience, and use its efforts to establish basic labour standards enabling flexibility and security to coexist.

The Commission faces the task of assessing the main themes of this policy, and the alternatives to it that have emerged through a number of the answers we have received, including those that were recently incorporated into Parliament’s own-initiative report.

Honourable Members, I await with interest the debate on this extremely sensitive and complex issue, and expect that it will bring further initiatives and will lead to the successful adoption of the report before us.

  Donata Gottardi (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament is giving a good account of itself. The work carried out so far in committee – the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – has been of a good standard. It has escaped the bottleneck of ideological clashes and opposition and has focused attention on the actual subject of the Green Paper on employment policies and on the actual possibility of planning innovation.

Globalisation and demographics are only two of the main challenges. Sustainable development also requires changes in the way in which work is organised and in the use of time. Very careful thought shows that there is no non-working time, but rather time for personal life in addition to family life; that we have been wrong to identify the new frontier in social conflict as a conflict between insiders and outsiders; that the relationship between flexibility and security is a two-way relationship and includes the needs of employers and the needs of workers; that extending rights is an action that must not be so many words on a piece of paper but that requires change and transparency, action against undeclared employment, a coordination of policies and renewed vigour in harmonisation towards the goal of European employment law.

  Mia De Vits (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – (NL) Mr President, I am pleased with this debate, but not with the method. Commissioner, labour law is first and foremost a competence of the Member States and particularly of the social partners. It guarantees the right to a decent wage, good working conditions and protection in the case of dismissal, and makes for a stable social climate which we need for economic growth and productivity. In this, the normal contract of employment, as opposed to assorted, precarious statutes, is the point of reference.

I am therefore pleased that the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs underlines these two crucial elements and that the suggestion from my opinion by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for a European initiative for chain responsibility has been adopted.

The discussion on relaxing dismissal conditions is sending the wrong message to European employees. In recent weeks, I have met with a great deal of indignation in my country about the level of redundancy payments made by Opel Antwerp, but I have noticed that there is little indignation among those selfsame people about the immoral restructuring plans which companies are carrying out.

Both Parliament’s report and the European Trade Union are very critical of the Green Paper, and this is why I hope, Commissioner, that you can address this criticism. If one party in social consultation levels criticism of this kind, then we owe it to them to give them a decent answer.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. – (NL) Mr Protasiewicz, Commission, I am not opposed to the reform of labour law if it leads to more certainty for adequate health care, unemployment benefits, pensions for everyone: including those on the lowest incomes.

The Commission is turning this argument on its head, though. Instead of arguing in favour of reinforcing employee rights, the Commission intends to turn Europe into a paradise for employers, in which the right not to be able to be dismissed without any justification will be consigned to the nostalgic past, where you no longer have the right to refuse unpaid overtime and collective labour agreements are deemed old-fashioned.

The Commission calls this flexicurity. Sounds nice, but the translation of what the Commission is hoping to achieve with it is simple. More flexibility for the employer and more uncertainty for the employee. This will have a particularly disastrous impact on women, young people and minorities, who already suffer a disadvantage within the labour market and are disproportionately represented in part-time jobs and temporary contracts. They will be the first victims if this proposal is adopted intact, and the rest will follow.

  José Albino Silva Peneda, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to commend rapporteur Protasiewicz for his efforts. However, I must say that the report, such as it has been presented to us, is unbalanced. It is unbalanced because it covers, above all, aspects relating to social protection – which are undoubtedly important – but ignores the other fundamental perspective for a reform of the labour laws for the twenty-first century, which must take into consideration greater flexibility in the functioning of the labour markets. In addition, the text rests on a very conservative view further fuelled by a culture based on suspicion and conflict. Well, what we need today is the opposite: a culture based on trust and cooperation between the sides.

This paradigmatic amendment, which is absolutely essential if the values of social justice and human dignity are to be reconciled with increased competitiveness, does not appear to have been assumed in this report. A clear expression of the balance to which I refer, and which is absent from the text of the report, would be fundamental in encouraging a change in behaviour and attitudes on the part of firms and workers, with a view to encouraging confidence levels.

In short, the text of this report is, in some way, a disappointment because it gives no indication that modern-day Europe has the spirit, talent and capability to become more competitive whilst simultaneously demonstrating the capacity to preserve the values that are representative of its social model. The truth is that the text under discussion shows no signs of spirit, and no evidence of either talent or reform capability. For this reason, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has put forward a series of amendments which will, if approved, ensure that this report does not become a lost opportunity.

  Ole Christensen, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DA) Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Protasiewicz, for his constructive cooperation in preparing the report. If the EU is to tackle the challenges of the 21st century and create sustainable growth with more and better jobs, we shall have improved the quality both of jobs and of work per se. Labour law has a crucial role to play in this area. If we compete on the basis of poor working conditions and low wages, we shall lose out against a background of increased globalisation and competition. Security of employment is a factor in production. A high degree of security promotes flexibility, employment and competitiveness. This is a consideration that should be reflected in future labour law, and I reject any attempt to undermine the social and economic security for which employees have had to fight hard over a great many years.

In recent years, we have witnessed a clear increase in the use of atypical employment contracts, but this is unfortunately also a sign of companies wanting to circumvent labour law and their social obligations. There are, unfortunately, still too many employees who have no choice in being offered such contracts and who do not enjoy protection and security. They are often forced into jobs without pensions and without sick pay or maternity leave. There are also still many employees working without basic social rights. The International Labour Organisation has on quite a number of occasions pointed out the connection between, on the one hand, reduced security and poorer health in the workplace and, on the other hand, short-term contracts. That being said, however, we also think that standard full-time contracts should be the norm. Contracts of indeterminate length are good for both employees and companies. They provide security, predictability and increased opportunities for development.

Flexibility and security of employment are not opposites but, instead, preconditions of each other. This is something that needs to be reflected in future labour law. Flexibility is basically about developing constructive cooperation and about mutual trust within companies. It means that the collective bargaining system and the social dialogue have a major role to play in developing flexicurity. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament rejects the Commission’s narrow focus on individual labour law. The best balance between flexibility and security is achieved in many countries through the signing of collective agreements that are constantly adapted to developments in terms of both employees’ and companies’ needs. The Commission must therefore promote the social dialogue both at national and European levels.

  Luigi Cocilovo, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to welcome the work that has been done, not only by the rapporteur but, I believe, by all the groups as a whole. This has produced the text we are considering, which was adopted by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, but I would like to try to clarify one point. I do not think that conservative and disappointing ideas prevail in the text adopted.

I believe that this text is a contribution to overcoming every resistance and ideological barrier to forms of flexibility in the employment relationship that today often not only exist but constitute a need to allow the system of companies at European level to respond to the competitive challenges posed to them on a worldwide scale.

In order to protect these needs, however, it is necessary for these forms of contract to be genuinely finalised. A more flexible contract – whether it be part-time, fixed-term, or with temporary employment agencies – responds to a need for flexibility in the just in time response to peaks in demand and to production supply needs, which exist in the competition on the employment market. It must not be, on the other hand, an inappropriate instrument for introducing forms of discrimination on costs and safeguards, which would transform the flexible contract into a kind of basis or short cut for social dumping that has nothing to do with the requirements of competitiveness and that transforms the challenge of competition into a challenge of mere competition on costs. This is why I believe that, while we are affirming the need to accept the existence of these contractual forms and not to oppose them on ideological grounds, we also need to raise the level of specific protection, and guarantees, linked to these forms of flexible working.

The rest follows: the primacy of collective regulation over individual exceptions; the fact that there are European areas of responsibility that respect national prerogatives in the social field and that there is a Community dimension, governed by subsidiarity, of specific regulatory competence, to guarantee minimum standards, which give a meaning to the European dimension, not reducing it to mere squeezing onto the market; the fight against the underground labour market; and, finally, the rejection of the logic of trade.

The problem is to achieve these objectives in a balanced way, and certainly to avoid trading safeguards, such as safeguards in companies for the safeguards of the employment market. We need to push everything that promotes high-quality forms of mobility and transition and, once again, forms that are not linked to contradictions regarding social safeguards.

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, the Green Paper proposed by the Commission and the report we have discussed is in my opinion a valuable introduction to a longer debate on the adaptation of labour law to the changing realities both in Europe and in the world.

This is only the beginning, and we are facing an extremely complicated task. We need to achieve results which are hard to reconcile, such as increasing the number of jobs while preserving their quality, guaranteeing social security for workers and keeping as many standard contracts of employment as possible, while at the same time looking after employers’ interests and dealing with competition in the global market.

One issue is paramount: regardless of whether a contract of employment is full-time or not, or whether there are more atypical forms of employment or conventional contracts of employment, every EU citizen must have the right to work or to provide alternative services, and definitely the right to guaranteed health services.

My political group will gladly vote in favour of this report in tomorrow’s voting.

  Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, The debate on liberalising the postal services has taken up a lot of our time today. It also shows that it is typically in the field of services that liberalisation is attended by an increase in precarious labour relations.

In the face of such developments, everybody expects the Commission to support workers’ rights in a Green Paper on workers’ rights, to set minimum standards at European level to prevent workers’ rights from going into freefall, and to strengthen trade union representation and social dialogue. Instead, the Commission’s Green Paper starts talking about ideas of Flexicurity, which opens the floodgates to social dumping, which has caused bitter disappointment and will lead to a rise in Euroscepticism.

This House has made a clear amendment here: worker’s rights are not exclusive, but apply to all employees, regardless of what their collective bargaining situation is. It is the situation on the ground that is decisive. More flexibility is only possible if there is greater security. This is the only way in which the report can be further developed.

  Roberto Musacchio, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe concerns itself too little with employment problems, and, when it does concern itself with them, it does so totally inadequately, as if employment were not at the heart of building democracy and of the European social model. Certainly, many of the reasons for the problems of Europe lie in this culpable and deliberate undervaluation. Within Europe, job insecurity is very widespread and is hindering social cohesion, constituting a real tragedy – in fact, the major social tragedy being experienced by whole generations of young people, as well as older workers who have been prematurely ejected from the labour market. All this has an effect on our cities, our families, and on all of us.

Combating job insecurity is vital when it comes to building a future and to providing certainty and hope. This is our main task. The Commission, instead of combating job insecurity, seems to be adopting it and almost using it to reduce individual and collective rights, to further reduce the role of the trade unions and to set against each other those who have rights – who are in fact becoming increasingly few – and those who do not, in the name of a so-called employment policy.

This is unacceptable. What needs to be said is that Europe considers employment to be the basis of true democracy and social cohesion and that Europe has its own concept of what constitutes normal work: stable employment, for an unlimited period, protected by contracts and by the role of the trade unions and with a requirement for equal conditions for standard and non-standard jobs, as part of employment equality. This idea of employment is a healthy idea, which benefits production as well, because it says that competition is not based on exploitation but on quality and innovation. Saving on employment costs and making workers compete against each other garners easy profits in the short term but does nothing to make the economy or society grow.

This is the social model that Europe should present to the world, and it should put itself forward as an example. The right to work is a fundamental element of democracy, because it demonstrates the rules for activity upon which society rests. Within these rights we should build a social unit of young and old, instead of placing them in a ridiculous opposition. The employment contract should contain these rules and rights, which cannot be delegated to others or replaced by external action, which would leave the employment contract at the mercy of the law of the jungle. This is why we are not convinced by the concept of flexicurity, of weak contracts replaced by welfare benefits: no, the benefits must be in the contract and they must act as safeguards for the worker, as a European citizen.

The text that has been submitted to Parliament is a compromise; it has ambiguous points, but important elements, too. Attacks on this employment, such as those contained in some of the amendments, would be negative and would lead us in a backwards direction. I say this in particular to my socialist comrades, especially with regard to those amendments that distort the nature of normal employment. We would consider the approval of these amendments to be a breach of the compromise agreed on in committee.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, the rapporteur’s first draft was not well received in committee, because he was trying to cut back on red tape and to reduce the regulations meant to protect workers but which, in fact, cause unemployment.

We are debating the second draft, which was more acceptable: he had toned it down. A pity, because it means we are to continue with many of the restrictive practices in the name of harmonisation, while all the time that which you fear – globalisation – is stealing up on you. For that, the EU will have to cope with competition on the free world markets, but you are not prepared for that.

Unless you learn to compete in Europe, you will not be able to compete globally. Footballers continually practise ball skills and teamwork; they do not prepare for a match by playing cards in a backstreet bar! Likewise, continued practice in Europe’s protectionist systems will mean defeat in the most competitive matches played away on hostile, global playing fields.

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Madam President, it is the policy of my party, the British Conservative Party, to reinstate the opt-out which was agreed at Maastricht and to withdraw the United Kingdom from EU employment and social legislation. I trust that my Conservative colleagues in this House will have the full support of their political group, the PPE-DE, in implementing this policy.

Turning to the report, I was astonished to read in recital C that ‘the EU is not only a free trade area’. Anyone who knows the first thing about international trade will know that the EU is not a free trade area at all: it is a customs union. They will also know that the customs union or Zollverein is a 19th century Bismarckian concept which should have no place in the 21st century. All the evidence from around the world shows that free trade areas work, while customs unions work far less well. Indeed, the EU is the only group of developed countries still operating in this outdated mode. If this House wishes to convert the EU from a customs union with political pretensions into a modern effective free trade area, it will have my full support.

The Commission’s proposals on modernising labour law and our first draft report show a belated recognition of the huge damage that intrusive and inflexible labour market rules have done to European economies. They made the first tentative steps towards liberalisation. However, amendments passed in the Unemployment Committee reverse the direction and turn the report into a regressive socialist wish-list of deeply harmful proposals.

Today’s amendments restore the balance, and so long as they are maintained the report’s timid measures are better than nothing and deserve our support. Paragraph 2 quotes the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That Charter was signed off twice by Tony Blair, yet after the Brussels summit of 22 June he came back like Chamberlain from Munich declaring he had protected his red line and that the charter would not affect UK labour law. Could the Commission please give me a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer? Is Blair’s opt-out legally defensible? I look forward to the Commission’s reply.

  President. As we have reached voting time, the debate is now suspended. It will be resumed at 3 p.m.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS WALLIS
Vice-President

8. Voting time

  President. The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote, see Minutes.)

8.1. Election of a Vice-President of Parliament (vote)

8.2. Request for consultation of the Committee of the Regions on the role of volunteering in economic and social cohesion (Rule 118) (vote)

8.3. EC-Algeria Euro-Mediterranean Agreement (vote)

- Recommendation: Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0274/2007)

8.4. EC-Moldova Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (vote)

- Report: Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0224/2007)

8.5. EC-Ukraine Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (vote)

- Report: Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0216/2007)

8.6. EC-Armenia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (vote)

Report: Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0254/2007)

8.7. EC-Azerbaijan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (vote)

Report: Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0255/2007)

8.8. EC-Georgia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (vote)

- Report: Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0256/2007)

8.9. Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention on the use of information technology for customs purposes (vote)

Report: Jean-Marie Cavada (A6-0265/2007)

8.10. Direct insurance other than life assurance (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0237/2007)

– Before the vote

  Pervenche Berès (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, it is about an important dossier in the area of commitology. I shall not trouble the House for long, but I should like us to be able to vote against the first part of the European Parliament’s amendment and in favour of the second part. I think all Members will have understood the importance of this vote.

  President. Thank you, Mrs Berès. So we are voting only on the second part.

8.11. Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0239/2007)

8.12. Reinsurance (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0238/2007)

- Before the vote:

  Pervenche Berès (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, in the interests of efficiency, and so that our text allows the Council to align itself with our wording, we should vote here against the amendment of our Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

8.13. A new statistical classification of products by activity (CPA) (vote)

Report: Guntars Krasts (A6-0242/2007)

8.14. Labour force sample survey (vote)

Report: Jan Andersson (A6-0181/2007)

- Before the vote:

  Jan Andersson (PSE), rapporteur. – (SV) I just want to direct Members’ attention to the fact that Amendments 1 to 3 have been withdrawn in order to facilitate an agreement with the Council at first reading. Members of the committee have been informed of this measure.

  President. I therefore move straight to the single vote.

8.15. Energy Star (vote)

Report: Nikolaos Vakalis (A6-0234/2007)

– Before the vote:

  Nikolaos Vakalis (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, I would like to emphasise that a positive vote by the European Parliament today will be a huge leap forward and will break a taboo that has prevailed in Europe for decades.

For the first time, public money will have to be used, through public procurement, to increase energy efficiency, which is quite rightly considered to be a basic pillar of sustainable energy policy. I trust that this will mark the start of taxpayers’ money being used for high-priority issues.

Finally, I should like to thank Commissioner Piebalgs and the German Presidency for making approval of the regulation at first reading possible.

8.16. United Nations Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences (repeal of Council Regulation (EEC) No 954/79) (vote)

Report: Corien Wortmann-Kool (A6-0258/2007)

8.17. Fishing activities in the Antarctic (vote)

Report: Rosa Miguélez Ramos (A6-0213/2007)

8.18. Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Europol Convention (vote)

Report: Genowefa Grabowska (A6-0260/2007)

8.19. Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters (vote)

Report: Genowefa Grabowska (A6-0261/2007)

8.20. Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention on driving disqualifications (vote)

Report: Genowefa Grabowska (A6-0269/2007)

8.21. Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union (vote)

Report: Jörg Leichtfried (A6-0272/2007)

8.22. Corrigenda (new Rule 204a of Parliament's Rules of Procedure) (vote)

Report: Richard Corbett (A6-0229/2007)

8.23. Application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure (amendment of Rule 201) (vote)

Report: Richard Corbett (A6-0230/2007)

8.24. Immunity and privileges of Alessandra Mussolini (vote)

Report: Klaus-Heiner Lehne (A6-0251/2007)

8.25. Request for defence of the immunity of Ashley Mote (vote)

Report: Francesco Enrico Speroni (A6-0250/2007)

8.26. Draft amending budget No 4/2007 (vote)

Report: James Elles (A6-0268/2007)

8.27. Translation expenditure (vote)

Report: Alexander Stubb (A6-0215/2007)

8.28. Minimising administrative costs imposed by legislation (vote)

Report: Jan Mulder (A6-0275/2007)

8.29. Law applicable to non-contractual obligations ('Rome II') (vote)

Report: Diana Wallis (A6-0257/2007)

8.30. Community action programme in the field of health (2007-2013) (vote)

Recommendation for second reading: Antonios Trakatellis (A6-0184/2007)

8.31. Measuring devices containing mercury (vote)

Recommendation for second reading: Sornosa Martínez (A6-0218/2007)

8.32. Common authorisation procedure for food additives (vote)

Report: Åsa Westlund (A6-0153/2007)

– Before the vote

  Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, allow me to point out an error in the voting list of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. In the vote on the legal basis, Amendment 39, we should be listed with a minus instead of a plus.

8.33. Food additives (vote)

Report: Åsa Westlund (A6-0154/2007)

8.34. Food enzymes (vote)

Report: Avril Doyle (A6-0177/2007)

8.35. Flavourings and food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods (vote)

Report: Mojca Drčar Murko (A6-0185/2007)

8.36. Rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (vote)

Report: Astrid Lulling (A6-0148/2007)

– Before the vote

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to draw your attention to this report for just a moment, as the procedure is very complicated.

For the sake of clarity, I shall make it clear to all those who want to avoid any increase in the minimum rates on beer and spirits that they should vote against all the amendments adopted in committee except one, adopted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs by a small, chance majority of 21 to 19. I am asking you, in any case, whatever the result of the vote, to reject all of my report and so maintain the status quo in relation to excise duty on alcohol, until we have the Commission’s report, given that Mr Kovàcs wishes to make proposals on the whole excise duty policy at the end of the year.

I would remind you again that Winston Churchill said:

‘There is no such thing as a good text’.

(Applause)

(FR) I should like to add to that there is nothing worse than pointlessly increasing taxes at the wrong time. Therefore, please, follow me with regard to this vote and anyway, reject the report!

(Applause)

  President. Thank you, Mrs Lulling. The House is obviously grateful for your advice.

  Pervenche Berès (PSE), Chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (FR) Madam President, the House will recall that we had to refer this text back for further discussion because, following conflicting votes, our rapporteur had called for a vote against.

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs carried out a serious piece of work, which, obviously, does not correspond with our rapporteur’s opinion and no doubt she ought to have withdrawn her name from the final result. It was not obtained by a small, chance majority but following very thorough work, with the Commission and with the Council, for an extremely reasonable proposal which, I hope, this House will be able to support.

(Applause)

8.37. European Critical Infrastructure (vote)

Report: Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (A6-0270/2007)

8.38. Internal gas and electricity market (vote)

Report: Alejo Vidal-Quadras (A6-0249/2007)

– Before the vote on Amendment 2:

  Alejo Vidal-Quadras (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, I would like to speak with regard to Amendment 2, which refers to the role of transport system operators. In the text of the report there appears the word ‘institutional’. In the language of the European Union, ‘institutional’ has a very specific meaning which is too high for what is intended here. My suggestion, therefore, is that we replace the word ‘institutional’ with ‘official’.

It would thereby read thus: ‘Welcomes the proposal to grant existing associations of TSOs an official role with formal obligations and objectives (the ETSO+\GTE+ solution);’.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

8.39. Production of fishmeal and fish oil (vote)

Report: Struan Stevenson (A6-0155/2007)

⁂

  Åsa Westlund (PSE). – Madam President, on a point of order, you are obviously having trouble seeing me at the moment. I asked twice for a check on my own report, which was refused. I just want to put it on record that perhaps this has happened because you cannot hear a woman sitting at the back, perhaps you will not give the floor or listen to that kind of request. You and your colleagues have been wrong several times, and although you listened to the request for a check, you did not in the case of my report, and I asked for twice. I think that should be put on record. Thank you.

(Applause)

  President. We have heard what you say, but believe you me everybody here does their utmost to listen and to watch, but we take note of what you say.

9. Convening of the Intergovernmental Conference: opinion of the European Parliament (deadline for tabling amendments): see Minutes

10. Explanations of vote

– Report: Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0216/2007)

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS), in writing. – (DE) Kiev is by no means as far along the ‘road to Brussels’ as some may believe. An unambiguous retreat from Moscow which Lukashenko has for some time given the appearance of preparing would have consequences, not least regarding oil and gas supplies. Any instability in this area would also have consequences for the European Union.

Although the latest round of enlargement has taken us to the limit of our capabilities, it has not yet been resolved whether we will respect Russian influence in the post-Soviet territories, or whether we will continue to blindly ape the US striving to expand in Eastern Europe. Despite the resulting zigzag course and political tension in Ukraine, it is in our interests to deepen neighbourly relations with Ukraine. In the confidence-building measure of easing visa restrictions, we should nevertheless ensure that the old scandal is completely cleared up, and there will be no further abuse of the system.

– Report: Jean-Marie Cavada (A6-0265/2007)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Under the terms of the 2005 Treaty of Accession for Bulgaria and Romania, a simplified system was created allowing their accession to conventions and protocols concluded under Article 34 TEU or Article 293 TEC without the need to negotiate or conclude specific accession protocols to these conventions, thereby reducing the huge bureaucracy which would result from the need for ratification by the twenty-seven Member States.

Thus, the annex sets out a list of seven conventions and protocols relating to justice and internal affairs where the present convention can be found.

I welcome this kind of initiative aimed at reducing Community bureaucracy and the exaggerated amount of time taken up over such simple matters as this.

I, therefore, support this Council Decision determining the date on which the Convention of the 26 of July 1995 on the use of computer systems in the field of customs, and respective protocols, should enter into force in Bulgaria and Romania.

– Report: Genowefa Grabowska (A6-0260/2007)

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing – (PL) – I am voting in favour of Mrs Grabowski’s report on the Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Europol Convention of 26 July 1995.

According to the act on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, these states are able to join conventions made by the Member States on the basis of Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union according to a simplified procedure. For this reason there is no need for negotiations and special accession protocols, which would also involve the need for them to be ratified by all members of the Community. All that is required is that the Council, after consulting with the European Parliament, adopt a decision setting the date on which the Europol Convention becomes effective, along with the necessary protocols.

The Council should also take into account the new deadlines for the effectiveness of the three protocols, dated 30 November 2000, 28 November 2002 and 27 November 2003.

– Report: Alexander Stubb (A6-0215/2007)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my colleague, Mr Stubb, on the special report of the European Court of Auditors concerning translation expenditure incurred by the Commission, Parliament and the Council. I am pleased to have been able to table an amendment deploring the fact that more and more documents and communications – not least compromise amendments when they are voted on in committee – and, for example, annexes to reports, are being submitted in just one language. This trend goes against the need to maintain a democratic functioning model of our Union involving various peoples from different cultures and language backgrounds. Our model can be of use to other regions in the world, not least the Mediterranean area, and we must fully respect the use of languages. I regret that I was unable to prevent the report from encouraging the parliamentary committees and delegations, as far as possible, to submit texts solely in the languages of their full and substitute members and from demanding that other language versions be provided on request. The latter restriction will result in Members being deprived of the opportunity to follow the work done in committees other than their own.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Respect for the official languages of each Member State of the European Union is laid down in the Treaties. However, the idea that some translations are dispensable is being encouraged on grounds of the financial question, and by appealing to the need to define priorities and restrictions such as the size of documents. We do not accept these guidelines, as they counteract respect for multilingualism.

We, therefore, reassert our firm rejection of any effort to limit the use of any official (and working) European Union language on the grounds of high costs, an example of which, as we pointed out at the appropriate time, are the current criteria that determine the languages used during the EU-ACP parliamentary assemblies, which make the use of Portuguese unfeasible in a discriminatory manner.

We also reject a reduction in numbers of interpreters and translators on the pretext of fallacious budgetary arguments, and any precariousness or degrading of their working conditions in Parliament, Commission or Council, namely by promoting the outsourcing of these services which are essential to the adequate functioning of these institutions and to guarantee the citizens of the different Member States of the European Union access to pertinent information in their own language.

  Bairbre de Brún and Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. We abstained on today's report from Mr Stubb as we are concerned that the term, 'controlled full multilingualism', could be used to restrict the amount of written material available to Irish speakers in comparison to speakers of other official and working languages. At present a range of services which could be made available in Irish are not made available because the European Parliament administration shows no wish to do so. Such unnecessary limitations placed upon the Irish language as a working language should be removed.

Some of the suggestions in Mr Stubb's report with regard to respect for multilingualism, quality control, user satisfaction, translation memory systems and a common database for terminology are positive.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS), in writing. – (DE) The Court of Auditors’ criticism of the 25% rise in the cost of translation, which cannot be explained solely by the increase in the number of official languages from 11 to 21, should be examined in detail. For this reason it is worth considering whether it would not be advantageous in future to break down the costs of translation by target languages in order to better evaluate need, demand and translation output. We also need a strategy for the ongoing pre-accession negotiations, because if Macedonia alone has six official languages, we will soon have our own Tower of Babel.

When all the information is made available, the potential for any rational savings will become clear. However, this audit should not be misused so that even more important EU documents are classed as ‘working documents’ or ‘annexes’ to close the door on the obligation for complete translation. In particular, the use of German, due to its importance as the most widely spoken mother tongue and the second most important foreign language in the EU, should be promoted.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. – (NL) Madam President, I voted in favour of the Stubb report on the grounds that I agree with its gist.

Our actions should remain based on complete multilingualism, out of respect for the principles of equality of all citizens, and for the benefit of the best possible communication and democracy. At the same time, however, we should exercise caution where costs are concerned because, if not, we run the risk of losing the social support for the multilingualism of our institution.

– Report: Jan Mulder (A6-0275/2007)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my fellow Member, Mr Mulder, on minimising administrative costs imposed by European legislation. The European Commission’s objective of better regulation must be encouraged and monitored. Pointless administrative costs are the scourge of our societies based on the rule of law, which, at times, do not realise that the inflation of law results in its depreciation, for Europeans do not apply pointless and costly rules. It is not illusory to envisage a 25% reduction in administrative costs by 2013, provided that we conduct a thorough analysis of what is at stake and do not lose sight of the fact that false economies can be far more costly.

Everyone knows that mediocrity is far more costly, in the long term, than quality. If we must constantly fight against all pointless laws and their associated administrative costs, we must ensure that we regulate economic activities carefully and with proper judgment, in the best interests of consumers and manufacturers.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS), in writing. – (DE) If we continue to conjure up new EU agencies just to assuage national sensibilities, and their tasks overlap with existing ones, we really should not be surprised at increasingly vociferous criticism of burgeoning red tape, unchecked organisational nonsense and creating unnecessary jobs. Citizen-friendliness needs more than e-government and similar publicity stunts, and we have to avoid and cut down on duplication.

We should also make use of the present savings potentials. These include: reducing the seats of Parliament to one single location, assessing expenses on the basis of the actual costs incurred, a top-class anti-fraud system and the real recovery of grants that have been improperly paid out, along with the millions to be saved by not foisting enlargements on reluctant citizens. In no way should the EU follow the example of some Member States, where increasing numbers of migrants are taken up in the administration. This will cause irreparable damage to the creation and development of a European identity.

– Report: Diana Wallis (A6-0257/2007)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my fellow Member, Mrs Wallis, on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (ROME II). This extremely complex matter is a step in the direction of harmonising the Member States’ conflict of law rules applicable to non-contractual obligations, that is to say, the consequences of road traffic accidents, unfair competition, environmental damage, defamation and, more generally, violation of personal rights, etc.

Overall, the European Parliament has not been sufficiently heard by the Member States, and the countless studies and reports that are to weigh up the consequences of this agreement will be crucial when we return to this important matter. For example, regarding road traffic accidents, how can we be content with applying the law of the country of the accident, and not that of the country of residence of the victim, and are we sure that recitals of this regulation on their own will make it compulsory for the courts to assess losses? How are we going to manage defamation in the context of a globalised and dematerialised press? The examples go on. A considerable amount of work awaits us on these issues.

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the balanced text that she is proposing to us. The object of this text is the setting up of a coherent legal framework for relations between international civil laws and other Community instruments.

This regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), seeks to harmonise national rules of conflict of laws. These rules determine the law applicable to non-contractual obligations such as, for example, road traffic accidents, product liability, unfair competition or environmental damage.

We are in favour of the principle of adopting standard rules in relation to conflict of laws, although they still need to be, let us remember this, sufficiently clear and precise. This was not the case with the controversial provisions on defamation by the media. Freedom of speech and of the press must be protected and be able to be fully exercised. In the absence here of rules for the protection of editorial independence, it was reasonable to exclude the provisions relating to violation of personal rights by the media from the scope of ‘Rome II’.

We shall, therefore, vote in favour of this report.

– Report: Antonios Trakatellis (A6-0184/2007)

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I am very pleased about the adoption of the compromise negotiated with the Council concerning the second programme of Community action in the field of health 2007-2013.

The European Union can no longer do without a common programme for health with common public investment. It is unfortunate that the budget has been revised downwards. A large number of investments are needed before we can have preventive and technical resources. Prevention is better than cure and good information on lifestyle or a healthier diet in order to reduce mortality due to serious illnesses is an essential prerequisite. It is necessary also to make generally available technical solutions for emergency situations. Widespread availability of defibrillators is one of many examples.

Health, however, does not come down to a simple matter of accountancy. It is also and above all a benefit for everyone. Making patients more responsible is a central factor. Setting up clear and applicable provisions everywhere in the European Union is undoubtedly the most essential way forward for the future.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The action programme proposed as the common position of the Council of the EU does not seek to protect and upgrade public health, but to manage its problems, extend the commercialisation and privatisation of health services and help private groups of companies penetrate what is a profitable sector for capital.

The responsibility and obligation of the state to protect and improve public health is being transferred to local authorities, to NGOs, to ‘civil society’, while personal responsibility is being promoted as the basic determining factor for public health.

Capitalist restructurings in the public health sector come under the general anti-working class policy of the ΕU, the deteriorating terms of insurance and the increased retirement age of the workers. We are radically opposed to the anti-labour proposals included in the Community action plan in the public health sector.

The Greek Communist Party is fighting for solely public health and welfare services which meet the contemporary needs of working families.

– Report: María Sornosa Martínez (A6-0218/2007)

  Ivo Belet (PPE-DE). – (NL) Madam President, I am right here in the centre. Allow me to make a brief observation with regard to reducing the use of mercury, of which everyone is in favour. It is a good thing because, in many sectors, the use of mercury has been superseded and, indeed, has to be replaced by other materials, but a total ban on traditional objects, including the traditional mercury barometer, is taking matters too far in our view.

I recently paid a visit to the Dingens company in the Belgian town of Leopoldsburg, where, for decades, they have proved that mercury barometers can be produced in a sustainable and ecologically responsible manner. Moreover, these traditional barometers have an unlimited lifespan, unlike their digital successors, which work on batteries and therefore use energy. Also, since the producers of traditional barometers have become skilled in maintaining these devices in a sustainable manner, mercury from barometers no longer ends up in the waste cycle.

I would therefore call on the Commission – and this is my final comment – and all those involved to send out a signal at this stage to the sector involved and for the benefit of the assessment, which has taken two years, to give due account to this justified specific situation of the mercury barometer products so that they, hopefully, continue to qualify for exemption schemes.

  Philip Claeys (ITS). – (NL) Thank you, Madam President. I voted in favour of Amendments 1 and 2, because I take the view that the production of traditional barometers must remain an option. I resent any kind of European interference which leads not only to traditional customs and production methods, but also employment, falling by the wayside.

Moreover, it is very much the question whether the ban on mercury barometers would be an effective measure. Other forms of mercury use are far more extensive and far more problematic than those in the production of barometers. Also, as mercury barometers do not require any batteries, they have an unlimited life span.

This House has once again managed to miss out on an opportunity to give due account to a specific reality, namely that small and medium-sized enterprises occupy a critical position in our economy and in Europe. The last thing these SMEs need is even more European busybodying and interference.

  Jim Allister (NI), in writing. I voted in favour of the amendments to exempt barometers from this overly prescriptive legislation and, upon defeat of the amendments, I voted against the report.

The total ban on mercury instruments destroys a long-standing craft industry in the UK and is the product of obsessive meddling by Brussels in matters far beyond what is necessary or sensible.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the wise decision taken in relation to the Council common position, which takes up most of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament. The main difference between the positions of Parliament and of the Council concerns mercury barometers and the derogations to be implemented, in view of the fact that the ban that would subsequently be introduced would only apply to new mercury barometers, as barometers that are already in circulation can always be resold, repaired and maintained.

Given the very hazardous properties of mercury and the much larger amount of mercury contained in traditional barometers in comparison, for example, with fever thermometers, the solution proposed by the Council to grant a limited derogation is a balanced compromise: the aim, in fact, is to grant a temporary derogation in order to allow the manufacturers of traditional barometers to adapt to the new arrangements.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing of certain measuring devices containing mercury.

I am in favour of restricting the marketing to the general public of measuring devices containing mercury, which have been banned in France since 1998.

The Council common position accepted by Parliament establishes a balance allowing both a reduction in the release of mercury in the environment while allowing a transition period for certain articles such as traditional barometers. A transition period of two years after the date of entry into force of the directive will allow the industries concerned to develop their technology to produce mercury-free devices.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. I am appalled that we are still producing legislation which puts jobs at risk for no real environmental benefit. UK barometer-making, like that in other Member States, is a traditional industry dating back several centuries. It is clearly necessary that the use of mercury is properly controlled and we have made substantial progress in recent years on related matters such as storage and export. However, it should be possible to safeguard traditional barometer-making by ensuring that proper safety warnings etc. are used. There is no need to destroy a long-established craft simply because it is easier to have ‘one size fits all’ legislation. Social Europe means nothing if it means putting people in traditional crafts out of work.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, mercury is a dangerous product that should be handled with the necessary caution. Nobody in this House is in any doubt of this. Unfortunately, this House has pursued this position today with regard to the vote on the Sornosa Martínez report to absurd levels, something which I deeply regret.

By holding firm to a total ban on the production of traditional barometers, the Commission, backed up today by a majority of this House, has sounded the death knell for a sector that stands for 360 years of European tradition. The fact that all barometer manufacturers in the European Union only account for a few tenths of percentages of the annual mercury consumption, mercury which, by the way, is recycled 100%, makes the matter only worse. Today, we were clearly not guided by common sense in our decision.

– Report: Asa Westlund (A6-0153/2007)

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) The votes on Mrs Westlund’s reports are not just about which food additives may be used. They are mainly about who is to decide on individual issues concerning food additives.

In contrast to the rapporteur, we Swedish Conservatives do not believe that the European Parliament should evaluate, and take decisions on approving, individual food additives, for example on the basis of details such as the risks posed by individual food additives to people with allergies. That would involve a politicisation of important issues that should be decided on a scientific basis and at the level of the relevant authority. We therefore reject the proposal concerning increased powers of codecision for Parliament.

As a consequence of this, we have voted against unduly detailed regulations in today’s vote.

– Report: Asa Westlund (A6-0154/2007)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Commissioner, I supported the more flexible authorisation of food additives. The Commission should look specifically at the impact of these additives on the environment and on health. I should like, if I may, to draw your attention to the high number of people with allergies, whose lives depend on keeping to a gluten-free diet. In addition to specially made goods, they buy normal foods that do not normally contain gluten. Additives must be properly labelled so that consumers are not misled. Manufacturers and supervisors often ignore the fact that the labelling of every product must explicitly show whether it contains gluten. Statistically Europeans suffering from food allergies are unfortunately not provided with the necessary information when they make their purchases, so either their choice of food is restricted or, much worse, they put their health at risk. I therefore call on the Commission to oversee a proper investigation into gluten in additives and to promote the comprehensive labelling of all foods so that those Europeans on a gluten-free diet are also able to understand it.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my Swedish fellow Member, Mrs Westlund, on food additives. While it is normal to simplify the European Commission’s task by agreeing that decisions on authorisation of food additives should come under the comitology procedure, the Commission must, for its part, take account of the comments that Parliament has been making non-stop for years now in the new regulation on food additives, and in the new regulation establishing a common food authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings.

These comments chiefly concern the environment, public health and allergy sufferers. We should be pleased that the current legislation stipulates that the authorisation of additives must not mislead consumers. However, colourings sometimes give the impression that a foodstuff contains fruit, when that is not the case. Consumer protection must therefore be strengthened on this point, without this affecting manufacturers.

  Thomas Wise (IND/DEM), in writing. Although I agree with the principles contained within the amendments on the labelling of GMOs, I abstained because I believe these matters should be addressed by national governments and should not become an EU competence.

- Report: Avril Doyle (A6-0177/2007)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my esteemed Irish colleague, Mrs Doyle, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on food enzymes and amending a number of existing texts. In order to remove the barriers to trade and to prevent not only legal uncertainty, but also differing health and consumer protection standards among the Member States, it is vital that we harmonise, at Community level, the rules on the use of enzymes in the food processing sector, which has developed considerably over the last few years (baked goods, cheese, beer, fruit juice, starch, etc.).

Major scientific and technological developments, which make it possible to have new enzymes made from genetically modified micro-organisms, must lead us to accept this prospect of harmonised legislation on the use of food enzymes within the European Union. This is in the best interests of consumers and manufacturers, provided that we do not have too costly a form of legislation.

– Report: Mojca Drčar Murko (A6-0185/2007)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my Slovenian fellow Member, Mrs Drčar Murko, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods and amending a number of existing texts.

At present, all natural tastes and odours can be copied synthetically from 2 600 molecules with flavouring properties, with the possibility being there to create new tastes that do not exist in nature. Technological developments in the flavourings sector and the rapidly changing tastes of our fellow citizens must encourage us to monitor food safety and consumer protection and to give the industry concerned the opportunity to pursue technological development, with the aim of all this being to strengthen the internal market.

Many questions have been raised, and I welcome the compromises reached by the rapporteur, which ensure that the proposal for a regulation represents an effective initiative aimed at modernising and simplifying the legislation on flavourings.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I will be voting for this report. I welcome in particular the commitment to labelling GMOs. I do not share entirely the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues as to the safety of GMOs. My judgement is different. As a scientist I believe GMOs have a role to play. Nevertheless, I do accept that others have the right to make their own choices. Therefore, labelling enables those whose judgement differs from mine to avoid products they chose to reject.

– Reports: Asa Westlund (A6-0154/2007) and Mojca Drčar Murko (A6-0185/2007)

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM), in writing. Although we agree with the principles contained within these amendments on the labelling of GMOs, UKIP has abstained because these matters should be addressed by national governments and should not become an EU competence.

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM), in writing. Amendment 38 – providing that GMO-derived content of food be indicated by labelling – attracts abstention (rather than support) despite its inherent desirability, owing to its dangerously and irreformably undemocratic source (EU institutions). In other words, I consider centralist EU rule, without democratic accountability, to be more of a threat to civilisation than are unlabelled, GMO-derived food additives. Therefore, I abstain rather than voting for this amendment.

– Reports: Asa Westlund (A6-0153/2007 and A6-0154/2007), Avril Doyle (A6-0177/2007) and Mojca Drčar Murko (A6-0185/2007)

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the package relating to the rationalisation of procedures for the authorisation, use and consolidation of directives relating to additives and flavourings, as well as the harmonisation of legislation relating to enzymes.

A certain number of additional guarantees have been introduced to ensure the transparency of decisions and the protection of consumers and I am very pleased about that. The aim of future legislation will be to ensure consumer protection and food safety while preserving innovation and competitiveness in the food processing industry.

The food industry uses many natural and artificial flavourings: no fewer than 2 600 are listed. More and more enzymes enter also into the manufacture of food stuffs and the texts adopted seek to improve the safety of the use of these substances.

The competitiveness of the food processing industry in the market should be preserved. Natural flavourings are wholly made up of natural flavouring agents. The ratio of 90/10 proposed by the Commission made it possible to produce a natural flavour with tastes differing according to the products, targets or the culture of Member States. The 10% came from natural sources other than the substance concerned.

I regret therefore the adoption of the arbitrary rule called 95/5 which could penalise the food processing industry but without giving the consumer better information.

- Report: Astrid Lulling (A6-0148/2007)

  Konrad Szymański (UEN), in writing. I voted against the report on excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. The ECON Committee voted for a 4,5% increase in minimum rates. As I am against any tax harmonisation or increase, no matter how small, I have had to vote against Astrid Lulling's report.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, emotions run high each time we discuss beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages in this House. This was also true of the brewery agreements. Today is no different. Fifteen years ago, the Council agreed on minimum rates for excise on alcoholic beverages. The intention was clear: bring the vastly different rates in the Member States into line with each other.

So many years later, we have to conclude that the decisions taken at the time have overshot the mark. Accordingly, for public health reasons, some Member States, including the Scandinavian countries, apply rates that are much higher than the minimum rates. Which is not a bad thing at all. Every Member State is entitled to adopt excise policy that is commensurate with its national traditions and policy preferences.

Let us, however, also admit that the inflation correction of existing rates, proposed by the Commission, will not make any difference. As the current excise straddle between the Member States and the existing competitive distortions will persist without any sign of let-up, I supported rapporteur Lulling in her no-vote.

- Report: Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (A6-0270/2007)

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert’s target for the proposed directive should be supported because it is quite simply a matter of protecting important infrastructure which affects several countries against terrorist attacks. That is why we need to identify and define the infrastructure, as well as security plans.

The Commission’s proposal goes too far, though. It undermines the principle of solidarity by confusing anti-terrorist activities with economic instruments. The Commission should also ask itself whether the centralised compilation of critical infrastructure will not serve the terrorists and thereby increase the risk.

This House has made constructive amendment proposals, which, thank goodness, we have approved with a large majority. I therefore propose that the Commission revise these. I have voted in favour of the report.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my Dutch fellow Member, Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert, on the proposal for a Council directive on critical infrastructure. Firstly, I applaud the vision of the European Council of June 2004, which is behind this proposal for a directive. It is, in fact, imperative that the European Union support the Member States in protecting critical infrastructure from the risks, including terrorist risks, that we face. Although the responsibility for this type of infrastructure lies with the Member States and the owners/operators who are generally linked to them, it is logical to communitise certain aspects of prevention, identification, designation of critical infrastructure, as well as the evaluation of the need to protect this infrastructure better. Internet development and the liberalisation of certain markets (electricity, gas, telecommunications, rail freight, etc.) must lead us to be more vigilant regarding our critical infrastructure, which is becoming more and more interconnected throughout Europe and of which the interruption, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or destruction could have serious repercussions for health, security and the economic and social well-being of Europeans and for the proper functioning of the Member States’ governments.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The establishment of a common framework for action to protect European critical infrastructures means that we are once again faced with the central question of transferring competencies that lie at the heart of the States’ sovereignty to the sphere of the EU.

The definition of the protection of these infrastructures at Community level, in the name of the so-called ‘fight against terrorism’, will mean that the Member States will be faced with the responsibility of implementing binding measures, as, indeed, is mentioned in the justification of this proposal.

Despite the rapporteur’s having mitigated the scope of the initial proposal, by underlining, for example, that ‘the responsibility for the protection of critical infrastructures lies solely and exclusively with the Member States’ and considering ‘that a Community approach is only justifiable if at least three Member States, or two Member States besides the one in which the critical infrastructure is situated, are affected’, the fundamental objectives are not called into question.

It should also be emphasised that, as recent events have shown, measures which compromise the rights, freedoms and guarantees of the citizens have been implemented on the pretext of the said ‘fight against terrorism’. Let us hope that the concept of ‘protection of European critical infrastructures’ does not come to be used as an argument in favour of curtailing legitimate industrial action by workers defending their rights.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. – (DE) I am voting for the report on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure and the assessment of the need to improve their protection.

Damage to, or the outage of, an infrastructure facility in one Member State may have negative consequences for other Member States and on the European economy as a whole. For this reason, protecting critical infrastructure is essential for the internal security of the EU.

I also agree with the report’s proposal for setting up a list of priority sectors containing critical European infrastructure be made subject to common criteria. However, the Member States should not be obliged to disclose their critical infrastructure in great detail, as this would go against the interests of national security.

Horizontal legal provisions at EU level, which would take into account the complex processes and the interfaces of critical infrastructures with a trans-national dimension is a justified concern. It should, however, be recognised at the same time that the EU should support, not duplicate, the work done by the Member States. For this reason I also approve of the proposal for a bottom-up approach, as national authorities know best what is going on in their own countries.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report fully accepts the philosophy of the proposal for a directive, which designates as European Critical Infrastructure any important public or private infrastructure which affects several Member States of the EU and obliges them to submit a list of this infrastructure to the European Commission, which then prepares the single list for the entire EU, so that it can supervise and control their security from ‘terrorist action’.

Under the proposal for a directive:

The private sector – in other words monopoly companies – acquire jurisdiction in issues of national security which were previously the responsibility of the government alone.

It paves the way for movements by workers and the masses which affect any infrastructure of ‘European importance’, even private installations, to be designated ‘terrorist action’ (for example strikes in critical sectors, such as energy, telecommunications and so forth, the symbolic occupation of factories, companies and so forth, picketing, demonstrations and so forth).

It decisively undermines national security and the sovereignty of the Member States, in that it obliges them to hand over a list of all their infrastructure which is crucial to security and their security plans to the EU.

Once again the pretext of the ‘terrorist threat’ is the convenient vehicle of the EU for completing its reactionary institutional framework, which is turning against the working class movements and protecting the power of European capital, undermining the national sovereignty of the Member States even further.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), in writing. There is no European critical infrastructure, it is national. Its protection is the responsibility of national governments, particularly given the threats facing the democracies from terrorism.

I am, of course, in favour of measures that would genuinely enhance security. However, the directive is a further step in the EU's attempts to extend its reach into the security and defence sphere. This is its most objectionable element. The Commission seems to view security as a means to ensure that the, 'stability of the Internal Market is maintained', which misses the point. The proposed system of reporting risk and threat assessments to the Commission merely creates additional bureaucratic burdens and structures. The requirement for Member States to notify the Commission of specific critical infrastructures is counter-productive, as it would produce a list of targets that would be of great interest to the wrong people.

- Report: Alejo Vidal-Quadras (A6-0249/2007)

  Markus Pieper (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against Mr Vidal-Ouadras’ report, not because I oppose opening up the electricity and gas markets – quite the contrary, but I cannot agree with one of the core requirements, which is ownership unbundling – or rather, I cannot do so at present – for three reasons: firstly, because we have to give national regulatory authorities more time to build up effective regulation for competition; secondly, it has by no means been satisfactorily demonstrated to me that ownership unbundling will promote investment in supply networks, and thirdly, because the unbundling proposal does not apply where networks and generation facilities are still under state ownership.

This is the point where we should impose those strict liberalisation conditions that have so far been denied to competition, instead of undermining those that are on the right market economy track through unbundling provisions.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my Spanish colleague, Mr Vidal-Quadras, on prospects for the internal gas and electricity market. The report has made it possible for us to review this matter after a long process of energy market liberalisation and, above all, for the European Council of March 2006 to adopt an ‘energy package’ aimed at safeguarding security of supply, competitiveness and environmental sustainability in relation to EU energy policy. I regret that the amendment tabled by my colleagues, Mr Reul, Mrs Laperrouze, Mrs Trautmann and others, for which I voted, has not been adopted by Parliament, since it provided for a balanced alternative to the mere ownership unbundling of energy networks, while safeguarding the independence of that unbundling. These are subjects on which the political debate is far from over. The same is true of the role of the regulators, the lifting of the barriers to interconnections, the development of new massive generation from renewable energy sources, the substantial investment in infrastructure to meet growing needs and so on.

  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Vidal-Quadras report on the prospects for the internal gas and electricity market which prepares for the presentation next September by the Commission of a third ‘liberalisation’ package.

First of all I am opposed to the liberal dogmatic principle of ownership unbundling (ownership and management of the network), because it brings no guarantee in relation to investments, supply, safety or access for third parties and renewable energy to the network. It does not ensure availability of energy at the best price for citizens and it does not fulfil public service obligations either. Why then disrupt the present organisation, which works well and ensures the effective independence of system operators, thanks, in particular to strong intervention by the regulator and putting in place strict rules to guarantee equality of treatment and a quality service to all users of the networks, even those who live in regions with a natural handicap and very remote regions.

Furthermore, I think that the problem of the independence of the transmission system operators does not relate to the issue of the system of ownership, but to that of regulation. Why, therefore, ask for the elimination of the public character of energy operators?

  Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I regret the adoption of ownership unbundling defended by the fierce defenders of the dismantling of large companies.

In my opinion, the liberal right has struck another blow to the principle of public service mission, which is so dear to European citizens.

I think that ownership unbundling brings no guarantee in relation to investments, safety or third party access (including renewable energy sources, which could be penalised because of their high costs). Nor does it ensure availability of energy at the best price for citizens.

I believe it would have been preferable to retain a system like the French one, which integrates into its working the legislative rules from previous European directives.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This is another one of the steps towards the liberalisation of the internal gas and electricity market in the wake of the Lisbon Strategy. The keywords in this report are ‘liberalisation’ and ‘market’. The basic idea from which they set out is always the same. The premise, already refuted by innumerable examples, that the market alone will resolve the problem of energy supply and consumption, is defended with growing fervour in an effort to conjure away what is increasingly difficult to ignore: that the ‘market’ has only been a success for some, who have accumulated fabulous profits, but not for the consumers, who find themselves confronted with ever-higher energy bills.

Its strategic nature means that the energy sector is vital for a country’s independence and sovereignty. To subject it to private national and transnational interests is an affront to the sovereignty of the peoples and the rights of the workers and populations.

We, therefore, once again, reject the liberalisation of gas and electricity, advocating that they should remain in the public sector as the sole guarantee of access to a continuous service offering quality and accessible prices.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors because I do not consider that transmission ownership unbundling is the most effective way of stimulating investment in these infrastructures. As the report recognises, ‘this model might not address all of the issues at stake, such as interconnections and congestion points’. The fact is that the electricity market and the gas market require significant investment. It is not by eliminating the big operators in the market that the European Union will be able to guarantee its security of supply. A strange fact remains that the European countries that have liberalised the most also have the highest prices for consumers.

  Bairbre de Brún and Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. Sinn Féin rejected the Vidal-Quadras report on the internal gas and electricity market because of its emphasis on privatisation and "unbundling". Member States should retain the right to fully own and operate their energy systems if they see fit to do so.

As an all-Ireland party we look forward to the development of an all-Ireland energy market which is fully integrated and managed in an accountable way. Interconnections between north and south are important infrastructural elements in the creation of an all-Ireland economy.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The Union for the Presidential Majority (UMP) delegation wishes to point out and highlight the fact that ownership unbundling is not the best answer to current market dysfunctions.

In a context of strong competition, which sees the emergence of powerful non-European operators, we feel it is dangerous to dismantle the European energy companies in the name of a dogmatic approach to competition policy, far removed from the industrial strategies that ought to strengthen the European Union in global competition.

European energy supply is a strategic long-term issue that requires its security to be guaranteed beyond the duration of a single contract. This security of energy supply depends upon investments that are already clearly inadequate. They will, however, have to increase significantly in order to meet our future needs whether for gas or electricity.

Ownership unbundling means that our traditional energy operators will not be able to realise these investments in the energy networks. Handing over this opportunity to new entrants, who will not necessarily have the financial resources needed, or to non-European companies, who do not necessarily share our assessment of our future needs is very dangerous and very worrying.

In these circumstances, the UMP delegation expects the European Commission to develop an alternative approach to ownership unbundling.

- Report: Struan Stevenson (A6-0155/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Animal proteins are not a natural part – and I emphasise the word ‘natural’ – of the diet of, for example, an adult bovine.

Currently, many appear to have forgotten – or make out that they have forgotten – the consequences of the ‘mad cow’ crisis – BSE – on human and animal health, and the socio-economic consequences underlying the intensive production model which caused it.

The current report supports the lifting of the ban on the use of fish oil and flour in ruminant fodder. The intention is to further increase the profits of the agro-industry and large-scale farmers.

We should reject this intention. Not only because this measure is linked to the development of intensive production and the verticalisation of agricultural production, and because it would encourage fishing on an industrial scale to obtain fish flour and oil for fodder, namely for ruminants – when, at a time of scarcity, maritime fishing resources should be put to better use as foodstuff for human consumption – but, above all, because there are still risks for human and animal health.

Thus, we consider imperative the application of the principle of precaution. We therefore regret the rejection of our proposal to reject the lifting of the current ban.

11. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 3.05 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

12. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

13. Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century (continuation of debate)

  President. – The next item is the continuation of the debate on the report by Jacek Protasiewicz on modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

  Thomas Mann (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, despite considerable time pressure, the rapporteur Mr Protasiewicz has achieved a compromise that strikes a balance between security and flexibility in current labour law. Some formulations, however, are still not precise enough, such as those in Article 35, which gives varying definitions of a worker’s status under labour law. How is the principle of ‘self-employed at noon, employed in the evening’ supposed to function? Economically dependent self-employed workers are also self-employed when they have one single employer. They are usually people making their living from micro businesses, and they are responsible for a large proportion of work places in the EU. Attempts to make a clear-cut delineation between employees and the self-employed in my country, Germany, in the 1990s resulted in a collapse of new business start-ups and thousands of micro businesses.

I have the greatest doubts regarding the joint and several liability for general and principal undertakings, which gives rise to many practical problems. General undertakings are burdened with state tasks. They are being subjected to further red tape and considerable costs. For this reason I have tabled an amendment that will clearly remove such far-reaching obligations.

In a further amendment I underscore the competence of the European Union and its Member States for labour law, as provided for in Articles 127 and 137 of the EC Treaty. We must reject any further regulation or harmonisation at European level.

I recommend that we vote in favour of the report tomorrow when the amendments have been included, not least because of the rapporteur’s efforts to be so balanced.

  Jan Andersson (PSE). – (SV) I should like to thank all those involved, the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs, for the constructive work they have done in the committee in order to produce a report around which we can substantially unite. We must consider this report in the light of the global challenges and of demographic developments that mean we have to transform Europe. I have said it before and I shall say it again: the Commission has begun at the wrong end.

The important thing is security in the face of change. What is most important, then, is not labour law, but having an active labour market policy. Our concern should be with education, lifelong learning and sound employment security arrangements so that individuals can, in one way or another, transfer to new jobs in their old company or to a new company. This development must be seen as something positive, rather than as a threat. The Commission therefore started at the wrong end by challenging labour law. Sound labour law is needed in Europe if employees are to feel secure.

What is the situation at present? We have growth and an increase in employment in Europe. That is positive. However, we also see another development. There is an increase in the number of poor and insecure jobs that fail to provide a decent living and that, for example, offer poor working conditions. That is something that we must get to grips with, and we do not do that by impairing labour law. We do it, rather, by tackling the bad jobs and making them better and more secure so that they more closely resemble standard full-time jobs. That is the route we must take.

The Commission then also concentrated on individual labour law, and that was unfortunate. Collective labour law plays a huge role in many European countries. The social partners have a large part to play in labour law. It would not be out of place also to draw attention to collective labour law and the important work done by the social partners in the form of the social dialogue.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). – Mr President, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur and thank him for his cooperation. This debate is about the future of labour law and we must recognise the current reality, which is that there has been an increase in non-standard contracts and that we must focus on employment security rather than on job security.

I do not believe we should be calling for a definition of worker at EU level. That should be left up to Member States. As far as collective bargaining is concerned, it still has a very significant role to play, but we must make sure that people who do not belong to a trade union have a way into the process. As, too, should small and medium-sized enterprises.

At the moment, the Commission’s list of social partners is short, and I believe it fails to truly take into account the views of SMEs, which are in many ways the engine room of Europe’s economy. I urge everyone here to vote for the ALDE Group’s amendments.

  Konrad Szymański (UEN), – (PL) Mr President, I shall be brief: I congratulate the rapporteur, but not the majority of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which has brought us these amendments to the report. The jobs market is changing – new professions, new technologies and the growing share of services mean that new forms of employment will appear.

The left’s anxieties regarding worse paid and less secure jobs is usually erroneous. The real problem is the spread of inflexible solutions which hinder the creation of new jobs and condemn a large group of people to unemployment, and the transposition of such negative experience to countries which have a very competitive jobs market.

The red tape facing firms delegating workers within the European market is nothing more than a modern form of protectionism, aimed mainly at the new Member States, as shown by the examples of the Vaxholm and Viking Line cases, which went all the way to the European Court of Justice.

For these reasons, if the amendments proposed by the members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats are implemented, by the rapporteur as well as by others, this report will not be able to count on my support.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the daily examples we have seen of exploitation of workers in Portugal and in other European Union countries such as Holland and Romania, where Portuguese people are also involved, demonstrate that the intention, in the name of modernisation of labour law, is to facilitate dismissals by altering notice periods, costs and procedures applicable to individual and collective dismissal, and the very definition of unfair individual dismissal in order to destroy current contractual relationships.

They also want to make alterations to working hours and organisation, with all the consequences in the attack on collective contracting itself and the organisation of the workforce. Placing employers and workers on the same side of the scale of contractual provisions in what is supposedly a modern organisation of labour devalues the need to protect secure employment and the rights of the weakest link in labour relations: the workers who need their jobs and their salaries to survive.

As was demonstrated in Guimarães on the 5 July, the workers are fighting these serious proposals.

  Ana Mato Adrover (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating Jacek Protasiewicz on the efforts he is making to find consensus and I hope that he will be successful tomorrow.

There is no doubt that a joint reflection was needed on what the rules for regulating the labour market mean, and I believe that the Green Paper has offered a good opportunity to do that.

New challenges and problems have arisen since the Luxembourg Summit, such as immigration and the ageing of the population, and in 1997 – we remember the objective was simply to incentivise the creation of jobs. Today, in an era of greater economic dynamism, we are advocating not just full employment but also high-quality employment.

By that I mean that we are seeking better working conditions, greater business management efficiency, reconciliation of family and working life, life-long learning and also stability. That is where I have my first reservation about the report.

Stability cannot be incompatible with part-time contracts. The report rules out this kind of contract and only advocates full-time contracts, forgetting how necessary part-time contracts, which can be indefinite and stable, are to the reconciliation of work and family life.

The report also criminalises and forgets temporary contracts, which are crucial and irreplaceable in certain sectors, such as tourism, catering, construction and agriculture, in which it would be unthinkable to draw up indefinite contracts, given the role they play.

Another reservation I would like to stress is that we know that labour systems vary enormously from one country to another. So do industrial relations, and it is therefore very difficult to produce joint legislation at European level.

We are more in favour of subsidiarity, and also the open coordination method and agreement amongst social agents. Naturally, we do not want to give the Commission a blank cheque to act on labour law issues without taking account of the different countries and the different characteristics that each of them have.

  Françoise Castex (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was time, I think, that the European Union took up this debate and we can be pleased with the initiative of the Green Paper. Nonetheless, I fear that this initiative is not necessarily good news for European workers. The Green Paper is to be criticised as much for the method adopted as for the guidelines that it proposes.

First of all, concerning the method: I deplore that this consultation does not conform to the procedure laid down in Article 138 of the Treaty, which gives a particular status to the social partners when it is a matter of social policy. This derogation from the procedure is moreover denounced by the European Trade Union Confederation.

Next, the subject matter: a Green Paper must be impartial. It has to ask questions without giving answers a priori. The European Commission, however, makes claims that are patently ideological. That is the case when it criticises the traditional model for creating an obstacle to employment. It is the case again when it states that protection against redundancy is an obstacle to the dynamism of enterprises and lists work insecurity as evidence of modernity.

There exists in Europe and in international law enacted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) principles and fundamental rights which must be respected. The open-ended contract must be confirmed as being the rule. The employee must be protected by legislation or collective bargaining or both. That is why, and I insist, collective bargaining must remain the major source for working out labour law.

A word, finally, on the concept of flexicurity, set up as a principle. As defined here, it introduces a major imbalance in the distribution of competences between the European Union and the Member States. The European Union would impose flexibility and would leave to Member States alone the responsibility for ensuring the security of employees. Our fellow citizens want a Europe that protects their rights and their social model. Let us not give them the image of a Europe that destroys their social acquis. Their adherence to the European project is at stake, let us not forget it.

  Ona Juknevičienė (ALDE). – (LT) There are two important issues in the document prepared by Mr Protasiewicz: 1) Non-standard employment contracts, 2) the concept of employee.

When non-standard employment contracts are applied, instances of employee discrimination occur. They are not provided with adequate social guarantees. However, flexibility helps firms adapt to market changes, and it helps employees balance their personal and professional lives.

Many Lithuanians work in the construction industry in the UK having registered as independent workers. In reality they work for construction firms, just like other workers. However, they do not have equal employment, social and other guarantees. The definition of an employee should be based on his real situation in the workplace and during working hours. Our goal is an effective labour market, in which a person would find suitable employment, and firms would find suitable employees. The document we are considering today is a contribution toward achieving this goal.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank Mr Protasiewicz for tackling the important issue of the adaptation of labour legislation to contemporary requirements. Although we know that there is no Community labour code, the European Union should nevertheless inspire positive and competitive changes and some standardisation in the area affecting labour law.

I would like at this point to bring in an extract from the position of the Polish Solidarity trade union regarding the Green Paper which says that while the main basis for work should continue to be a contract of employment of indefinite duration, which guarantees the proper protection of the permanence of employment relations, it does acknowledge the definition of a dependent worker to cover all persons working in conditions of dependence on a contractor, including some people providing work on the basis of civil law contracts. This should be tied in with a clear definition of self-employment.

I would like, at least in summary form, to raise a number of important issues: distance working, particularly work for young parents and the disabled, and the need to eliminate differences in pay between men and women doing the same work. The key words today should be: employment, flexibility, security. It is, however, not words, but people that are important – on the one hand, those people who wish to earn a living for their family by performing hired work, including the unemployed, and on the other, people who are employers – both private and public, and those who feel responsible for resolving our increasingly global problems.

  Edit Bauer (PPE-DE). – (SK) I agree with the opinion of those who would not like to live in an environment where labour law would exclusively reflect the needs of competition.

Undoubtedly, new economic trends result in the need for a more flexible labour market, which is associated with a higher proportion of atypical and non-standard labour contracts. The underlying question in this context is: Who should assume the new and greater risks of a more flexible labour market? The issue is not just one of greater protection for ‘outsiders’, as individuals or their families will have to bear the risks, and social losses will prove disproportionately large without a new approach based on the introduction of a win-win model. Just think of the problems associated with the demographic crisis. It is difficult to find a solution. So far, there seem to be more questions than answers, both at European and Member State levels.

A new paradigm appears to be necessary in the area of labour law, but not only in the narrow sense of the term. Originally, the concept of ‘flexsecurity’ was based on the assumption that individuals could and should adapt to the new conditions of a flexible labour market, but should not bear the risks ensuing from the new situation. Instead, they should be spread between the individual, employer and society. There is no doubt that seeking the right answers requires political courage. The courage to look for answers that will serve not only the interests of competition to the exclusion of all else, but will represent a new balance of values.

  Joel Hasse Ferreira (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to commend Mr Protasiewicz for having succeeded, with our help, in transforming his initial report into a Parliamentary report. A word, too, for Mr Christensen who organised a structured collective contribution on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. The report includes aspects that are central to the current European debate, such as the question of flexisecurity. I would point out that flexisecurity can only be achieved by means of an efficient and modern labour law in which collective negotiation and the existence of social partners are an important part of the approach to the concept.

Also important is the invitation to Member States to review and adapt their social security systems in order to complement the active labour market policies, namely life-long training and learning. I was delighted to present certain amendments relating to the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises as an important driving force for the creation and growth of employment in Europe, as well as for social and regional development. The strengthening of the role of the SMEs in improving labour legislation is important.

Also important is an improvement in coordination between national labour legislation and social inspections. This is indispensable for a more effective fight against the exploitation of immigrant labour. And we must also acknowledge the need to introduce sufficiently flexible working methods and hours to address the needs of the workers and the firms or institutions in which they work.

In this context, it is also important to point out and stress that all workers should be entitled to the same level of protection and that certain groups should not be excluded from higher protection levels from the outset, such as seafarers, crews on ships and off-shore workers. Before closing, I must make a point of emphasising the invitation extended by the European Parliament to its Member States to eliminate access restrictions to their labour markets, thereby improving the mobility of workers throughout the European Union and helping to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy more quickly.

Labour law can and should be modernised but it should strengthen, rather than calling into question, the social balance in each Member State, as well as European social cohesion.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Considering, first of all, Europe’s ageing society and, secondly, one of the most important objectives of the Lisbon strategy, i.e. achieving a high level of employment, I am convinced that the traditional model of employment relations is not necessarily suitable for employees with ordinary employment contracts concluded for an unspecified term.

In a turbulent society, employees must be able to adapt to changes and take advantage of the opportunities brought by globalisation.

Thus I find that alternative models of contractual relations can, in addition to other things, increase companies’ ability to channel the creativity of their labour, thereby also creating additional competitive advantages.

The best way to achieve the above is to use the open coordination method, which is a useful method of exchanging information about best practices in order to respond to shared challenges in a flexible and transparent manner.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the rapporteur for having the courage to examine this topic in such detail, and all of you for your attention.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the demographic problems faced by many countries of the European Union today have been caused, amongst others reasons, by the instability of young people. Today, for a young person to find a reasonably secure job, he or she has to prove their experience and provide the references employers demand. For this reason, many people do not decide to start a family until middle age, which obviously does not encourage large families, and Europe must think and act in order to ensure that its identity and Christian traditions survive and dominate in the coming years.

I would like to congratulate my colleague on a report which outlines the fundamental problems, while at the same time dedicating a great deal of attention to the stability of employment in the form of employment contracts of an indefinite duration, which ought to be the norm.

It is also important that Europe raise the restrictions on access to employment markets by the new Member States, particularly because these restrictions are imposed by the states that talk the most about European integration while they are in fact implementing extensive national interventionism.

  Richard Falbr (PSE). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I see no reason to adopt a conciliatory tone. There is too much at stake. The Green Paper on the modernisation of labour law has just one merit: it can easily be torn to shreds as an unbelievable concoction of half-truths and hypocritical observations. I should like to use my speech to ask a few questions.

Why was the report’s content not discussed with the social partners? Do they perhaps not exist at European level? Labour law has emerged and developed for 100 years in such a way that employees offering their services to employers could operate on a level playing field. Why does the Green Paper appear to suggest that the need to ensure such equality no longer exists? Why does the document not point out that a great deal of work is already being done outside the scope of labour law? Does the Commission view work as a commodity? Why does the Green Paper affirm so strongly that indefinite employment contracts are outdated and that 76% of Europeans agree with that statement? Why does the Green Paper also not propose to scrap the International Labour Organisation on the basis of everything it has adopted in almost 100 years? Could Mr Špidla tell me whether he knows that, with the exception of a few Member States, the hypocritical guidelines for increasing the role of the social partners cannot be fulfilled? Does he know that in a number of Member States the idea of social dialogue is a fiction and a means for the government to discredit the unions? All of which applies to the Czech Republic. Does he know that for those who have a precarious job, joining a union is virtually impossible? Does he know that work inspections in a number of countries exist solely on paper? This, once again, is true of the Czech Republic.

Particular mention must be made of the newly coined expression ‘flexicurity’, an example of European newspeak that is supposed to give the impression that it has nothing to do with ‘flexploitation’. This will apparently lead to fewer differences between insiders and outsiders on the labour market, so that everyone becomes outsiders.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the Commission proposal for the future of labour law is an important step, even if we have to remember that the modernisation of employment legislation is primarily a matter for the Member States.

I bemoan the fact that this initiative by the Commission is very one-sided, and I am particularly sorry that this Green Paper totally ignores the colossal pay differences still to be found between women and men in the Member States of the EU.

The Commission is not interested in jobs in which women and men in different European countries could receive the same and equal treatment now we are in the 21st century. I would also have expected the proposal to have pondered ways to implement the eight directives on equality which the EU has adopted and which would guarantee pay equality between men and women.

I want to say finally that it is unfortunate that not a lot can be expected of the EU in the area of promoting equality between women and men.

  Wiesław Stefan Kuc (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, labour law is one of the most difficult documents, both as regards its legal aspects and in terms of content. It contains not only economic and legal, but also moral elements. Reconciling these elements is a tricky, and sometimes impossible, task, but we will try and reconcile them as much as possible.

What should labour law in the 21st century look like? It must meet the following conditions, including: firstly, it needs to be flexible, and be able to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. Secondly, it should protect workers and promote their development. Thirdly, it should protect the interests of employers and enable firms to develop whilst being as effective as possible. Fourthly, it must allow optimum use of labour resources. Fifthly, it must allow dialogue between workers and employers. And most importantly, the right to work must be equal throughout the European Union, and be applicable in all Member States.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, an effort is being made through European legislation and the legislation of the Member States and through dialogue between the social partners to modernise the legal framework which will continue to give employers and workers every form of legal security and social protection.

The question is: are social protection and social integration consequences of or prerequisites to achieving the objectives of economic growth, full employment and social justice?

I accept the alternative role of the two targets in the sense of ‘which comes first, the chicken or the egg?’

Promoting economic growth and protecting the safety of workers must be joint consensual objectives from the planning level to the implementation level, with attention to the need for a flexible market and to strengthen safety, which is a two-fold challenge, so that we gather speed, in accordance with your proposal Commissioner, and play a leading role in an open, international, competitive environment, without betraying values or current social standards.

The new forms of optional employment and voluntary acceptance make it easier for groups with special characteristics, such as young people, elderly workers and women, to enter and remain on the labour market. Exchanging best practices on innovative arrangements safeguards the balance between professional and family life, with particular support for women and their triple duties.

Workers have different needs depending on their time of life and career prospects. Each Member State also has its peculiarities and different economic conditions and passes national legislation. European legislation is a supplement and complement for cross-border relations and for achieving a single free market.

We must not forget the possibilities of lifelong learning in combating unemployment and we must remember that, with confidence in relations between the state and the social partners, with respect for people’s dignity, serving social justice and avoiding conflicts, we shall increase European competitiveness and prosperity.

  Maria Matsouka (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, the debate on modernising labour law, where it was a substantive debate rather than a pretext, was an important opportunity to illustrate the radical differences between the right and the left wings.

The right wing interprets high rates of unemployment and poverty as a result of the inflexibility of labour law. It considers the black market as more or less inevitable and, in order to legalise all this, talks of flexibility with security. And what better than the Danish model? However, it can only be applied if there is full economic, financial and fiscal harmonisation between the Member States.

The report we are to vote on improves the initial draft on numerous points, thanks to the socialists’ global counter-proposal focusing on protection for workers, which is neither the cause of unemployment nor an act of charity. It is simply one of the most important pillars of economic growth and social justice.

Let us not deny the truth! In the face of the historically unprecedented increase in produced wealth and its dangerous unequal distribution for the benefit of employers, we must deepen the concept of labour law.

  Janusz Wojciechowski (UEN) – (PL). Mr President, fortunately the European Parliament has taken a holistic approach to the issue of employment law, and for this I express my gratitude to the rapporteur Jacek Protasiewicz, who has prepared a report of the highest quality.

I would like to take this occasion to mention the tragic position of foreign workers in many European Union countries. More slave or semi-slave labour camps have been discovered in particular countries. People looking for work abroad to earn their living fall into the hands of unscrupulous criminals who exploit, humiliate and sometimes murder them. This state of affairs is a disgrace for the European Union in the 21st century.

The European Parliament must make an appeal to all its members and to its labour inspection and law enforcement authorities to focus particular attention on the plight of foreign workers and to effectively counter their exploitation by criminals.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) As you can see, we can still rely on eye contact, which is great. Mr President, it is good thing that we are debating labour law today, for the very reason that a number of things are changing within the labour market in Europe and in all our Member States.

Indeed, we can see that there is a huge need for flexibility to better anticipate the market needs, but also on the part of the employees themselves, because they often want to combine work with family, extended family and care commitments. This flexibility is needed, not least in a society whose share of old people is increasing while its share of young people is decreasing, and in which the ageing population probably no longer wants to work for the full 40 or 36 hours within the labour market, but would nevertheless like to keep its hand in with a less demanding job.

If, however – and this is why a debate is so useful – we want this flexibility, and recognise it as a benefit, this also means that from the beginning – and I regret the fact that Mrs Matsouka has left the Chamber, because she mentioned a debate between Right and Left, but is refusing to listen – we must, alongside this flexibility, put certainty in place on behalf of those who want to work in smaller and more flexible jobs and thus allow the labour market to function more effectively.

It is a shortcoming – which we may be able to rectify with the amendments which will be adopted in a moment – that the great good of flexibility is no longer recognised. This is something I regret. I also believe that we cannot leave it up to the market alone, because the market regulates itself. We must once again try to put flexibility in place, combined with proper certainties.

  Richard Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, there are over 1 million temporary agency workers in Britain, and more than 6 million across Europe, according to the Dublin Foundation. It is the biggest growing form of atypical work in the EU over the last 20 years, yet this is a group of workers denied employment protection under EU law.

In my own East of England constituency up to 80 000 migrant workers have come from the so-called accession-8 countries, the largest number anywhere in the UK. Many arrive thanks to employment agencies and too many suffer abuse, though not all of them. Take the agency workers identified by the Communication Workers Union contracted to British Telecom in Norwich, Ipswich and Brentwood who have missed out on two successive pay rises, get 16 – not 25 – days’ holiday, and are paid 50% less overtime compared with their permanent colleagues. Or the Bernard Matthews workers in Norfolk and Suffolk, 60% agency workers recruited in Portugal awarded just GBP 19 per day for six days when they were laid off in response to the bird flu outbreak.

To the Commission I say you offer ‘flexicurity’. We see, indeed we welcome, some of the flexibility, but where is the security if it is not for temporary agency workers? To the incoming Portuguese Presidency, there must be a sensible compromise in the qualifying period, but this is a directive that has never been voted on since EU enlargement. Put it to the vote, see where the majority is. The Government in the UK has said it will support the directive. So should the whole of Europe.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) The growth in employment is primarily due to SMEs and sole traders. These employers rank high in creating new job opportunities and increasing employment in Europe.

For that reason, and in view of the broad spectrum of labour traditions, business contracts and types of business in the labour markets of the EU Member States, the priority task of the EU must be to create European legislation that will strengthen the position of SMEs while creating new jobs through improvements to labour law.

Experience shows that, for example, the European Directive on Overtime, which has been objected to by many of the EU Member States, should not be incorporated into labour law and must be revised. The reason for this is that restrictions on overtime pose a threat to many sectors of the economy, whether we are talking about employees in the healthcare sector, mining, social services or the fire brigades.

This month, in my country (Slovakia) the national parliament passed a new Labour Law that provoked negative reactions in particular from SMEs. The government wanted to strengthen the position of the unions and extend their powers. The fact is that thanks to pressure from the opposition and employers’ groups, the original government proposal was amended significantly, establishing a balance of sorts between the competencies of unions and employers in the final bill. Moreover, an amendment from the SDKÚ-DS has succeeded in modifying the definition of the term 'dependent work' in a way that does not threaten sole traders. Thanks to more than 600 comments made during the preparation and dozens more in Parliament, it proved possible to amend the original proposal from Smer SD, and thus to avoid sending Slovak labour law back to the previous century.

The high unemployment rate in Europe, particularly in the New Member States, is a failure crying out for measures to be taken, and I therefore welcome the approach of the rapporteur, Mr Jacek Protasiewicz, whose report proposes solutions for fulfilling a vision of the 21st century. However, I am concerned by its wording following the vote in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which I cannot support unless the amendments presented by the rapporteur on behalf of our political party (The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats) are adopted. Some parts of the draft report present an obsolete and unbalanced view of current problems on European labour markets, and for this reason the report attempts to protect only the employees. Such an interpretation of labour policy could lead to a situation where there will be nothing to protect them from, as they will be unemployed.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we should not view the Protasiewicz report divorced from the oral question and the motion for a resolution. I would like to thank both rapporteurs for their work.

Unfortunately, the posting of workers in the services sphere has still not got any unified Europe-wide standards. It also shows that the coordination of communication and the information flow between Member States and the competent authorities leaves much to be desired. Controls regarding this also still remain inadequate. A balanced relationship between freedom of movement and service provision, on the one hand, and worker protection on the other, is absolutely necessary. In my view, a regulation in this respect will be the simplest and most effective means of preventing social dumping.

Cooperation between Member States and information exchange must be promoted and tightened up, and appropriate control measures introduced. Additional detail in the Commission’s guidelines would be helpful here. To secure the protection and rights of workers, I propose that the host countries carry out the relevant checks and controls.

The Commission should therefore actively support cooperation between supervisory authorities of the Member States by implementing a permanent platform for trans-border collaboration. As regards business and employees, I also urge for a stronger involvement of the social partners on this issue. Only balance will bring more employment, and therefore greater welfare and security, for everybody in Europe.

  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE). – Consider că acest raport este unul echilibrat şi care reflectă diversitatea relaţiilor de muncă de pe teritoriul Uniunii Europene, dar şi a poziţiilor politice faţă de un subiect care dă naştere unor discuţii aprinse.

Atingerea unui echilibru în relaţia dintre angajat şi angajator, în care ambele părţi au de câştigat, trebuie să fie o prioritate a Uniunii Europene. În acest cadru, al flexibilităţii şi al securităţii, angajatorul câştigă mai multă forţă de muncă, iar angajatul mai multă protecţie pentru tipul de contract flexibil.

Pentru România, unde avem un rezervor important de forţă de muncă în zona rurală, contractele de muncă flexibile sunt o soluţie pentru a intra pe piaţa muncii fără a pierde din drepturile sociale de care beneficiază angajaţii cu contract clasic. Aceasta ar asigura o integrare mai rapidă pe piaţa muncii a lucrătorilor din zona rurală, care vor putea să participe la creşterea economiei din anii următori şi să beneficieze de ea.

Apreciez atenţia pe care raportul o acordă sprijinirii familiei. Multe dintre aceste contracte flexibile sunt alese de femei care trebuie să facă faţă unei presiuni din ce în ce mai mari de a concilia viaţa profesională cu cea familială.

În sprijinul tinerilor aş fi dorit ca raportul să încurajeze mai mult utilizarea tehnologiei informaţiei şi a comunicării ca instrumente principale în modul de lucru. Munca la distanţă în condiţii de maximă mobilitate este o tendinţă deja prezentă pe care trebuie să o folosim în beneficiul celor mai bine pregătiţi pentru ea.

Pentru reducerea muncii la negru trebuie să încurajăm angajatorii să declare relaţiile de muncă fără să fie dezavantajaţi economic. O parte din acest fenomen este cauzată de restricţiile pe care unele state membre încă le menţin pentru lucrătorii din ţările care au aderat recent la Uniunea Europeană. Este o discriminare inutilă care creează atât probleme de administrare pentru statele respective cât şi riscuri pentru lucrători. De aceea consider ca eliminarea perioadelor de tranziţie impuse de aceste state membre va avea ca efect direct reducerea muncii la negru.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE) – (PL) Mr President, modifying labour law in the European Union is important not only for safety and for job protection, but also has a major impact on employment levels. We have been involved in lengthy discussions about whether global competition requires changes in the current model of labour law. My view is that it definitely does.

For the last twenty years we have been observing a gradual and increasingly rapid retreat from the standard forms of labour law and the general model of employment. This phenomenon is a response to the challenges of globalisation, which is an independent process, and like it or not, it is up to us whether our societies make use of the opportunities that it provides.

Countering the negative aspects of globalisation requires much more flexible labour law, whilst retaining current levels of safety. We should remember that currently the level of employment security in the European Union is the highest in the world. We do not need to enhance job security any more, but need greater flexibility and mobility and liberalisation of the jobs markets in all Member States.

In spite of all regulation, flexibility is making inroads in our lives. Currently, 40% of all forms of employment are atypical, and these are responsible for 60% of new jobs. Ultimately, and this is the most hopeful sign yet, two-thirds of atypical forms of employment turn into the traditional form, that is, permanent contracts.

The traditional structures of labour law do not bear up to present-day realities. In modern service-based economies, or those based on SMEs, a more flexible and atypical approach may be the key to success.

Of course, flexibility is not enough if there is no worker mobility. For this reason, I appeal for the complete opening of the labour market in the European Union for workers from all Member States. We now know that the benefits of liberalising labour markets are enjoyed not just by the migrant workers, but also by the countries that decided to open their labour markets.

No economy can develop and be competitive without properly functioning enterprises capable of competing on the global market, and skilfully run by good managers and owners. But even the best-run firms cannot operate without a good workforce. Each needs the other to survive.

  Iles Braghetto (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the need to modernise labour law in the face of the innovations of the 21st century imposes genuine, demanding challenges on the existing labour market, especially on all those looking for a new job, a high-quality job, a job that ties in with other areas of their personal lives.

Marrying flexibility of work – which is a characteristic of a competitive, global market – with job security – a right/duty for every European citizen – requires us, as stipulated in the Lisbon Strategy, to make professional skills and abilities usable. This requires the necessary tools to be provided in order to make people desirable in the eyes of businesses, adjusting their technical and specialist training to the new technologies.

In European society there is an educational and training emergency that is preventing or slowing down the development of skills and knowledge. For the European Union, investment in human capital and in the training of young people is the best and most modern way to affirm the right to work. This is one of the challenges put forward by the Green Paper.

I thank the rapporteur for the work he has done in harmonising the various points of view that were expressed in the debate.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to start, if I may, by thanking the Commission for its very thoughtful Green Paper. The Commission’s work has given rise to this report, and its work has triggered this debate. I think the fact that it was written the way it was – and indeed that the Commission has consulted as widely and as richly as it has – has certainly added further richness to our own deliberations. I would certainly hope that, at the end of the vote tomorrow, after all the amendments have been voted on, the Commissioner in turn might consider it appropriate to thank Parliament for our positive response to its work, but we shall see how we do.

Mention has already been made of the rapporteur and the outstanding job that he has done and I would like to associate myself with those remarks. A lot of comments have been made by different colleagues about the word ‘flexibility’. I think the rapporteur has shown great flexibility in recognising the validity of concerns expressed by members of other political groups, but I think also that flexibility has been shown by the shadows in taking on board the position of the rapporteur. I would like to thank all of those for their work. Earlier in our debate, Mr Szymański said that he could not extend his congratulations to the work of the committee. I have some sympathy with those comments. I would just like to say to him that, in the context of limited time, the report that came out of the committee was in essence an interim report. I have every confidence that the report which will come out of this House tomorrow after the amendments will be on a substantially different basis and that a potentially divisive issue will end up giving a clearly united message.

Finally, I would like to ask the Commission, in its analysis of our discussions, to take a look at what is taken out of the report between the committee stage and this stage. I think that has a significant message. I should also like the Commission to consider what is left in. I want particularly to draw attention to paragraph 10 concerning the issue of working time and the need for greater flexibility for employees and employers alike. It is one thing to say that we need more flexibility. We invite the Commission to show that same flexibility in advancing that very difficult and sensitive file.

Finally, I would just like to mention our assistants, and here I mean not just assistants to us as MEPs, but also the assistants of our parliamentary groups. They are so often the forgotten heroes and heroines. I think that the work that they have done has been remarkable, especially in such a remarkably short time. So hopefully on behalf of all of you, I would like to thank and congratulate them for all that they have done.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. – (CS) Mr President, honourable Members, it came as no surprise that the debate on labour law was far-reaching and profound, and often quite heated. That is natural because the issue of labour law is one of the most sensitive and lies at the very heart of the European social model. I am very pleased that the Green Paper formed the basis for this exceptionally thorough discussion. There were more than 450 different opinions, which far exceeds the normal amount when it comes to a public consultation on a Green Paper. It is also clear that the Green Paper does not purport to resolve the issue of labour law, but rather raises questions. The Commission will be assessing these questions and will subsequently issue responses.

I feel that the debate in this Chamber demonstrates that there are good prospects for consensus on some of the key elements. I should like to refer to some of those that I feel are particularly important. The first of these is the need for meaningful dialogue. Regardless of the fact that the level of social dialogue in some Member States is very low, I believe that this is a fundamental component. This is above all why we provide direct support for social dialogue within the framework of the European social fund, especially through the creation of administrative capacity for the social partners.

The second concern that should be highlighted is that labour law does not exist in a vacuum and that any debate on the subject will always be sensitive and will always impact on the social partners. I also think that the future development of labour law requires avoiding any measures that would lead to the disintegration of the labour market, increased employment insecurity or any reduction in workers’ fundamental rights.

It appears that the situation of workers who are formally self-employed but economically dependent on one main consumer or employer who is the source of their income must be resolved. Labour law must be proactively enforced in order to protect and support high-quality jobs and to combat undeclared work.

Honourable Members, some questions have arisen that are outside the main thrust of the debate, and which will probably not be answered even in the vote, so I should like to touch upon them. Let me stress that social protection is a precondition for full employment, rather a consequence thereof. Labour markets with very weak labour protection – as in developing countries, for example – do not provide sufficiently effective job creation. I should also like to emphasise that there is already a directive on the posting of workers, and we shall in due course be debating a number of interpretations of it. For this reason a certain standard already exists, even though one can easily imagine a different course of development.

The issue of employment agencies was also raised. I should like to point out that the Portuguese Presidency has more or less incorporated this issue into its programme and in the context of the Presidency we will be trying to make some much-needed progress. The description of the market development of employment agencies outlined by the honourable Member was, in my view, a very precise one. The dynamic of this market is clear, in common with some phenomena that can certainly be viewed as indicators of possible social dumping.

Honourable Members, the labour market is changing markedly and it is extremely important for us to find some general answers at EU level and more importantly in the Member States, which are in a position to enforce labour law, and which are capable of, on the one hand, supporting our overall capacity, effectiveness, competitiveness and strength as a society, and, on the other, guaranteeing appropriate security for workers in the 21st century. This is no easy task, but the debate has convinced me that your report does have a chance of being adopted, and I therefore await the final outcome with interest.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROTHE
Vice-President

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, 11 July 2007.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Bogdan Golik (PSE), in writing – (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Protasiewicz for his businesslike and difficult report. It is very important that we have started a public debate on the directions for the modernisation of labour law to meet the challenges of globalisation, persistent structural unemployment and demographic trends that do not benefit the European Union.

The world around us and the points of the report show that what we need today is an EU with a common policy to fight unemployment modelled on the common energy policy. A common policy is all the more necessary because it is a problem that even the wealthiest European states, such as Germany and France, where unemployment may soon reach 10%, are unable to deal with it.

I have my doubts regarding the proposal to adopt common regulations at EU level to create the foundations for a system of minimum social standards proposed in point S. In my view, the disparity between Member States is currently so great that the proposal is simply unworkable. Minimum quotas should be independently regulated by the Member States depending on their level of economic development, the situation on their labour market, and their traditions.

Much of data indicates that employment has grown thanks to ‘atypical’ contracts. The dilemma is therefore not on what basis a person is employed, but whether they are working or not. This should be the priority of the Member States and the entire EU in the coming years, with a special focus on young entrants to the jobs market, women, and elderly people.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) My heartfelt congratulations to the rapporteur on his report in which he provides a realistic analysis of the changes needed in labour law to bring it up to the challenges of the 21st century.

In my view, labour law is still anachronistic in particular countries, and irrelevant to the challenges of globalisation.

The modern world needs clear and flexible labour law. Workers should be able to benefit from lifelong education and training that adapts them to the requirements of the jobs market.

The main problem for the jobs market is the red tape required for enterprises, which holds back the developments of companies. Eliminating barriers in the SME sector means enhancing their competitiveness, resulting in an increase in jobs.

The modernisation of labour law should be based on active support for the jobs market. It should be based on promoting the starting and changing of jobs, as well as ongoing training for the jobs market. However, this should not be confused with excessively protective employment policy which results in the artificial maintenance of jobs which the market does not need, and which weakens the market position of the companies affected.

One of the main consequences of maintaining artificial employment is to maintain higher levels of staff costs, or holding back a worker’s development through lack of re-qualification and training opportunities, while on the other hand keeping jobs artificially usually leads to the gradual undermining of a business and its elimination from the market.

It is, therefore, important to actively promote jobs, rather than protect them at any price.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Globalisation, the ageing of the population, acceleration of trade: so many challenges that will have to be taken up tomorrow even more than today.

No Member State can claim to manage these issues alone, and it is indeed through coordinated action with the European Union that the success of employment policy and social policy will be achieved. Also, I am pleased about the own-initiative report on modernising labour law, which is necessary to respond to the challenges of the 21st century. Its objective is more than praiseworthy, it is vital.

Work must be revalued, its legislative framework adapted to the times, and it will be necessary to allow those who wish to work to work, by developing attractive training, and those who are able to work more to do so, by offering more flexibility in negotiations between employees and employers.

Flexibility does not mean the end of protective rules, it means that these rules will be determined by free negotiation appropriate to everyone’s needs, needs which will be stated within a social dialogue that is encouraged.

France has already initiated this dialogue with the social partners, and it is with satisfaction, therefore, that I welcome this report, in line with the ambitions and actions undertaken in France.

  Csaba Őry (PPE-DE), in writing. – (HU) I consider the initiative of the European Commission to be a welcome and considerably courageous step, whereby it has opened up debate around modernising labour law. I am a proponent of a nuanced approach, and of balanced technical amendments. I do not consider it right that some people praise atypical forms of employment to the highest heavens and recommend to both national and Union legislators to recognise at a political level the priority of these atypical forms over the standard employment contracts of unlimited duration. I cannot accept that an atypical contract in itself should be considered of higher value simply because it is atypical.

On the other hand, I also do not consider it right if we were to try to use legislative, administrative or executive tools to force entrepreneurs to make wider use of standard employment contracts. We need to recognise that, under the circumstances of globalisation, our economies are obliged to face up to external economic constraints and must react to these in the interests of securing their continued operation.

Our approach to this difficult question will be a balanced one if we recognise that both standard and atypical forms of employment are justified. A wide range of possible forms of contract should be made available to entrepreneurs, and in face of the challenges of the 21st century, we need to give new answers to countless old problems as well. In the area of the further development of labour law, both the EU and national legislators have very important tasks to fulfil.

14. Posting of workers (debate)

  President. The next item is the oral question to the Commission on the secondment of employees. (0-0041/2007-B6-0312/2007) by Mr Andersson on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

  Jan Andersson (PSE), rapporteur. – (SV) I believe it was Jacques Delors who said that the internal market for goods and services would never succeed without a strong social dimension. Why did he say that? What he meant was that we must not use poor working conditions, low wages and so on to compete with each other in the internal market. Why not? Because European workers would never accept such a policy. The flexicurity debate also shows that we cannot use low wages and poor working conditions to compete with countries outside the EU. Nor, then, can we adopt a similar approach within the EU.

It is in that perspective that we should view the Posting of Workers Directive. The Posting of Workers Directive has come about with a view to guaranteeing fair and decent working conditions for employees: wage conditions, working times and other working conditions. Minimum rules have been talked about, but if we are to proceed on the basis of the Advocate General’s opinion in the Laval case it is not minimum rules but, rather, normal rules that should apply. That is what the Advocate General goes so far as to say in his opinion. That is important for employees. It is important if they are to have decent conditions, and it is also important for companies. If we had not had these regulations, we should have benefited those companies that pay poor wages and those that have rotten working conditions. There would have been no competition-neutrality - something that is important for both employees and companies.

The Commission has produced an interpretation. I can say that there are parts of it with which we agree, but that there are also parts with which we disagree. Allow me to begin with those parts with which we agree. A better exchange of information is needed between the authorities in the various Member States. Those companies that happen to operate in another country need to be significantly better informed of the conditions in that country. This is an area in which we can do a lot in the future.

The Commission has looked at case law and has sometimes come up with over-interpretations, but sometimes also with correct interpretations. When it comes to third-country citizens, we have no views on the interpretation produced by the Commission, but when it comes to a number of other matters we do not share the Commission’s approach.

Allow me to give two examples. The first concerns the requirement for a representative. In this area the Commission has produced an over-interpretation of the existing conception of justice. The case that exists is about the need to force the representative to be resident in the country in which the activity is taking place. We are not laying down that requirement. That being said, it is important that countries be able to make demands of a representative who is not just anyone but who has a genuine mandate to represent the company. That is important in my country, where we have collective agreements, and it is also important in other countries from the perspective of the authorities and in terms, for example, of the conditions of the working environment. It must be possible to make demands of a representative who has a mandate to speak on behalf of the company.

The next issue is that of social documentation. There are legal cases to which the Commission refers. We are concerned here with Belgium and with the issue of whether documentation should be kept for five years. That is an unreasonable length of time; I can agree about that. However, documentation is needed to show who is employed and working and what wages and working hours they have. Such information is undoubtedly needed during the period that the work is being carried out and also for a reasonable period thereafter. We are, of course, aware that a certain amount of cheating goes on in these matters, so a reasonable period after the work has been carried out is needed.

The mistake made by the Commission is to have over-interpreted in its communication. It has over-interpreted the case law. The requirement for a representative is important, as is the demand for social documentation. The Commission states that we must not challenge any labour market model within Europe. That is an important statement, but that is precisely what is being done when criticism is directed at those Member States that lay down requirements in terms of representatives and social documentation. If it is not permitted to lay down such requirements, it is of course impossible to have a regulated labour market and impossible to maintain our labour market model. It is, then, another model that we are speaking of, and that is something that the Commission should take on board. Germany has put forward precisely the same criticism as the Nordic countries have done.

Finally, I should just like to address the issue of balance. Those countries that do not exercise any control at all should also be criticised. There are countries that do not have sufficient controls in place, which means that employees perhaps work in conditions that do not comply with the requirements of the Posting of Workers Directive. These countries should come in for criticism.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. – (CS) Madam President, honourable Members, on 13 June 2007 the Commission adopted the final communication relating to the 2006 communication, in which it expressed its full support for the Member States’ objective of stamping out illegal practices in the labour market. The Commission acknowledges that national bodies must carry out appropriate checks in order to ensure that service providers comply with national working conditions.

Nevertheless, assessments of the progress made since 2006, which the Commission carried out on the basis of information from the Member States and the social partners at EU level, indicate that some measures implemented in some Member States are disproportionate and overstep the mark in terms of what is needed in order to guarantee effective protection for posted workers. As the June 2007 communication pointed out, it appears that this situation has arisen from ineffective cooperation between the relevant bodies in the Member States and from inadequate access to information.

In its communications, the Commission points out that as regards the free movement of services, which is enshrined in the EC Treaty, rules can be restricted only on grounds of overriding public interest, for example the protection of workers, and these reasons must be appropriate. We should assess on a case-by-case basis whether particular national measures can be viewed as justified and appropriate – for example the requirement to have a representative who is resident in the host country or the obligation to hold certain documents relating to social and labour conditions in the host territory for monitoring purposes.

The Commission is looking very carefully at the situation in every Member State so that it can determine which control measures might be deemed unjustified and inappropriate. Where necessary, the Commission will initiate proceedings on grounds of non-compliance with obligations, so that Community law can be enforced.

Let me stress that the Commission is also examining the possibility of whether measures adopted by individual Member States are adequate and effective. If not, they will proceed in the same way, because the objective is to protect workers effectively without hindering the internal market.

The Commission does not currently intend to publish any further guidelines. The final decision on compliance with national measures rests with the Court of Justice, which has already issued a number of rulings, and not with either the Commission or Parliament.

As regards cooperation on information, checks carried out by the Commission demonstrate that there has been an encouraging improvement. Yet further improvement is essential. The Commission is therefore proposing to enhance and strengthen administrative cooperation with the Member States, above all to bring together other interested parties – in particular the social partners – that play an important role in monitoring compliance with the rules.

Assessment of enforcement measures indicates that although the implementation of the directive has not led to many formal complaints or legal proceedings, there are some problems that require further consideration, such as the effectiveness of cross-border enforcement of sanctions or the protection of workers in the case of multiple subcontracting. The Commission would like to involve the social partners and the Member States in that work.

Lastly, I should like to stress that the June 2007 communication demonstrates that, as a matter of principle, the Commission does not in any way wish to undermine the various social models of the Member States nor the way in which Member States organise their systems of labour law relations and collective bargaining. It is of course the Commission’s job to guarantee that European Community law is strictly complied with, and in cases where inappropriate measures have been adopted, leading not to the protection of workers but rather to restrictions on the freedom to provide services in the internal market, the Commission has to take action, as enshrined in the Treaty.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, one of the challenges of trying to produce an oral question followed by an immediate resolution in a very short space of time is to get it to reflect fully everything we want it to say. I think on this occasion, as in maybe some others, the very rush has meant that not all of us agree with the wording of every detail of the resolution. That is not meant to be a criticism of political opponents on the other side of the House. It is just meant to be a comment, a statement of where it is.

I would like to add – unofficially in any response and consideration the Commission gives to this – the following question. If the current directive is not being implemented satisfactorily in all Member States, could the Commission please consider taking a bit more time out to understand why? Are there some intrinsic problems with the directive? Are there some issues that certain Member States still have with it? So rather than us just forcibly saying ‘the directive is the directive is the directive, thou shalt implement it without delay’, please can we look at listening a little bit more, because I am sure there is something we can learn. In principle, we are all for having a directive in this area so that there is clarity.

The final thing I would just say is certainly from this side of the House. We are interested in helping workers being posted. We are interested of course in their security of work conditions, but we are interested in promoting their mobility. We are not interested in using this as a device for protectionism to prevent workers being posted.

  Anne Van Lancker, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, I can tell you that my group has very mixed feelings about this new communication by the Commission. On the one hand, it is, of course, good that the Commission wishes to continue to focus on the implementation of the Posting of Workers Directive, because, almost weekly, we get to hear about new cases of social exploitation of employees posted elsewhere, a situation which, moreover, has placed a considerable strain on our working conditions in our countries. On the other hand, we have the distinct impression that the Commission still has not managed to strike the right balance between guaranteeing the freedom of provision of services on the one hand and protecting employees on the other.

It should be clear to you, Commissioner, that a number of control measures which Member States have taken, including the requirement to keep documents in the workplace, imposing posting of workers declarations or the presence of an authorised representative, are essential in order to be able to protect the working conditions of workers posted elsewhere.

It is, moreover, abundantly clear, Commissioner, that Member States can only rely on their own national measures, because the desperately needed transnational cooperation between administrations and access to the necessary information is virtually non-existent, and international force mechanisms simply do not work. Nevertheless, the communication suggests that a host of these measures are incompatible with Community legislation, and you even threaten to institute infringement procedures, even before the desperately needed steps have been taken to guarantee the flow of information, to allow cooperation between the Member States to really function and to put an effective system of penalties in place.

Needless to say, my group welcomes the Commission’s intention to set up a permanent high-level committee to help the Member States enhance their cooperation. Administrative cooperation is not enough, though, Commissioner. What we also ask for is a European platform for cross-border cooperation between the competent inspectorates of the Member States. Until this aspect has been addressed, a crucial instrument to enforce compliance with the Posting of Workers Directive will be lacking.

  Anne E. Jensen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Madam President, Commissioner, I wish, on behalf of my group, to support the approach chosen by the Commission in connection with this directive, namely that of putting its faith in the provision of better information and in enhanced cooperation between Member States and, in cases of serious infringement, in taking Member States to the European Court of Justice.

Unfortunately, we do, of course, have to recognise that, in an enlarged EU with large differences in income, there is a lot of insecurity, including insecurity associated with this subject. On the one hand, there is the fear that employees posted to another Member State will work under poorer social conditions than normal in the host country and that this situation will create a threat to security of employment. On the other hand, there are still many bureaucratic obstacles to the free exchange of services in the EU. These factors impede competition and mean that people receive poorer services. What, of course, the Posting of Workers Directive is precisely designed to bring about is a proper balance between the freedom to provide cross-border services and the simultaneous maintenance of labour market protection in the host country. At consultations in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, we have previously been told by employers’ representatives and unions that the Posting of Workers Directive is, in actual fact, good enough, but it is very complicated. Employers and employees do not, therefore, have a good enough knowledge of their duties and rights, and that is a situation that we must do something about. It needs to be simple and straightforward to do things in a law-abiding way, and such a state of affairs needs to be brought about through the provision of information – understandable information, mind you – in people’s own language. People also need easy access to help in solving problems.

The Commission has observed that the Member States do not always have confidence in the information exchanged between countries, and I therefore think it a good idea now to strengthen the ongoing cooperation between the Member States in this area. Moreover, the Dublin Agency on Living and Working Conditions should take it upon itself to exchange good practice and, in that way, involve both the labour market partners and the Member States in a positive process.

On the issue, mentioned by Mr Andersson, of the host country requiring there to be a representative and on the issue of documentation at the workplace, I too think it important that we maintain the right balance, and I really do basically think that this balance is what the Commission has found. That is the background to our amendments to the report. The representative need not necessarily be physically present in the host country. That is something on which we agree, and I should like to see it made clear.

Regarding the reference to the Laval or Waxholm case, I think we must await the final decision before using the matter as guidance as to the state of the law.

That concludes my observations.

  Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the present debate is also a warning: if this communication is yet another attempt to smuggle the deleted Articles 24 and 25 of the original Services Directive through the back door, then this House will unambiguously reject it. The Posting of Workers Directive is there to protect workers, and this protective function must remain sacrosanct.

In the Posting of Workers Directive the local principle prevails, which means, amongst other things, that all measures by Member States that serve to protect posted workers and protect their interests are legitimate and desirable. The Directive is a law for a free internal market for services. But this freedom cannot come at any cost. It is not the go-ahead for social dumping.

I am tired of having to make armchair decisions about the theoretical possibility of providing evidence of fair pay in the worker’s country of origin within two or four weeks. The situation on big and small building sites all over Europe tells a different tale. The lack of possibilities for checking payslips on site gives additional opportunity to criminal machinations.

Surely that is not something you want to take the responsibility for? Go and see the building sites for yourselves before proceeding any further. See how workers are deprived of fair wages, and how social dumping distorts fair competition on those sites. Equal pay for equal work in the same place must be the overriding principle.

  Mary Lou McDonald, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, first of all we need to remember that the Posting of Workers Directive is about workers’ rights, and it just lays down minimum standards in terms of pay rates, holidays, working hours and so on. Without the Directive, workers are open to all sorts of abuses through post-box companies and bogus self-employment, a fact which some employers have not been slow to exploit.

However, it seems to me that, in its emphasis, the Commission gives primacy to removing obstacles to the provision of services and the orderly functioning of the internal market. I believe the resolution associated with this oral question represents a step back from existing Parliament positions, most recently expressed in the Schroedter report. The fact is that the Commission has not enforced the Directive, and many Member States ignore its provisions. These failures should not be sidestepped in arguments about proportionality or protectionism. When Parliament adopted the Services Directive, those of us who were concerned about its impact on workers’ rights were assured that the proper enforcement of the Posting of Workers Directive would deal with our concerns. That has not happened, and the Commission has failed to enforce this Directive properly. This leaves many workers exposed, without the minimum standards necessary to avoid exploitation and abuse.

  Thomas Mann (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, On 13 June the DG Employment notified the Commission that some Member States are not implementing the Posting of Workers Directive conscientiously, Germany included. My country is accused of exercising excessively stringent controls, and thereby driving workers from other Member States away. How provocative can you get? I expected a different position from a Commissioner whose fairness I otherwise greatly value.

Although cooperation between sending countries and recipient countries is important, it cannot replace effective controls. Our common aim must be to secure worker protection, to prevent social dumping and to uncover and punish illegal working. But this can only be done if we have valid documents, which should be in the language of the host country. The following should be ready for presentation: work contracts, pay calculations, timesheets. The General Prosecutor at the European Court of Justice supports this view, because inspectors will obviously have considerable problems with documents that have not been drawn up in the language of the respective country.

Secondly, in order to allow notices to be properly sent, the recipient must prove an address in Germany, and not just a mail-drop abroad that has been specially chosen for anonymity and everyone is obliged to appoint as an official representative anyone they consider appropriate. The place of work could also be an address. This I consider to be a fair solution.

Threatening infringement proceedings are an insult. In Europe, Commissioner, things must be fair, not least as regards controls. Mr Špidla, I ask you, please keep the sense of scale and balance we are used to seeing from you.

  Jean Louis Cottigny (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am one of those who thinks that posting of workers is an opportunity for the European Union and its citizens. An opportunity both in economic terms and in terms of contributing to strengthening the European idea. Workers who are posted on European territory are first of all Europeans and they must be treated as such, which, to my mind, means that for the same job in the same territory, no inequality should be allowed.

One of the problems raised today by the Directive 96/71/EC is that, on account of the lack of harmonisation of national systems in relation to labour law and the disparities existing between new and old Member States in this field, a fear arises that this directive will allow arbitration between Member States and be linked with ‘social dumping’. I repeat once more: it is from the top that social Europe must be built, and not by smashing to bits its social acquis, as some here would like. I cite as evidence certain amendments tabled on this report in relation to modernising labour law.

In this field, I advise them not to play at alchemy, at the risk of finding themselves confronted with uncontrollable social conflicts. To my mind, in order to avoid these pitfalls, Member States must be able to continue to retain some restrictions but also, when they receive workers on secondment, they must be able to impose certain conditions. I think in particular that workers on secondment must have authorised representatives who must be independent. They must be able to supply relevant information regarding working hours and health and safety in relation to this work, so that they can be guaranteed protection. Employees on secondment must make a prior declaration, so that the social partners in the host countries, where wages are fixed by collective bargaining, can come into play to negotiate directly with the home company of the seconded workers.

We must, however, go further still in this field by giving further thought, for example, to establishing a minimum European wage. We must have a political commitment to convergence towards a floor of social rights common to all the European Union. It is with such practices that we put ourselves on the road towards a social Europe, a united Europe, a Europe of workers that we all wish for.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, when we were discussing the services directive, we stated quite clearly and definitely that it should in no way affect social rights in Member States. That is why we removed the infamous Articles 24 and 25 from the directive, because it should not be possible to override these rights by exploiting loopholes.

We also agreed that, to clear up any ambiguities, the Posting of Workers Directive should be amended if any problems arise. I would like to remind you of this compromise, which the European Commission also agreed to, and would like to demand this agreement again.

Commissioner, I share your view that lack of, or poor, cooperation among the authorities is one of the main reasons why we are having such problems with the Posting of Workers Directive, but do you really believe that by removing opportunities for control, documentation and everything else that is needed for control, will improve poor collaboration? On the contrary, lack of documentation and poor cooperation among authorities equals social dumping pure and simple. I cannot believe that that is what you really want.

So let us work together towards improving administrative cooperation, and to open the market for services and the markets for workers at the highest level of social protection. Then we will be doing something positive for Europe, and, instead of a destructive approach to the Member States, strive positively for solutions that really will help things to progress. That is the direction we should take. Otherwise we will end up not achieving what we set out to do.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Madam President, I am disappointed that Commissioner Špidla has told us today that he does not propose a new communication on this issue.

If European workers are to move from Member State to Member State without triggering a race to the bottom, we must ensure that the law is clear, that there are standards applied commonly across the European Union and that they are fully implemented. The Posting of Workers Directive, as it stands, does not meet those criteria, nor do the guidelines which the Commission published only a year ago. Right now, we need the Commission to insist on the retention of documents in the Member States where a worker is posted and we need to insist on an identifiable employer who carries legal responsibility for compliance. Even that will not be enough unless all Member States put in place compliance mechanisms and severe penalties for breaches of the law.

There is no possibility of progress on issues like flexicurity and reform of labour law unless we deal with issues such as workers’ security in this area. Workers in Europe will not stand for a diminution of their rights or a race to the bottom. We will not get any legislation through this House which weakens their rights in any way unless they can see that there are advantages for them in preventing a race to the bottom. I believe the short-sightedness of the Council and the Commission in this area is unbelievable, and it is simply inexplicable if they are serious about creating a European social union.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. – (CS) Honourable Members I should like to make it clear that the correct implementation of the posted workers directive is not, under any circumstances, a back door through which we are seeking to weaken and compromise the protection of workers in the European labour market. Quite the opposite, correct implementation of the directive will lead to the effective protection of workers, and this is of vital importance. It is not true at all that the Commission is placing restrictions on monitoring powers: let me state categorically that any measures that a Member State deems necessary, and which are proportionate to the objective, will of course be correct and applicable.

I must also point out that the decision on this directive, did not take place in some ivory tower any more than the decision on the communication did – it has been discussed on countless occasions on the ground with the social partners. I feel that when it comes to implementing laws, we all know where to draw the line between instances when the law becomes a matter of mere bureaucracy, and fails to achieve its objectives, and on the other hand instances when it achieves different and incorrect objectives. Checks must therefore be thorough and effective, but within the framework of an applied method, as the directive and the law in general do not allow everything. In other words, not everything will be acceptable – only that which falls within the framework of the law, and which is effective and is proportionate.

As regards amending the directive, which has been suggested, I should like to say that Parliament has itself addressed this issue at least twice or three times before, as have the social partners, and no overriding position was formulated whereby the directive could be recast in a substantive way. On the contrary, the positions formulated were always in favour of improving cooperation and implementation. I should also like to point out that the implementation is a matter for the Member States, and the Commission is responsible for ensuring that implementation is carried out within the framework of European law. It also has an obligation to use the legal resources at its disposal. In this regard, the Commission of course checks what the situation is in labour markets in the individual Member States and proceeds in a considered way, as is laid down in the law.

It is of course extremely important to improve administrative cooperation. It is also important to improve cooperation between individual monitoring bodies in the Member States, and the Commission will proceed and channel its efforts in this direction. If it is shown in subsequent debates that there are grounds for extending the law, this point will certainly be opened up, and fervently debated. At the moment, neither the preliminary political debate in Parliament nor the debate with the social partners suggests that it would be right to take any new legislative action in this field.

Honourable Members, I must stress once again that the objective of this directive is the effective protection of workers, and any monitoring measures that contribute to effective protection will be appropriate. Member States that do not carry out effective monitoring are in breach of the directive. It is clear that monitoring in any area must be pursued in a manner which is proportionate, in the legal sense of the term, and we are often in dispute over what is proportionate. The Court of Justice in Luxembourg has the authority to settle such disputes between European institutions.

  President. – To wind up the debate, a motion for resolution⁽¹⁾ has been tabled under Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, 11 July 2007.

(1) See Minutes.

15. Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union (debate)

  President. – The next point on the Agenda is the report by Will Piecyk (A6-0235/2007) on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety towards a future maritime Policy for the Union: a European vision for the oceans and seas (2006/2299(INI))

  Willi Piecyk (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in its maritime policy the European Parliament is entering uncharted waters. Five committees worked on the report, and achieved respectable results. I would like to begin by extending my heartfelt thanks to my co-rapporteurs MrHassi, Mr Stevenson, Mr Chatzimarkakis and Mr Matsis for their collaboration. My thanks also to the members of my staff, Mrs Jordan and Mrs Schramm – as well as the stagaire Jan, who did some good research work – for without staff this report would have been practically impossible to make.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us just get an idea of the position as regards maritime policy: 90% of the European Union’s external and 40% of its internal trade is carried by sea. 40% of Europe’s GDP is generated in coastal areas. About two-thirds of all Europeans prefer holidaying by the sea, and coastal tourism in 2004 earned EUR 72 billion in revenue. But coastal tourism presupposes clean seas. This makes it clear that it is necessary – indeed, it is a sine qua non – that the EU not only formulate, but implement an integrated maritime policy.

It is to the Commission’s great credit that with this Green Paper it has brought maritime policy on to the European agenda. However, the paper is frequently vague and descriptive, rather than specific. After a year of consultations, what we need is fewer conferences and more measures, more concrete political actions, as Goethe said, ‘A truce to words, mere empty sound, let deeds at length appear, my friends!

Commissioner, if tomorrow we approve the report, the Commission – and of course the Member States – will have plenty of work on their hands. My staff have done the calculations: the draft report contains 80 recommendations for the Commission and the Council. If we draw these together broadly, there will still be 33 bundles of measures which we expect the Council and the Commission to implement in the future.

Today I would like to focus on a few important areas, such as shipping. We expect the Council to approve seven legislative measures on maritime safety without delay: state port inspections, emergency moorings, liability after accidents, amongst others – and these are addressed to the Portuguese Presidency alone. There is a peculiar anachronism in that Europe still views short-haul voyages as international trade. For this reason, coasting must finally be integrated into the single market. On the issue of motorways of the sea, since the adoption of the trans-European networks in 2004, we have not made an inch of progress. The Commission must appoint a coordinator for this to finally get things moving.

Combating climate change: although marine transport is comparatively the most eco-friendly means of transport, it is not squeaky clean: it contributes to 4% of world CO2 emissions, and also produces large quantities of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. I am certain that emissions trading in shipping is something we will have to face up to. An even more important issue, though, is to drastically reduce marine emissions and at the same time to use renewable energy like wind and solar power on vessels. This also provides European shipbuilding and its suppliers with huge potential for growth. And, by far not least important, LeaderSHIP 2015 is about the future competitiveness of the entire industry.

Maritime climate policy also involves our, wherever possible, providing vessels in port with power from the land, which also involves implementing the Commission’s long overdue action plan on promoting offshore wind energy.

And on the matter of employment: if the maritime sector complains that young people are unwilling to embark on maritime careers, we should ask ourselves, how actively were these careers promoted in the past? For this reason we need an education campaign. It is also right and proper, though, that those employed on vessels should not be second-class employees.

About marine pollution: 100% of waste from vessels must be removed in port. Illegal discharges of oil must be combated. At the same time, however, because 80% of marine pollution is caused by waste originating on land, we need a concrete action plan form the Commission to provide aid for this.

On the issue of marine research: in the European Union we have excellent institutes, but they are not linked with each other. For this reason we need a blanket organisation, a European marine science consortium, with strong backing from the Commission.

Madam President, far be it from me to moralise, but it is an indisputable fact that the sea does not need us, but we need it. And this being the case, we need a good, integrated European marine policy. For that reason we will measure every Council Presidency by the progress it makes in marine policy.

(Applause)

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Madam President, honourable Members, when we began this process the words ‘towards a maritime policy for the European Union’ made up a phrase full of potential and promise.

Today, two years after our work started and one year since the launch of the Green Paper, we are no longer only talking of what is possible. We are talking of what can become a reality. On 30 June we ended the consultation process. Thousands of stakeholders throughout Europe have taken an active part in the process expressing overwhelming support for this project. Parliament has been very active in the run-up to this debate. Let me express my thanks and appreciation at the outset to the rapporteur, Willi Piecyk, for having coordinated the keen interest of the various committees and having produced this impressive report. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs of the various active committees for their invaluable input as well as the other MEPs who were particularly supportive of the maritime policy project. We are especially happy with the holistic cross-sectoral nature of the opinion of Parliament. The common understanding reflected in the report is a good basis for the future functioning of a holistic and integrated maritime policy for Europe.

The contents of the report are indeed impressively vast and we are grateful for such a substantial number of suggestions. We welcome the fact that Parliament points out that in the area of maritime affairs, speedy progress must be made on the legislative proposals which are now before the Council and which relate both to the safety of maritime transport and to the protection and preservation of the marine environment. The goals of our future maritime policy will indeed need to see a proper implementation of this legislation by Member States.

In the 2008 preliminary draft budget the Commission has also asked for credits to undertake preparatory actions which aim to start implementing of some actions foreseen under the new maritime policy and we hope that Parliament will support these requests.

We are prepared in particular to work in areas such as the integration of surveillance systems for activities on the sea, the setting-up of a network on data relating to the seas and oceans and on the exchange of best practices in maritime industries and services through the promotion of maritime clusters in 2008. We are convinced that such projects will yield substantial benefits in the long run.

Turning to some specific elements raised in the report, let me make some general comments. The Commission welcomes the call by Parliament to ensure that the environmental dimension is clearly reflected in the proposals we will be making in October and is committed to paying particular attention to climate change. In this regard the Commission is analysing the contributions of all stakeholders which deal with emissions trading and shipping, renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar power for ships, land-based power supply for ships in ports, offshore wind energy, ship dismantling and others. All these will have a positive contribution to make with respect to climate change and broader environmental considerations.

As has been said on many occasions, the marine environmental protection strategy remains at the core of the maritime policy and constitutes its environmental pillar. They will mutually reinforce one another.

The Commission also welcomes the recognition underlined in the report of the importance of maritime transport to the European economy. Efforts at simplification and better regulation remain a top priority for the Commission. Maritime transport presents one of the least environmentally damaging modes of transport. Bearing this in mind, efforts should be stepped up to improve the track record even further.

Maritime transport is also important beyond reasons of sustainability as it contributes to further the integration of our common internal market and is crucial for Europe’s external trade in this era of globalisation.

The economic importance of the maritime sectors for the European Union and the success of a number of national and regional clusters are well known. The concertation on EU maritime policy has demonstrated a keen interest of all those involved to strengthen and encourage the development of maritime clusters across the European Union. The Commission has committed itself to promoting best practice and interlinkages for maritime clusters in both national and regional contexts through mapping Europe’s maritime clusters and analysing their potential cooperation.

With respect to the points raised in the report on research and innovation, the Commission believes that excellence in maritime research and technology is essential to develop the vast potential of sea resources in a sustainable manner. It will constitute a fundamental basis to achieve integration and to enhance synergies in the different maritime sectors. This is why marine research and technology was recognised as a cross-cutting priority in the Seventh Research Framework Programme that will be addressed with particular attention.

We recognise the importance of tourism as a driver for sustainable growth in coastal and maritime areas. At the same time, coastal and maritime tourism can be used as a tool to foster the preservation of cultural, historical and environmental features of our maritime space.

A communication is planned for 2007 and it will set out an agenda for a sustainable and competitive European tourism. It will be based on the report that collected the reactions of all European tourist stakeholders and will point to possible new initiatives at EU level, including on coastal and maritime tourism, which could usefully complement Member States’ initiatives.

The Commission welcomes the positive attitude of the report towards the need to ensure sustainability in the field of fisheries. We have taken a number of initiatives in order to increase the number of marine protected areas and to develop policies in favour of longer-term approaches to fisheries management.

In addition, the Commission has already made proposals for the progressive elimination of discards. Within the context of the October package, the Commission will also adopt proposals aimed at combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries and measures on destructive fishing practices.

Turning now to social aspects, let me say that we fully share the concerns of Parliament regarding the scarcity of experts and well-trained professionals facing the maritime industry and will look with great interest at the suggestions made in the report for specialised training courses aimed at providing a broad understanding of the ecosystem-based approach to sea and oceans management.

We also share Parliament’s opinion that the exclusion of seafarers from social directives should be reviewed. With regard to social rules for seafarers, let me underline the importance of the ongoing work between the social partners on integrating the consolidated ILO Convention on Working Conditions for Seafarers into Community law.

One final point concerning governance: it is clear from our consultations with Member States and stakeholders that closer coordination between all sectoral policies and all levels of governance is required if we are to make a success of maritime policy. I therefore find the position of Parliament on this issue both timely and relevant. In addition, we recognise that the exchange and stimulation of best practice in integrated maritime policy making needs to be backed by platforms that support the exchange of experience and information on best practice. To this end, we intend to organise annual conferences which will bring together relevant actors from regions, Member States and at EU level, including stakeholders in all relevant areas. This exercise will also contribute to raising the visibility of the maritime sectors in general.

Honourable Members, in order to build on the momentum gained during the consultation process, we aim to put forward an ambitious maritime policy package on 10 October and present it for further consultation with Parliament and the Council. The package will translate the vision of a new EU maritime policy into reality. It will include a communication on the consultation process that will show how broad and extensive it has been and that will highlight the close and constructive engagement we have had with our interlocutors, and a second communication that will propose a European maritime policy and action plan. The policy will focus on Europe’s maritime reality, on the importance of an integrated approach to maritime affairs and on our vision for the policy and its principles. It will aim to promote and develop the sustainable use of the oceans and seas, delivering a high quality of life across the regions, providing transparency and raising the visibility of maritime Europe, strengthening Europe’s maritime international leadership role and, last but not least, reaching for Europe’s full knowledge and innovation potential in maritime affairs. The action plan will indicate our intention as regards how to implement a maritime policy through the identification of the actions and the subjects for a proposal.

In conclusion, may I once again congratulate Parliament and the rapporteurs concerned for their excellent work. We look forward to continuing our close dialogue with you in the months ahead in the interest of laying the foundations for a more integrated European maritime policy for Europe.

  Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a big thank you to the rapporteur, Willi Piecyk, for the excellent show of cooperation between the committees who worked so closely together. It is important for us to realise that economic exploitation of the sea also relies on the sea being clean and the existence of healthy marine ecosystems. For that reason it is important to integrate the environmental viewpoint with all decisions taken on the sea.

For example, the short-sighted practice of overfishing has resulted in the collapse of many fish stocks, and it is also the main reason why marine biodiversity has declined. Fish stocks cannot recover unless the amount of pollution into the sea from the land and the volume of industrial chemicals and agricultural fertilisers, which cause eutrophication, are cut. This is especially important in enclosed areas of sea like the Baltic. As the rapporteur said, it is also important to reduce emissions from shipping, as that is one of the main sources of emissions which are contaminating the air we breathe.

Climate change too means more than just rising sea levels: it also means acidification of the sea, which will have a drastic impact on all marine ecosystems.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (DE) Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, who has truly set new standards in cooperation. Never before have I experienced such excellent cooperation, and I congratulate him on this.

I would like to thank the Commission for producing this report and for its integrated approach. It is high time. As Europeans – and this I say from the perspective of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – we have a lot to offer in the field of marine policy. We are market leaders in the maritime clusters, we top the world league with our shipyards, 40% of merchant fleets are in European hands, and around 35% of marine equipment is supplied from the EU. Another thing we are good at is research. Blue biotechnology is a technology of the future for obtaining energy from the sea, and the outlook for reducing CO2 emissions is also good.

Unfortunately we do not speak with one voice. It is therefore good that we have made this start. The package that you want to finalise, Commissioner, is something we are expecting with great anticipation. The world is watching us because it expects something from us. We look forward to an excellent package.

  Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE), Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. – Mr President, I too would like to thank Willi Piecyk for a brilliant report and for an object lesson in how cooperation between committees should take place. What the Fisheries Committee set out to do was to produce a maritime strategy designed to develop protection, enhance our marine heritage and encourage the sustainable exploitation of our seas and oceans, but I think – to repeat what the Commissioner said – without effectively tackling the fundamental causes of climate change now, the whole EU maritime policy could be rendered worthless.

A sustainable fishing industry helps to meet this criterion and thus if fishing does not take its rightful place at the core of the EU’s maritime strategy then these needs will be met by products caught by people using methods and in places over which we have no control at all.

The importance of this streamlining of management cannot be understated. This would bring benefits to everybody and to the environment as a whole. The ‘polluter pays’ principle is currently a rule which is not adhered to in the EU maritime sector. Companies who pollute the sea should contribute to an EU-wide fund geared toward fisheries restocking and environmental conservation.

The fisheries report also points out the significance of improving the image of the fisheries sector, calling for more resources devoted to research and education aimed at improving knowledge and skills.

I also agree with the Commission that the network of marine protected areas across EU waters should be extended and a system of integrated coastal zone management set up to ensure that we put a stop to the wanton degradation of habitats and sharp decline in biodiversity which have been all too commonplace in recent years.

I look forward to the action plan in the autumn from the Commission.

  Yiannakis Matsis (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (EL) Madam President, my recommendations for maritime policy are included in my opinion, which has already been approved by the relevant committees.

However, no recommendation – and I emphasise this in the Commissioner’s presence – can succeed if the environment is not protected, the environment which man has been manically destroying, with the fires over recent years and days in the countries of the Mediterranean as tragic proof.

All plans are subject to the condition that we shall manage to save the environment and to reverse the greenhouse effect through this action policy, starting by creating a European fire-fighting force, which will operate with joint contributions, means and appropriations, mainly from the interested Member States, and will be on standby during the summer months.

If there is a will, anything can be done and the risks can be prevented. Otherwise, our policies will remain dead letter. How shall we be able to talk about developing coastal areas when in these areas, especially in the countries of the Mediterranean, there is nothing left but burnt ground?

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Luís Queiró, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to congratulate Mr Piecyk on the excellent work he has done over the last few months. He has known how to listen, how to reconcile differing points of view and, above all, how to uphold an holistic, constructive vision of maritime strategy. That is also the vision that I have upheld as the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats.

It goes to show that, with a balanced approach, it is possible to develop the economy and safeguard the environment, and that a fragmented view of the seas and oceans has neither reach nor ambition. The sea, which is the site of globalisation par excellence, is of pivotal importance for us Europeans. Since the growth of world trade will lead to increased maritime transport and the consequent development of several sea-based economies, it is to our advantage to think on a European scale, but in our view that does not mean a single common policy.

What we need is a strategic approach that takes advantage of the potential for cooperation among the 27 Member States. Such cooperation must take account of the costs of combating illegal immigration, pollution, drug trafficking and smuggling and of the struggle to keep Europe’s territory secure. It must be intelligent cooperation that will benefit the marine environment, in the interests both of environmentalists and of those who put the economy first.

Pollution is a threat to nature, but it is equally a danger to the economic benefits that we can draw from the seas and oceans. Balance must therefore be the keyword, and not the extremist attitude that prevents economic development or the unbridled exploitation that destroys resources.

Thus it is essential that we should see the potential of the seas and oceans within a context of investment in research and development, while also preserving traditions. If we want to modernise our economy, we have to fund networks of scientists, promote knowledge sharing, lead the way with new economies and new industries, and also invest heavily in the tourist potential of Europe’s coastline, which is an asset of incomparable richness and diversity.

To conclude, Madam President, I hope that from tomorrow we shall be able to sail a true course towards drawing up and implementing worthwhile proposals concerning Europe’s maritime policy; indeed, we have already heard Commissioner Borg express such an intention here today.

  Paulo Casaca, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Piecyk, Mrs Hassi and Mr Stevenson, I should like to congratulate you on the excellent work you have done. I must also point out six fundamental concerns that must be taken into account when the European maritime policy is put into practice: current and future legislation must be integrated into a single framework; management must also be integrated within the context of maritime planning, with all existing interests being taken into consideration; the sea must be incorporated into existing environmental legislation, complying specifically with international conventions, such as the OSPAR Convention; marine ecosystems-based management must be put into practice; the development of fishing communities must be promoted through the same approach that has been successfully used in rural areas; and an integrated framework must be created for monitoring and implementing maritime legislation.

The European maritime policy must not repeat the errors of the common fisheries policy, which created a dysfunction between the intention of the policies and their beneficiaries on the one hand, and the costs of implementing and monitoring them on the other. In a region such as the Azores, the cost of implementing the Marine Strategy Directive, for example, amounts to many million euro. In our opinion, Europe’s actions in this field must be integrated from a financial point of view as well.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Madam President, just this morning – an amazing coincidence given this debate on maritime policy! – I read a press article saying that human begins originate from water, that we cannot live without it and that 75% of an adult human being is made up of nothing but water.

Furthermore, three-quarters of the Earth’s surface is covered with the water of our seas and oceans and there is a constant cycle of transfers of water from the oceans to the atmosphere, from the atmosphere to the Earth, and finally it returns to the sea via the rivers. We therefore have a duty to pay the greatest possible attention to the sustainability of the marine environment, particularly given that for some time alarm bells have been ringing throughout the world with regard to the deterioration of the environment, in general, and climate change in particular.

We believe that in all institutions — both Community institutions and State, regional and local institutions — and also in the private field, measures that improve water quality must be adopted quickly. In this regard, we wish to express our concern at the long timetable that appears in the proposal for a directive on a marine strategy. We believe that, just like when we talk about atmospheric pollution and the hole in the ozone layer, we do not have much time left to act and reverse the current trend. Unless we do so as soon as possible, I fear that the damage will be irreversible.

We have therefore proposed that the timetable for drawing up the action plans within the new marine strategy be adapted urgently, bringing them into line with other important Union programmes, such as those funded by FEDER, the Cohesion Fund and also the agricultural policy, since there are also agricultural activities that lead to waste being dumped in the sea.

We also believe that we need more accurate information concerning what happens in the seas and oceans. We are in favour of better coordination and connection amongst all of the European marine research institutes, promoting either a network or a European consortium and creating a maritime database that is accessible to all of them.

We must improve training and information at all levels and disseminate best practices in relation to control and pollution. With regard to this aspect, I would insist once again on something that I have been saying for years, which is that we need to make it obligatory to install devices in ships – devices that have already been invented – for controlling the emptying and cleaning of tanks and bilge, in the form of black boxes that cannot be tampered with, which will be the best method for preventing deliberate dumping, though I still believe that this must be complemented with satellite monitoring and inspection.

We must not forget about the professional fishermen, who represent a significant group of the population whose way of life must be safeguarded for the future, preventing coastal and island areas from becoming depopulated or invaded by uncontrolled development.

Finally, we propose that the ‘polluter pays’ principle also be applied to the marine sector and that a Community fund be created for the repopulation and conservation of marine flora and fauna, based on contributions from all industrial, energy, tourist, leisure and all other kinds of activities that pollute our seas.

  Ian Hudghton, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the EU has about 65 000 kilometres of coastline. Scotland has about one-sixth of that and 95 inhabited islands. Clearly, we have much to offer as well as much to gain from an EU maritime strategy which helps us to sustain and develop our coastal communities. Scotland is energy rich with oil and gas reserves and offshore wind and wave generation potential. Scotland is well placed to develop further maritime transport hub facilities. Scotland has excellent marine research facilities which can contribute to a better understanding of marine environment issues, and, in spite of the CFP, Scotland still has a high proportion of the EU’s fishing industry.

The idea of an EU maritime strategy is to be welcomed but it must not signal a shift towards EU waters being regarded as a common resource with no particular attachment to individual maritime nations. Let the EU act only where our maritime nations require action or support for their own strategic planning. Let us learn the lessons of the CFP and its failure.

  Georgios Toussas, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) The astronomical profits of shipowners and the monopoly groups of companies trading in shipping on the one hand and, on the other, the intensification of work, the mass replacement of seafarers by the Member States with cheap labour on poverty wages of no more than 515 dollars a month and the major maritime crimes, as in the cases of the Erika, the Prestige, the Sea Diamond and others, which cause massive environmental disasters and an international public outcry, are clear examples of the anti-working class maritime policy of the European Union.

The interest of shipowners, the European Commission and the governments is hypocritical and their allegation that there are not enough seafarers and they want to attract seafarers from the Member States to shipping is unfounded, when they themselves are together firing European seafarers from ships en masse by constantly reducing the operational composition of ships and, at the same time, replacing them with cheaper seafarers from third countries, resulting in higher unemployment in the industry.

The adverse impact of this anti-working class policy is huge for the workers living on islands in remote areas in Greece and other countries.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, the importance of the oceans is known. We live by them, get our food from them and enjoy them. This is why attention to the sound management of these oceans is of crucial importance, something to which the Piecyk report has devoted attention in a comprehensive manner. This sound management requires a balanced approach in which ecological and economic aspects are weighed up at global, European and national level. In that way, we will be able to reap the benefits of the oceans in future too.

I should like to make a comment with regard to port development. It is important for ports to develop their assets within the prescribed preconditions, allowing them to make a vital contribution to the prosperity of citizens. As I see it, Europe should hold back when it comes to influencing this development, both spatially and economically. The Member States are responsible for shaping their ports, and the market will ensure the effective handling of cargo flows. In order to make this visible in the text, I have tabled a number of amendments which I hope will meet with your support.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, much can sound plausible about a maritime package, but what I fear about a maritime policy for the EU is that it will be used by the Commission to grab powers to control every facet of life, events and activities at sea. Considering the unmitigated disaster which the existing competence of the EU in fisheries policy has been for the United Kingdom under the iniquitous common fisheries policy, I have little confidence that anything better would result from delivering the totality of maritime affairs to the EU. Excessive regulation, stifling controls and witless directives would, I fear, result. Indeed, even on fisheries, what I read in this report is a blueprint for driving more fishermen out of employment under the guise of even further restricting effort under a so-called ‘precautionary approach’.

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, the sea is a great good with enormous resources, which we need to look after well. This is why the integrated approach of this Green Paper is so important. It should, however, be practical and workable, so that we do not overshoot the mark.

I endorse the rapporteur’s view that care for the environment and sustainability are important. Whilst I should also like to congratulate him on his report, I have to say that it was a very tough one on account of the procedure of closer cooperation. We have now ended up with an extensive document containing 147 paragraphs. What I think is relevant and regret is that the importance of maritime transport has, to some extent, become secondary to new measures, particularly given the fact that maritime transport is so important for the sake of sustainability.

We already have a host of rules and regulations to provide for safety or environmentally friendly transport, but when it comes to the transposition and enforcement by the Member States, things are still in a very bad shape. I should really like to urge the Commission to turn the implementation and enforcement of existing legislation into a priority. The European Union should also have more coordinating powers and, if necessary, be able to enforce compliance. At the end of 2006, the Commission was supposed to produce a study into the feasibility of a European coastguard. It is now mid-2007, and we still have not seen anything yet, unfortunately. I should really like to urge the Commission to treat this with the necessary urgency.

The Commission should call the Member States to account in respect of spatial planning and coastline management, provided, though, that the Member States in question bear their own responsibility for this. Local, regional and national politicians also feel responsible for the sustainability and safeguarding of these zones and, precisely where land is concerned, the principle of subsidiarity should apply in my view.

  Robert Navarro (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, first of all I should like to thank Willy Piecyk for the impressive work he has carried out in providing an overview. In the end it is a complete, balanced report which takes into account the economic, environmental and social dimension of this future maritime policy. As regards social matters, it underlines the importance of professional training and career prospects, as well as the pressing need for Member States to rapidly sign and ratify the International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions relating to maritime employment. Such a requirement is vital if we do not want European expertise in this field to disappear. As for the rest, the ball is in the court of the Commission and the Member States.

Regarding the latter, the reform of the European Union budget from 2008 should give them the opportunity to show that they take these issues seriously. As for the Commission, its task will be the coordination of this maritime policy. It is about a huge work site where the lack of any solid line could quickly lead to chaos. That is why I think that the idea of a Commissioner with responsibility for maritime policy, who has a sufficient mandate to arbitrate when necessary, deserves to be considered. Of course, solidity should not mean rigidity. Also, to give the flexibility necessary for the implementation of the initiatives that will be decided in the context of this future maritime policy I think that it would be appropriate for the regions to be closely associated.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Madam President, I should like to emphasise two points, the first concerning the Baltic Sea and the second concerning the development of the EU’s ports. Nowhere is the need for better teamwork between the EU, national governments and regional and local authorities clearer than specifically in the case of the Baltic Sea. We need a more closely coordinated strategy for saving the environment and fisheries and for obtaining sustainable and efficient development of maritime transport in constructive cooperation with land transport.

The Baltic Sea is one of the world’s most polluted seas, and the Commission should therefore develop its own EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region. With regard to the ports, we need, if we are to develop maritime transport, to put our faith in building and extending ports and port areas and in road and rail connections with the ports. The new EU strategy should therefore include a port strategy that gives ports the ability to develop in step with market development and demand. We must ensure that other EU legislation and its interpretation do not impede the development of ports.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE). – Aderarea României şi a Bulgariei a adus Marea Neagră la graniţa Uniunii Europene, creând astfel oportunitatea dezvoltării unei politici maritime care să cuprindă toate mările şi oceanele ce înconjoară Europa.

Marea Neagră şi Marea Mediterană reprezintă două zone de maximă importanţă pentru politica de vecinătate a Uniunii. Dezvoltarea portuară, comerţul, industria costieră, cercetarea, pescuitul şi turismul sunt elemente integrate atât politicii de vecinătate cât şi celei maritime. Reţelele de transport maritim, politicile regionale de mediu şi canalele de transport pentru resurse energetice sunt, de asemenea, incluse în planurile de acţiune ale ambelor politici. Politica maritimă europeană va veni în sprijinul politicii de vecinătate, catalizând şi complementând acţiunile acesteia.

Politica maritimă trebuie să iniţieze şi să aplice măsuri în cadrul subiectelor menţionate pentru asigura o dezvoltare convergentă atât a statelor membre cât şi a statelor riverane incluse în politica de vecinătate. O politică maritimă europeană viabilă trebuie să asigure cooperarea între statele vecine şi între acestea şi Uniune, şi să aibă capacitatea de a dirija problematicele din cadrul structurilor regionale a căror activitate s-a dovedit utilă până în prezent. O dovadă în acest sens este şi asumarea de către Uniunea Europeană a statutului de observator în cadrul BS.

Elaborarea unei politici maritime trebuie să aibă în vedere specificul fiecărei zone, ca de exemplu problema traficului de orice natură şi optimizarea tranzitului de produse energetice în cazul Mării Negre sau fenomenul migraţiei în cazul Mării Mediterane.

Acţiunile deja preconizate de către Comisie, precum comunicarea referitoare la sinergia Mării Negre trebuie sa reprezinte puncte de referinţă în consolidarea viitoarei politici maritime comune europene. Marea nu este o barieră ci o punte de legătură pentru consolidarea căreia trebuie făcut un efort comun de cunoaştere reciprocă şi solidaritate cu posibilităţi reale de implicare europeană în procesele de democratizare şi de dezvoltare ale statelor riverane.

  Matthias Groote (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Piecyk, for the excellent job he has done on this report.

In my speech, I should just like to discuss two points very briefly. The first relates to energy, of which the sea is an infinite source. Wind energy should be given particular mention in this connection, as it has great potential, a potential that must be harnessed. How can it be harnessed? Europe needs powerful incentive systems to induce investors to take the risk of investing in offshore wind energy. Coordination is needed if we are to create these preconditions, which is why I explicitly welcome the report’s call for the Commission to present an action plan for the development of wind energy. This wind energy action plan will also enable us to meet the target, decided at the Spring Summit, of covering 20% of primary energy needs by renewable energy by 2020.

I also welcome the fact that the report provides for the installation of an intelligent network infrastructure. This will be the only way of meeting the target of 50 GW of installed offshore power by 2020 proposed in the report.

My second point concerns climate change and shipping. Climate change will have a considerable impact on the seas and oceans, and therefore waterborne modes of transport, too, must be included in emissions trading. The legislative procedure for including air transport is currently at first reading in Parliament. Given that shipping generates far more greenhouse-gas emissions than air transport, I support the rapporteur’s call for the inclusion of shipping in the emissions trading system.

  Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, Mr Borg, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament is for the first time tackling the system of the sea, the oceans, the coastal areas and the islands of Europe with an overall vision. This is an extraordinary wealth for Europe – it has approximately 68 000 km of coastline in its territory, which is double what the United States has and three times what Russia has. In the past this dimension and the issues deriving from it have been disregarded. The drafting of the Green Paper represents a turning point in terms of building a new maritime policy based on this enormous asset, which has unique and unexplored possibilities.

In this context the Piecyk report – on which I congratulate my fellow Member – makes an important contribution: I particularly endorse the attention paid to environmental aspects. Our coastlines are, in fact, especially vulnerable areas, where the effect of climate change and intensive resource use is more evident. In view of this emergency, we need to adopt approaches based on protection and respect, to ensure that the sea can continue to be a resource for the people who live in coastal areas. In my view, the Piecyk report needs to be supplemented by further proposals, presented in the form of amendments, which clarify the scope of this important initiative.

Above all, a European policy for the sea must be furnished with appropriate resources, like other policies. The negotiations on the next financial framework must therefore take into account the objectives identified in the Green Paper on the sea. In the same way, it is advisable for the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs to retain this role, and for his portfolio not to be restricted to fisheries issues alone.

Special attention, finally, should be paid to the islands, which through their attractiveness and their natural characteristics constitute a valuable resource in terms of sustainability and competitiveness for the European maritime policy.

  Riitta Myller (PSE). – (FI) Madam President, the sea is being threatened by human activities both on land and at sea. Most of the carbon dioxide that is warming and acidifying marine waters is formed on the land, but an ever greater share comes from maritime transport itself, something which is on the increase. Something needs to be done about both problems.

Maritime traffic needs to be included in international agreements on climate and emissions trading. The warming of marine waters as a result of climate change will have untold consequences for ecosystems throughout the globe. After all, more than 80% of the climate system’s increased warming is stored in the seas.

Since 1961 oceanic warming has extended to a depth of 3 000 metres. This is altering the marine ecology and the ecological diversity of the seas. Some species, such as corals, are threatened with extinction, whilst others, the so-called invasive alien species, are becoming too abundant.

The Baltic is the world’s most vulnerable sea. We have to be prepared to prevent the danger caused by increasing maritime traffic, such as oil consignments, and shipping must be as safe as possible. Early warning systems and control systems must be in working order everywhere.

  David Casa (PPE-DE). – (MT) Thank you, Madam President. Europe is at present focusing on a new vision for our seas, which undoubtedly have great potential. We would all agree that the sea is of vital importance to the European Union and, over the years, it has become a major subject of political debates. It is a well-known fact that this kind of discussion is essential if we want to adopt a more holistic approach to our maritime vision.

The Commissioners responsible for policies related to the sea, in particular the Maltese Commissioner, Mr Borg, drew up a document on the future of the Union’s maritime policy. The publication of this Green Paper launched extensive consultations on the prospects for a successful maritime policy, which was adopted by the Commission. The aim was to agree on how to implement maritime policies while at the same maintaining constantly sustainable synergy between one sector and another. This new maritime policy will help improve the standard of living of those countries close to the coast, and in such a way that it reflects regional development policy. A policy of this type will not only increase competition but will also protect the environment, as well as respond to challenges such as immigration and climate change. We can ensure that these challenges are successfully met, and indeed it is our duty to do so.

Expectations are great, but we must not forget that the opportunities to accept these challenges are just as great. I should like to call on all Europeans to seize these opportunities. I should like to conclude by stating that cooperation at European level is clearly necessary in order to move forward. The future of Europe is based on our seas. This requires a new level of cooperation, and I believe that we can only benefit as a result of such cooperation. Thank you.

  Jamila Madeira (PSE). – (PT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I must sincerely thank Mr Piecyk for his report. As mentioned in the report, the isolated, sectoral policies that we have at the moment are not equal to the challenges that this new century poses in terms of a maritime policy, and we have to equip the European Union with an integrated vision that provides comprehensive solutions across the board. We need solutions to enhance the quality of life in coastal areas, to create infrastructure and develop the transport sector, to conserve the sea bed and marine resources, and to establish partnerships and centres of excellence aiming at the sustainable management of the oceans and seas in the EU-27. The seas need to be protected and promoted through a common, shared approach, in that we must encourage and guarantee sustainable tourism, a balanced fisheries policy, a more environmentally friendly maritime transport sector, and informed, effective preservation of this vital resource, the sea.

Climate change, pollution, urban pressure in coastal areas and untreated waters draining into our seas are all topics that deserve our special attention, examination and common concern, so as to ensure that a healthy marine ecosystem is maintained. It is essential to ally these concerns with innovation and the new energy resources that we can extract from the seas through wave energy, and with the creation of centres of excellence dedicated to the study of the oceans.

To that end, we need to bring the sea, the culture of the sea and education about the sea closer to European citizens and to bring them back to their origins. The island regions, which by their very nature are linked to the seas, must be involved, but we urgently need to try to blend maritime factors into the reality of coastal regions in continental Europe, which are par excellence and by tradition ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, the outermost regions are mentioned several times in the Green Paper, but they remain largely underestimated in the overall consideration on an integrated approach for maritime policy, in spite of their geographical situation in the Indian Ocean, in the Atlantic and in the Caribbean Sea, and in spite of the fact that these regions are among those most affected by the issue of sustainable management of the sea, the ocean and the coastal zones. Therefore, the establishment of a research network on marine tropical biodiversity, Net-Biome, a project financed under the sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development (FPRD) and grouping together the seven outermost regions (OR) and some Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs), constitutes an important advance in the field of sustainable marine management and research and development in the tropical marine environment.

The outermost regions are confronted by hazards such as tsunamis, cyclones and, of course, global warming, so many cataclysms that weaken the environment and the seabed. You have, besides, been a victim of one of these hazards, Commissioner, as you had to abandon a trip to Réunion last March because of cyclone Gemede. The experience of the outermost regions, in terms of disaster prevention and reduction of the vulnerability of coastal zones, must bring considerable added value to our common reflection. Furthermore the question of balance between tourism and respect for the marine environment is asked more than elsewhere in the outermost regions so that this sector of activity allows sustainable development in these regions where tourism is one of the prime sources of revenue.

Finally, the issue of consistency between the different European policies arises in the field of fishing, because our regions must strengthen safety at sea and make jobs in fishing more attractive, whereas the current policy seeks to limit the power and number of boats, including in our regions where the level of resources does not justify it.

I hope that the current reflection will result in the emergence of a consistent overall European maritime policy, in which the outermost regions will see themselves recognised as in a special role, on a level with the detailed knowledge of the sea that they possess. Finally, I should like to finish by thanking Willi Piecyk for his work.

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

  Richard Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, I welcome the Commission’s Green Paper and today make the case for my own region, the East of England, to host the proposed European Centre of Excellence in the UK. With 700 km of low-lying coastline, major ports at Great Yarmouth, Ipswich, Felixstowe, Harwich and Tilbury, areas of outstanding natural beauty in north Norfolk and on the Stour and Orwell estuaries, for us it is a practical, not a theoretical, ambition to create a better relationship between people and the sea.

We need to build on the EU-funded centre promoting renewable energy in Lowestoft – due to open this year – where my region’s potential for offshore wind development could meet 25% of the United Kingdom’s electricity needs and make a major contribution towards European targets to cut carbon emissions. We need to recognise that rising sea levels – 40 cm by 2050 in the East of England – mean that current plans for coastline protection against erosion and flooding are no more than a sticking plaster for our region and for Europe. Devastating floods across East Anglia in 1953 killed 307 people, and today nearly half a million properties are at risk. We have to do more.

Finally, the maritime strategy must support economic development in maritime regions. We suffer from peripherality. In my region, King’s Lynn, Clacton-on-Sea, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock are amongst the top 10% in terms of multiple deprivation in the UK. In port development, tourism and regeneration, we have to make the concept of sustainable development a reality.

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking Willi Piecyk for the wonderful work he has done as rapporteur, because it is clearly crucial to Europe that it adopt an integrated and sustainable approach to marine management.

Activities that are essential to achieving the Lisbon objectives are carried out in the aquatic environment, but the sea also represents other values that are less commercial, but which relate to the most profound identity and culture of our peoples.

I regret that fishing has been rather blurred in this Green Paper, despite the fact that it is an exclusive competence of the Commission and the subject of a common policy. As well as its economic importance, fishing is crucial to maintaining jobs and culture in many European regions.

I am convinced that this sector will be one of the great beneficiaries of better integration with other policies relating to the sea, such as improving the training and living and working conditions of seafarers and increasing investment in research, which is crucial to understanding the way the seas and oceans work.

As a European from Galicia – a maritime region – I am convinced that this policy is going to play a crucial role for coastal regions, their towns and their people.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking Mr Piecyk for his excellent report and also for his willingness to receive and incorporate contributions aimed at clarifying the European maritime policy, broadening its scope and also making it more effective.

As I come from an island and outermost maritime region, my contributions were aimed at ensuring there was adequate acknowledgment of the importance of the outermost regions in drawing up and effectively implementing our maritime policy, on account of their geographical position and the vast knowledge they hold about the oceans and seas, and the consequent sharing of responsibility between the European Union and the outermost regions. My contributions concerned improved management and sustainable exploitation of marine resources; enhancement of coastal regions through careful organisation of the coastline and specific measures for developing a broader coastal policy; support for environmentally friendly forms of maritime transport, including through the development of an effective European port strategy consistent with the nature of European ports; support for marine research, particularly in the areas of medicine, energy and marine resources in general; promotion of social rights, in line with International Labour Organization standards, to ensure that they are kept in the spotlight; and, lastly, vocational training in the maritime sector for workers both at sea and on land, and an assurance that tourism, one of the main economic activities associated with the seas and oceans, is duly taken into account.

  Karin Jöns (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, wish to express my sincere thanks to Mr Piecyk for his really excellent report.

I hail from a region with a deeply rooted maritime tradition. Overfishing of the seas and the bankruptcy of several shipyards has led to an unemployment rate of up to 20%. Nevertheless, shipbuilding is now taking place again. Instead of fish processing, biotechnology is the order of the day. Wind farms are being increasingly located offshore. Climate research is taking pride of place. This is the result of major investment, not only in research and innovation, but also in training. We must do more to promote training in maritime occupations, in order to create good, sustainable jobs. The growth potential for the next five years alone is estimated at approximately 15%, and I am pleased that Mr Piecyk’s report, unlike the Commission Green Paper, makes this a clear priority.

In conclusion, I would appeal to all my fellow Members to support the amendment tabled by my group that seeks to put an end to the continued treatment of seafarers as second-class workers. The European minimum standards in labour law must apply unreservedly to them, too.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members, once again your contributions here today demonstrate the commitment of Parliament to maritime policy and this is clear proof of the excellent coordination work carried out by Mr Piecyk.

In your contributions, you raised a number of points which clearly merit further study and consideration, especially in view of the preparation for the adoption of the Blue Paper by the Commission next October.

Let me state clearly that the aim of our work on maritime policy is to unlock the potential that exists in the sustainable use of our oceans and seas. We are looking for the first time at this maritime space in an integrated and holistic manner and we seek to build on where we see the added value. Let me underline that this is certainly not an exercise in centralisation of powers but one which seeks to provide an incentive for coordination and to involve stakeholders much more than they are involved today.

Clearly, this is the beginning of the process and not the end. There will be opportunities to continue to develop our positions on a number of points raised. Let me just repeat that a maritime policy cannot be a one-size-fits-all policy. The specificities of the different seas around the European Union have to be properly factored in.

Let me just say a word on the regional aspects. Clearly, we view the regional dimension as the key factor in our exercise and the ultra-peripheral dimension is undoubtedly focal. I would like to assure you that those involved on a regional level and regional actions will remain a cornerstone of our policy as we bring this issue forward.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

  Viorica-Pompilia-Georgeta Moisuc (ITS), în scris. – Raportul domnului Willi Piecyk din Comisia pentru transport si turism abordează un ansamblu de probleme de cea mai mare actualitate privitor la stabilirea unor reguli şi percepte general valabile pentru statele membre ale U.E. în vederea protejării şi exploatării raţionale a apelor mărilor şi oceanelor.

Mă voi referi la unele chestiuni legate de specificul situaţiei la Marea Neagră, mare de frontieră externă a Uniunii, şi anume: după căderea regimului comunist în România, dezvoltarea turismului pe litoralul de vest al Mării Negre a atras o creştere îngrijorătoare a poluării apelor mării din cauza nenumăratelor restaurante deschise chiar pe plajă, restaurante care deversează în mare reziduurile de tot felul; în acelaşi timp plaja s-a îngustat foarte mult din cauza acestor stabilimente.

Poluarea Marii Negre este datorată în bună măsură şi exploatării neraţionale a Deltei Dunării - al doilea fluviu ca mărime în Europa după Volga. Asupra echilibrului biologic al Deltei, asupra faunei şi florei unice în Europa, are un puternic impact negativ construirea de către Ucraina a canalului Bâstroe - acţiune împotriva căreia s-au pronunţat specialişti din toată lumea.

Pentru aceste motive, la care se pot adăuga multe altele, considerăm că propunerile făcute de raportor şi în special construirea unei politici europene maritime unice pe baza prevederilor din Cartea Verde sunt bine venite şi le susţinem în întregime.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) With this report, we can clearly see the potential that the European Union (EU) could gain from a more integrated maritime policy, that would replace fragmented and specific measures with more consistent proposals. In its Green Paper, the Commission scarcely managed it, but let us acknowledge that we are not helping much with this overlong and insufficiently structured report.

I will recall four main challenges to be taken up: reconciling economic development and environmental protection, including issues of maritime safety and marine biodiversity; making a success of coastal development to reconcile the economic and natural activities of the port and residential areas; moving from a traditional economy towards new sectors with high added value, such as marine biotechnologies and new energy sources; establishing effective governance, that political and administrative challenge on which the success of the whole depends.

There certainly exists real potential for development of activities linked with the sea, which today represent 3% to 5% of the European Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but setting all that to music will be difficult and will require efficient coordination.

In this report, the EU is a pioneer and is showing off its ambitions. It remains to find the means to pass from this vision to an integrated policy.

16. Commission Question Time

  President. – The next item is Question Time (B6-0133/2007).

The following questions have been submitted to the Commission.

Part One

At Commissioner Verheugen’s request, Question Time will begin with Question No 28.

  President. Question No 28 by Catherine Stihler (H-0493/07)

Subject: Consultation on patient information

How does the Commission intend formally to consult consumer organisations in the production of the report on current practice in information to patients, as directed to in Article 88a of Directive 2004/27/EC⁽¹⁾? "Within three years of entry into force of Directive 2004/726/EC, the Commission shall, following consultation with patients’ and consumers’ organizations, Member States and other interested parties, present to the European Parliament and the Council a report on current practice with regard to information provision – particularly on the Internet – and its risks and benefits for patients".

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Stihler, pursuant to Article 88a of Directive 2001/83/EC, the Commission is currently drawing up a report on current practice in information to patients on medicinal products. The report will summarise the current state of affairs, but will not set out any political guidelines or proposals as yet since, in accordance with Article 88a, these are to be made later, as a second step. As soon as the final version of the report is available, it will be presented immediately to the Council and the European Parliament.

When preparing this report, the Commission services have held extensive consultations with patients’ and consumers’ organisations, Member States and other interested parties. According to the usual procedure, the public consultation lasted for more than two months – from April to June of this year. The draft has been published on the website of the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, and opinions have been requested.

So far, more than 50 contributions have been received already, and several more arrive every day. Ten of these contributions are from patients’ or consumers’ organisations. This is strong proof that consumers’ organisations and all other interested parties, and also the general public, have had the opportunity to give their opinions on, and make contributions to, this report – and indeed they have done so abundantly.

The responses received are being examined very carefully, and the final report will have to consider, on the basis of this examination, the best strategy to give all European citizens the same access to the clearest possible information on medicinal products.

I should like to assure the honourable Member that this issue is a great personal concern of mine and that I shall do my utmost to bring the process to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, it is most crucial that our proposals be based on comprehensive information and extensive consultation with the public; and, as I see it, precision and quality are definitely more important in this matter than speed.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Thank you, Commissioner. I think there is great concern over how parties have been consulted. Many of us here feel that there should be no change to the current legislation, i.e. keep the ban on direct consumer advertising and no backdoor routes to direct advertising of pharmaceuticals. We need to allow more consumer involvement in the pharmaceutical forum with a focus on what patients and ordinary consumers want and need to know rather than what industry wants to provide. Therefore, will the Commissioner consider changes to the timetable adopted to allow for appropriate consideration of all alternative points of view and to address the problem of information in a patient-centred way with patient-centred solutions?

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. – (DE) Mrs Stihler, I should like to start by assuring you that we fully agree on the political assessment that the door must not be opened to product advertising in the field of prescription medicinal products; nor will this happen if I can help it. The sole objective must be to provide patients with objective, comprehensive, neutral information, and to do so in such a way as to avoid confusing them, and as to ensure that they all have equal access to this objective, neutral information.

The problem we face today is that some groups of patients have access to all manner of information via the Internet and other modern communication technologies, whereas many patients do not have this information, and that is a situation we must eliminate.

I should like to reiterate quite clearly that we shall not cross the line separating patient information from product advertising. In addition, we shall lay down quite clearly what rules and criteria apply to the information concerned.

Regarding the timetable, I said before that the consultation stage has been concluded. We are now working at full stretch towards completing the final report on the basis of these consultations. As I said before, I shall do my utmost to speed this process up. At all events, it will be complete by the end of this year.

  President.

Question No 26 by Brian Crowley (H-0467/07)

Subject: Combating youth and long-term unemployment within the EU

Can the European Commission make a statement as to what measures it is pursuing this year to combat youth and long-term unemployment within the European Union and to ensure that these EU citizens who are unemployed have access to quality training courses in the field of information technologies?

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. – (CS) Mr President, honourable Members, the labour market in Europe is improving overall, and is doing so very quickly and very positively. Never have so many people worked in Europe, and unemployment figures are at their lowest for a long time. It remains true, however, that the unemployment rate among young people remains high, at around twice the EU average. Youth unemployment is first and foremost the responsibility of the Member States, within the context of their labour market policies. It is also true, however, that the EU must contribute towards resolving this problem.

The EU’s key task consists of supporting the Member States in the following two areas:

– coordination and monitoring of national Member State policy on unemployment in the context of the Lisbon Strategy and

– financial support, in particular via the European social fund.

The framework for policy coordination is provided by the relaunched Lisbon Strategy. The Commission is monitoring national unemployment policies very closely. In the latest Community report on unemployment, the Commission and the Council underlined the urgent need to improve the situation for young people in the labour market. Although the Member States have undertaken to offer young people a fresh start, most of the 4.6 million unemployed young people do not receive a job offer, an offer of education or vocational training in the first six months of their unemployment. Young people who do find a job often have insecure contractual conditions. The Commission takes the view that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and has recommended that the Member States improve the situation for young people, in particular in the field of education or vocational training.

In the Commission’s view, steps should be taken in particular in the following three areas:

firstly, social inclusion, which is a vital prerequisite for sustainable development in Europe. The Commission will support active cohesion aimed at helping people who are on the margins of the labour market to integrate into the labour market, as well as programmes ensuring an appropriate minimum wage and access to high-quality social services.

secondly, lifelong learning, because there can be no doubt that education engenders education and people who are educated and who have higher qualifications have greater access to lifelong learning than those who most need it, that is, people with low qualifications or older people with outdated skills. As regards the Lisbon Strategy, the Commission has issued a number of recommendations to the Member States in the area of education and vocational training, especially concerning early school leaving, with a view to raising the levels of the education that Europeans receive. I should like to point out that the EU’s reference target is to bring the number of early school leavers down to below 10%. The figure is currently 15.2% and in some countries significantly higher than that. Reducing early school leaving is in our view one of the most important factors in improving opportunities for young people on the labour market. Another Commission recommendation is that of supporting geographical mobility. Despite unemployment, we are in a situation where some regions and sectors do not have enough people in the labour force. Young people should therefore be urged to take advantage of these opportunities to work.

A further possibility is EU financial support via the European social fund. As well as coordinating policy, the Union supports the Member States’ efforts to modernise the labour market. During the period 2007-2013 the Member States will receive EUR 72.6 billion towards funding the reform of national labour markets, over 90% of which will go directly towards fulfilling the Lisbon goals. Investment in human capital, which represents one third of the budget of the European social fund, is the most important priority for 2007-2013. A further 30% of that amount will be earmarked for social cohesion in respect of disadvantaged groups.

The European social fund has already yielded practical results. Every year, some 2 million people gain access to employment after taking advantage of support from European social fund projects. In 2007, 25% of unemployed people in the EU will take part in European social fund projects, from which some 1 million of society’s marginalised or disadvantaged people benefit every year. Around 4 million people every year graduate from vocational courses as part of the lifelong learning programme, which is supported by the European social fund.

Given that, as I emphasised, the issue of youth unemployment remains a problem, the Commission is looking for more effective solutions. For this reason, the Commission is now finalising a draft communication on bringing young people into education, employment and society, the adoption of which is planned for September of this year. This communication will be accompanied by a Commission working document on youth employment.

Honourable Members, as I emphasised, the question of youth unemployment is of course mainly a matter for the Member States, their employment policies, their education policies and so forth, although the EU cannot and will not remain inactive.

  Brian Crowley (UEN). – Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for his response. In the short time available to me, I will focus on three specific areas.

First of all, with regard to youth unemployment, we see that there is a huge skills shortage, not just in the areas of the internet, communications or technology, but also in terms of the traditional skills used, for example, by carpenters, electricians, stonemasons and so on. There does not seem to be any new initiative to try and enforce extra training out of resources in there.

Secondly, with regard to the mobility question, there are barriers that are put in place that affect young people, in particular, in travelling to get jobs and have their qualifications recognised where they have them.

Thirdly, and finally, with regard to long-term unemployment, back-to-work schemes are important, allowing people to retain some of their social rights and thus helping them integrate back into the work system again. What proposals are there for that in particular?

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. – (CS) These two points are extremely important, of course, and it would be possible to go into them at great length, but I will answer very briefly, if I may. Naturally, within the framework of the European social fund’s active employment policy, we are striving to open up qualifications, and as you correctly pointed out qualifications are not a purely intellectual matter but also involve manual trades and other activities. The Commission is therefore preparing a forum, within the framework of the forum for restructuring, to address the future labour market, that is to say, a labour market with jobs that can be viewed in the long term as either stable or newly-arising, and part of our efforts will be to formulate appropriate requirements for qualifications, appropriate modules for acquiring qualifications and flexible, resilient methods for pursuing the balance between the future labour market and qualifications.

As regards workers’ mobility, there is once again a series of different points and ways in which we can support mobility. The most important of these is the objective set out by my colleague Mr Figel, namely the draft policy on recognising qualifications not only in sectors in which qualifications are already recognised but in other sectors too, including so-called trades. I feel that if we embark on this project, we will significantly improve the situation for young people in the labour market.

  President.

Question No 27 by Olle Schmidt (H-0487/07)

Subject: European refuge for persecuted writers and journalists

The EU is under an obligation to support an open debate in closed societies and dictatorships. However, in far too many countries, the expression of opinions continues to be life-threatening. Journalists and writers are murdered, kidnapped and persecuted worldwide. Freedom of expression is important if dictatorships are to develop into open, democratic societies. The Commission could send a clear signal about the value of freedom of expression by offering temporary refuge to writers and journalists persecuted as a result of restrictions on such freedom. The Danish Government recently put forward such a proposal.

Is the Commission prepared to take the initiative to offer refuge in the EU to writers who are at risk of persecution owing to restrictions on freedom of expression?

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. The conditions under which third-country nationals can be granted international protection like refugee subsidiary protection status in a Member State have been harmonised at Community level. In fact, the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC imposes on the EU Member States concerned the obligation to grant refugee status to third-country nationals who seek protection on the grounds of a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of political opinion.

In this context, the concept of political opinion encompasses any opinion concerning matters on which the state, government or society is engaged, going beyond identification with a specific political party or recognised ideology.

Member States are therefore obliged by virtue of EU law to offer protection to journalists and writers who, as a result of exercising their freedom of expression, have in their countries of origin a well-founded fear of persecution in the form of a threat to their life, physical freedom or other serious violations of their human rights.

The Commission welcomes any initiatives by individual Member States to raise the level of protection granted to writers and journalists persecuted as a result of restrictions on their freedom of expression.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). - (SV) That is a positive response. I want to use my question to call on the Commissioner to join with the Member States in taking an initiative to regulate matters more and to ensure that writers and journalists who are able to come to Europe actually get to do so. I think that that is our duty, given the incredibly difficult world situation. Allow me to remind the Commissioner that, last year, 113 people working in the media were murdered, 807 were put in prison, almost 1 500 were physically attacked and 56 were kidnapped. Among writers, 18 were killed and 144 put in prison. It is high time that we took action. An EU grant might be considered on the lines of that mooted by the Commissioner.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, I am most willing to answer Mr Schmidt. Since the directive is in force, all the Member States are obliged to comply with it. One aspect on which more can probably be done is that of the provision of information and communication with the country of origin: on this point journalists probably have little knowledge of the possibilities offered to them by European law to find protection if they are in danger.

With regard to the communication programmes, all the Member States should know that the European Commission is willing not only to jointly fund them but also to promote them. Thus, more knowledge is needed for improved application of a directive that exists precisely in the terms that I have described to you.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I should like to state my express support for the Member’s question, as the spirit that inspires and drives the European Union does not reign in countries that see the banning and burning of books followed by the persecution of the authors. I should like to extend the question a little. As I see it, not only should these people be given particular protection, but also the EU must concern itself with ensuring that what these authors write can be disseminated, that it is passed on, in order to bring down the very dictatorships under which they are suffering. Is the Commission considering supporting these people by not only allowing them to stay here but also promoting what they are doing?

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Mr President, we have already, in fact, thought of programmes to make known the views of persons who, in their own countries, are defined as dissident writers, in such a way as to promote the spread of liberal, democratic ideas. Our ultimate objective is to make these ideas known in the very countries from which these writers or journalists come.

Our task is to spread democratic values outside the borders of Europe, and I believe that it is appropriate to do this also by using the voices of courageous writers and journalists, who should be protected in Europe but whose ideas should also be known in the countries from which they have fled. Thus, as a matter of principle I agree with this approach.

  Jim Allister (NI). – When we think of persecuted and threatened journalists, it is difficult not to mention the recent release of Alan Johnston in Gaza, which was welcomed by us all. Would the Commission agree, however, that a careful balance has to be struck in ensuring that terrorist organisations, such as Hamas, are not enhanced or rewarded for a role in delivering that which never should have happened, namely, the removal of the liberty of a brave journalist like Alan Johnston? Would the Commissioner care to comment on that?

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (IT) Mr President, it is clear that, on this matter, Europe has already expressed itself through the voices of the Foreign Ministers of the European Union: the release of persons who have been seized is a duty that Europe has a diplomatic responsibility to fulfil.

The release of Alan Johnston was an act that we welcomed but obviously, as you said, nobody believes that Hamas should be rewarded; as everybody knows, it is still on the list of terrorist organisations.

That said, it is clear that what matters most to us is that human lives are saved and that journalists can carry out their activities, including in difficult areas and in conflict or high-risk zones. If this were not the case, it would detract from the very mission of journalists, which is to go to places including those that are dangerous, and to report what they have seen and heard.

Part Two

  President. Question No 29 by Stavros Arnaoutakis (H-0500/07)

Subject: Risk of total depletion of fish stocks in the Aegean

According to published scientific studies, fish stocks in the Aegean are falling to dangerous levels and there is an immediate threat that fishing grounds will be devastated. This situation is exacerbated by the failure to implement effective measures to promote the sustainable management of fishing activities and by uncontrolled use of fishing gear and methods which cause lasting damage, particularly to habitats where fish stocks reproduce.

It is the Commission's duty, as a matter of urgency to protect this region against the further development of these problems in order, at least to preserve the level of fish stocks and protect coastal fishermen, for whom fishing is a means of survival. What action will the Commission take to tackle this serious problem?

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. I thank Mr Arnaoutakis for his question concerning the Aegean Sea and its fisheries resources. It will be recalled that the Council of Ministers adopted the proposed regulation concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean Sea in late 2006. That regulation consequently entered into force in January 2007. The Commission believes that the regulation represents a fair and vigorous response to the problems raised by the honourable Member as far as both demersal and small pelagic species are concerned. For other highly migratory species like bluefin tuna, the Community also recently adopted new legislation that will contribute to improving the conservation status of these stocks.

Let me underline here that establishing management measures is, however, not enough if adequate implementation and follow-up of the measures are not carried out. Both Member States and fishermen’s organisations have a fundamental role to play in this respect. The Commission will be very attentive to ensure proper enforcement of all the measures. It is for this reason that on 2 April 2007 I wrote to the Ministers of the Member States concerned to assess where we stand as regards the application of the regulation a few months after its adoption. My departments will continue to monitor the situation and the implementation by the Member States of the various provisions contained in that regulation.

In addition to Community measures that may be further complemented in the future, it is also fundamental to promote fisheries management measures in the framework of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), so that Mediterranean countries that are not members of the European Union can also contribute to the sustainability of marine living resources.

Active participation of Member States’ scientists in the proceedings of the GFCM Scientific Advisory Committee is an important way to achieve this. In the case of the Aegean Sea, it is primarily the responsibility of Greece and Turkey to ensure adequate scientific cooperation in order to provide sound scientific advice for fisheries management.

In order to facilitate and promote further scientific cooperation in the Mediterranean eastern basin, the Commission, together with Greece and Italy, is planning to support a new FAO regional project named EastMed.

  Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for his reply and I should like to tell him that fishermen from Member States of the European Union and third countries are active in the Aegean and in the Mediterranean in general.

Nonetheless, Greek and Community fishermen in the area suffer all the restrictions and apply Community directives, unlike fishermen from third countries, who fish without restrictions and often without control.

What does the Commission intend to do in order to resolve this problem immediately?

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Yes, as I said, the Commission can intervene directly with regard to the management of fisheries within Community waters, in particular involving Community fishers. In that regard I made reference specifically to the Mediterranean regulation, which has just come into effect and we are monitoring it closely in order to see that there is proper implementation.

Obviously the Mediterranean Sea, and your part of the Mediterranean Sea, involves third countries with whom we have relationships. With Turkey in particular there is the association relationship, and Turkey is also a candidate for membership. With regard to fisheries, we try to work closely with these third countries in other fora which are responsible for the management of fisheries in the Mediterranean, in particular the GFCM, which is the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. As regards highly migratory species there is ICCAT, which is the commission that has responsibility for blue fin tuna, in particular, and swordfish. Here we are trying to work closely with third countries who are also members of these fora in order to push forward common regulatory measures. In that way we are trying to maintain and establish as level a playing field as possible.

Obviously it is essential that European Union take the lead, and therefore in establishing our own regulatory regime for fisheries in Community waters, we set the example and do our utmost to see to it that third countries with fishing rights in the Mediterranean adopt similar measures through GFCM or ICCAT so that our fishers would not be prejudiced as a result of having more stringent fishing rules for the management of the fishery.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Over the last week, we have heard of problems in your home country, Malta, concerning in-shore fisheries in another part of the Mediterranean. Are there any special possibilities, programmes or strategies to specifically promote in-shore fisheries and the protection of local fishermen?

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Coastal fishing in the Mediterranean is a particularly sensitive issue, given the fact that the Mediterranean fishery is somewhat more specific than fisheries one would find in the North Sea, for example, which principally comprises mixed fisheries. Therefore, one cannot be as selective as one would like to be and the measures that apply in the Mediterranean are based more on technical measures than on setting total allowable catches and quotas.

However, having said that, the Mediterranean fisheries policy has introduced regulations, for the first time, that are quite tough in order to regulate Mediterranean fisheries and in particular coastal fisheries. There is a requirement on the part of Member States to draw up management plans for fisheries with regard to the coastal dimension and, in particular, measures relating to the types of gear used, as well as measures relating to minimum landing sizes.

We are now monitoring the implementation of this regulation, as I said in my reply to the question. This was adopted just at the end of last year and came into effect at the beginning of this year. The timeframes are being introduced during the course of this year and next year. I hope that within the timeframes set in the regulation, the Member States will have the necessary measures in place so that we will be able to have a much more sustainable fishery in the Mediterranean, especially with regard to coastal fisheries.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) I congratulate my honourable friend Mr Arnaoutakis on his question and thank the Commissioner for his reply. I would, however, like to ask on what terms catches by fishermen from third countries are imported into and marketed in the European Union.

Increased fishing also means increased demand due to cheaper prices. It is not just the method of fishing.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. The rules applicable to the importation of fish are regulated under the general provisions relating to WTO negotiations and the WTO regime. There are certain elements whereby, with regard to fisheries in particular, there is not total liberalisation and, therefore, there are certain measures to protect the Community industry. However, one needs to see how the discussions will unfold during the course of this year in order to see what further liberalisation concerning imported fisheries products will occur.

Having said that, however, it is important to underline that we will submit measures later this year to fight illegal fishing. Under these, if fish are caught by vessels operating under a third-country flag and those vessels cannot prove that the fish have been caught sustainably – in other words, within, for example, quota limits and within the parameters of the rules applicable in different regional fisheries management organisations, such as, in the case of the Mediterranean, the GFCM – then those fish will be considered illegal and authorisation will not be given for them to be landed in the Member State where they would have been landed. This would provide us with a very effective measure, which, I hope, will help us curtail the landing of illegally caught fish.

  President. Question No 30 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0452/07)

Subject: Protection of children's rights in the context of the EU's foreign relations

The Commission communication of 4 July 2006 'Towards a European strategy on the rights of the child' estimates, under the heading 'Global situation', that some 300 000 children are fighting as child soldiers in more than 30 armed conflicts around the world. Although it might be thought that the problem of child soldiers had been dealt with and the extreme violations of their rights reduced, there are frequent reports in the international press regarding the recruitment of child soldiers, with specific examples involving the countries of Africa and Asia.

What view does the Commission take of the use of children in military operations, in the context of its external relations? What specific measures will it take to put efforts to combat the recruitment of child soldiers at the top of its political agenda in its relations with countries which force children to take part in military operations? What will it do to promote the application of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, so that states comply with the requirement that young people must be aged 18 in order to take part in military training or operations?

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. The Commission not only thoroughly and strongly condemns the recruitment and the use of children in armed forces and groups, it is also actively contributing to a sustained international effort using all the available means in combating this phenomenon. And we are working actively, both at the policy level and also through our different funding instruments, to promote the rights of the child in armed conflict.

There are three levels here. One is the policy level. The European Union has established a particularly robust basis to work on these issues. Since 2003, several important policy documents have been adopted including the EU guidelines on children and armed conflict, the EU concept for support for this disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration and the checklist for integration of the protection of children affected by armed conflict into ESDP operations and, finally, the Commission communication towards an EU strategy on children’s rights from 2006.

Now, in our political dialogues with partner countries, we regularly raise issues related to children’s rights. For example, we raised with the Lebanese Government the ratification of the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We also urge states that have not yet done so to ratify and fully implement the statute of the International Criminal Court which classifies enlisting children as a war crime. And we have been financially supporting the recent revision of the Cape Town principle, resulting in February of this year in the adoption of the Paris principles. Furthermore, we also continue to work with and actively support the UN’s special representatives for children in armed conflict, UNICEF, OHCHR, UNHCR and other non-governmental bodies.

Secondly, we have made this issue a high priority in our assistance efforts at individual country level, for instance, with regard to projects on disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programmes, for instance, in Sudan or with regard to prevention of child recruitment in Colombia or demobilisation, reintegration and prevention of recruitment of child soldiers. That has facilitated the demobilisation of more than 3000 children.

Finally, within the new European instrument for democracy and human rights, we have also earmarked an amount of EUR 6.8 million for 2007 to 2010, aiming to protect children’s rights in armed-conflict situations.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) I thank the Commissioner for her reply. However, I would like her to tell me what specific action is being taken to welcome such children to the European Union.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. As I just said, we have quite a number of these different guidelines and we are implementing the guidelines that are there. I just mentioned, for instance, the EU strategy on the rights of the child. This is done first by political dialogue. Secondly, we are also helping them with their own strategies. That means we are working with the individual countries and we are also supporting financially the recent revision of the Cape Town principles. As I said, that resulted in the Paris principles and we are also officially expressing political support for those guidelines.

So we are trying to work on all the different fronts by helping the countries but by also using our own projects.

  President.

Question No 31 by Bernd Posselt (H-0460/07)

Subject: Strategy for the Black Sea region

What is the EU's foreign policy strategy for the development of the Black Sea region? What bearing do human rights, security and foreign energy policy issues have on this strategy?

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. This is a question on the strategy of the Black Sea region. Beyond the three EU Member States, the Black Sea region comprises seven other countries covered by European Union policies: one is the neighbourhood policy, the pre-accession process in the case of Turkey is the second, and then we have the strategic partnership with Russia. These, and mainly the European neighbourhood policy, determine our strategy towards the region as a whole.

Promoting prosperity and stability is therefore one of our main goals, and we offer substantial cooperation programmes. Recently we have, as you know, put forward a Black Sea synergy initiative that has just been adopted under the German Presidency.

The region is of key importance to us, particularly for EU energy supplies – not only security of energy supplies but also diversification. We are also promoting a dialogue with all the Black Sea countries on energy security to provide a transparent framework for production, transport and transit, not only in a regional context but also to enhance our own energy security and supplies through diversification.

We are also working on upgrading the existing energy infrastructure and on promoting the development of new infrastructure in the context of a Caspian Sea-Black Sea-EU energy corridor. There are also all the human rights standards as set out by the Council of Europe and the OSCE that also apply to all the Black Sea states. We therefore want to improve human rights standards, but we also want to support and strengthen democratic structures and civil society in particular. This is key.

Finally, security is the third point and, in particular, the ‘frozen conflicts’ that present a huge challenge. We hope that active EU involvement in ongoing efforts to address these conflicts will provide an opportunity to resolve them in the not too distant future.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, many thanks for that very detailed, exhaustive reply. I now have two supplementary questions. Firstly, we shall be dealing with Transnistria in a topical and urgent debate on Thursday. What is the Commissioner’s assessment of the situation in Moldova?

My second question relates to the tensions in the three states of the South Caucasus, which have escalated greatly in recent days and weeks into some kind of proxy conflicts. Has the Commission taken on a mediating role here?

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. (DE) Firstly, on the subject of Transnistria and Moldova, we held important talks with President Voronin in person just recently, and I can tell you that we are working together very closely with Mr Voronin – within the framework of our neighbourhood policy, of course.

We know that talks have been held between President Voronin and President Putin of Russia, but the important thing is that these link up with the ‘five plus two’ talks we are holding. We are making a great effort to give Moldova every possible support along the way. Time and again, there are human-rights issues to be raised – as I have done personally, both in a letter to President Voronin and directly in our talks – but it is imperative that we support this country, the poorest in Europe, and that is what we are doing with our programmes.

Regarding the tensions in the South Caucasus, it is true that these have escalated. We have pointed out time and again that a solution to the conflicts in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and of course Nagorno-Karabakh is only possible by stepping up political dialogue. We are in very close contact with the various Special Representatives of the High Representative, and we have channelled our neighbourhood policy towards the creation of an environment conducive to finding a solution.

Whereas, on the one hand, Nagorno-Karabakh has had an opportunity – sadly, the President has yet to take it, but we all hope for a breakthrough – and certain improvements are discernible in South Ossetia; on the other hand, ever greater problems can be seen in Abkhazia, and we have to be particularly vigilant with regard to that country.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) The Commissioner mentioned a series of important policy fields in her answer to Mr Posselt’s question. There is a further matter that I should like to address. The situation in the Black Sea area has led to the EU having an important external border there, too. This raises questions regarding both the legal and the illegal crossing of the border. Do the fields of visa and immigration policy and the prevention of illegal immigration present any opportunities in this regard?

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. (DE) Mr Rack, I should like to say in that regard that several states are involved here. On the one hand there are the new EU Member States Bulgaria and Romania, who are making an appropriate contribution to the joint formulation of the EU migration policy.

On the other hand, of course, there are other countries, such as the applicant country Turkey. When the time comes and this issue is dealt with as a chapter, Turkey will have to accept and adopt the acquis communautaire.

Relations with some of these countries fall within the neighbourhood policy, and in this regard we are tackling two main fields – on the one hand, certain visa-facilitation measures and, on the other, the issue of readmission agreements – to prevent illegal migration as far as possible.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) I would like to ask about the closure of Bulgaria's Kozloduy Blocks 3 and 4. Although the Accession Treaty required that they be closed, do you think that now, given the current energy situation in Europe and the world, it is right to shut down one or all of the blocks of a well run and safe electricity generating plant that is operating economically?

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. I would say that this is one of the important reasons for having this Black Sea synergy cooperation and for having the Economic Council of the Black Sea as the instrument for bringing this cooperation forward. We would like to see, on the one hand, our partner countries, the neighbourhood countries and, on the other hand, our own Member States, working closely together with the candidate country, that is Turkey, but then particularly also with the strategic partner, i.e. Russia.

We are at the very beginning of this new policy and I think this policy has to grow. There was a very important meeting in Istanbul which I hope henceforth will provide the opportunity for intensifying and deepening our cooperation. However, I think that it is too early to make an assessment just now. Now is the time to go forward and see what we can achieve, but this is clearly the intention.

  President.

Question No 32 by Evgeni Kirilov (H-0479/07)

Subject: The situation with the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor in Libya

Can the Commission please update us on the situation with the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor in Libya following the recent visit of Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and the German Federal Minister Steinmeier in the country? Can the Commission draw some conclusions and give us a political assessment of the way to continue the negotiations with the Libyan authorities?

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the case of the Bulgarian and Palestinian medical personnel is one of my top priorities. During the visit to Libya, together with Foreign Minister Steinmeier, who was at that time the President-in-Office of the Council, we recorded progress in the discussions with the Libyan authorities and with the representatives of the children’s families. It appears that we are now getting closer to finding a solution based on human solidarity that might produce results.

The families and the Government have been constructive, and we have confirmed our readiness to take into consideration continuing the Benghazi Action Plan in favour of the children and, in particular, in favour of the Benghazi Centre for Infectious Diseases and Immunology.

Now we are waiting for the verdict of the Supreme Court that is expected tomorrow, on 11 July, but this will not be the end because another step is planned before the Libyan High Judicial Council.

We are in very close contact with the Libyan authorities and of course we hope that there will be a positive outcome to the story, but we are not there yet.

  Евгени Кирилов (PSE). – Г-жо комисар, благодаря на Вас и на немското председателство за огромните усилия, които положихте.

Вие, г-жо комисар, характеризирате тези преговори като деликатни. Обикновено често казвате така. Всъщност търпение и деликатност проявява Европейската комисия. Либийският режим, който не иска да търси истинската причина за СПИН-епидемията до този момент, не проявява деликатност и си е намерил за тази цел дългосрочни заложници. Той драстично нарушава човешките права на европейски граждани вече 8 години и развива удобната му теза за независимото либийско правосъдие. А то е толкова независимо, колкото например са либийските медии, които за този период не посмяха нито един път да представят другата гледна точка, за разлика от българските и европейските медии.

Попитах Ви за политическата оценка, защото този процес е политически. Логично е за утрешното заседание на съда в Либия и неговото решение, както и за всички решения до сега, либийските власти да носят отговорност. Бих желал да Ви попитам: „Имате ли алтернативен план за действие (председателят се опитва да го прекъсне.), ако Либия продължи да използва преговорите за удължаването на агонията на медицинските сестри и палестинския лекар?“

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. I would like to say that I am for the first time hopeful that there might be positive movement. But for the moment we are not yet there, as I said. We do not want to have a plan B because we really want to work for what we have been trying to do: help the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian medic find their freedom again.

The next days will be crucial. We will be very attentive and we have offered the Libyan authorities the opportunity of really having a mid-term plan for working towards a Benghazi centre that will not only be a centre for the town, but will also be a regional centre and a centre for HIV/AIDS treatment for that part of sub-Saharan Africa.

So let us hope and let us work together in order to find a good solution.

  Glyn Ford (PSE). – This case really is an outrageous one. My colleague, David Martin, was one of the first to raise this issue in the last Parliament, before 2004. Yet we are still here. The Libyan Government has to recognise that this has threatened to sour relations permanently between the EU and Libya, which is a great pity given that Libya has just come out of the cold. I welcome your proposal for a Benghazi centre. I hope the decision tomorrow is the right one. If not, I hope that the High Judicial Authority will be able to make the right decision. But if not – and I understand you do not want a plan B now – will you come back to us with further proposals for action if we do not get the right decision in the last two opportunities we have?

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. I would like to say again that the Libyan authorities see more and more that they too would like to have good relations with the European Union. I think they have understood how important it is to get out of isolation and, and that this case is still an obstacle.

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will most probably come forward with its verdict, but we also know – and I think it is important to emphasise this – that this will not be the end of the road. There will still be the political decision of the High Judicial Council.

If there is no solution, we will certainly come back and we will have to see what has to be done. But as I said before, I have a cautious optimism this time. Let us hope, let us not only cross our fingers but work together as much as we can. And this is what we will do right up to the last minute. I can assure you of that.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Commissioner, please let us avoid a situation where the European Union, following the example of the United States, will pay ransom, such as the ransom recently demanded for the release of the nurses and the doctor by Colonel Gadaffi, who asked for an extortionate amount of money to free the victims. We must not allow this to happen.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. I do not want to go into any details of what we are talking about with the Libyan authorities. However, I can assure you that there is no ransom to be paid. Our sole strategy from the outset has been to say that there is solidarity with the Libyan people, and especially with the children that have been affected. There is also solidarity with their families. We also think it is sometimes a possibility to convert a risk or a difficult situation into a chance. The chance could be that this Benghazi Centre could not only be a centre for treating those children and their families, but also a centre of excellence in the future for the region, and even maybe for a part of sub-Saharan Africa. I can absolutely assure you there is no ransom being paid.

  President.

Question No 35 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0453/07)

Subject: Nuclear power in the Balkans

What projects for the construction of new nuclear power stations in the EU Member States of the Balkans peninsula, and in south-eastern Europe generally, have been notified to the Commission? In view of the gradual closure of the nuclear reactors at Kozlodui and the parallel construction of a nuclear power plant at Belene, how is the region's energy map taking shape? Is nuclear energy a correct and appropriate strategic choice for the Member States of the region to meet their energy requirements, bearing in mind the reservations that have been expressed in connection with the many powerful earthquakes this region has endured in the past?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. With respect to the region in question, there is one notification on the construction of a new nuclear power plant and one commitment on closure. On 27 February of this year, Natsionalna Elektricheska Kompania (National Electric Company) notified the Commission, under Article 41 of Euratom, of its investment project. The notification concerns the construction of a new third-generation VVER-1000 nuclear plant in Belene (Bulgaria).

The closure of units three and four of Kozlodui nuclear power plant, as an integral part of Bulgaria’s Treaty of Accession to the European Union, is also happening. The Commission, in its role as Guardian of the Treaties, will oversee the correct implementation of the relevant clauses of this Treaty. The closure of these units should not cause major energy supply concerns. The Community assistance for decommissioning, based on the Treaty of Accession, also covers measures consequential to the closure of the reactors in the field of replacement capacity, energy efficiency and supply actions.

In addition, in the opinion of both the Commission and the World Bank, new base load investments are needed throughout the whole region. However, there are no particular structural problems in generation at present.

The Commission has consistently underlined that it is for each Member State to decide whether or not to rely on nuclear power for the generation of electricity. Should Member States decide to invest in new nuclear power generation, the Commission will exercise available powers to ensure that new investment projects meet the highest standards of safety, security and non-proliferation, as required by the Euratom Treaty.

On the seismic issue, pursuant to Article 37 of Euratom, Bulgaria is required to provide the Commission with general data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste. This will apply to the new nuclear power plant in Belene. The submission of this data is due at least six months before any discharge authorisation of radioactive effluents is granted by the Bulgarian competent authorities. On the basis of this data, and after consultation of the Article 31 Group of Experts, the Commission will deliver an opinion. The latter will check whether the implementation of the plan, both in normal operation and in the event of accident, is liable to result in a radioactive contamination of the water, soil or air space of another Member State. As the Commission review also covers accidental scenarios, the general data to be provided by Member States should contain information on the degree of seismic activity in the region, on probable maximum seismic activity and on the designed seismic resistance of the nuclear installation.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) I thank the Commissioner for his reply.

Mr President, it is twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, with an incalculable number of direct and indirect, slow deaths. Neither the World Health Organisation nor the Commission has given the public reliable data on this tragedy.

A study codenamed Pegasos, which correlates seismic risks and nuclear energy was recently published in Switzerland. This study saw the light of day in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Does the Commission have probability statistics on the seismic risk? We are waiting for this information, not whether each Member State is free to have or not to have nuclear energy.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. According to the Euratom Treaty, we must deliver an opinion. We definitely will require all the necessary data from the companies which would like to build the nuclear reactor and, in our opinion, we will give the matter due thought on the basis of the information that we receive from the authorities.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, there are still two Directives with the Council concerning disposal. I believe that it is now high time we continued discussions on these Directives, which were proposed by the Commission and had the strong support of Parliament. Does the Commissioner envisage any prospect that, with the liberalisation of the energy market, the conditions for final storage and decommissioning will also be made subject to common standards?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Unfortunately, I do not see the link with liberalisation and how it would influence the position of a Member State. A much stronger instrument of influence is the high level group on the treatment of safety and nuclear waste, because this is the way to proceed and to gather together all the member countries – those that have nuclear power and those that do not – and to really push these issues forward. The liberalisation of the market will not have any effect, because nuclear energy is a part of national energy mix and each country would like to make its own decisions.

It is a highly sensitive political issue, so I believe that market liberalisation will have no influence on this type of decision. Countries that normally oppose the use of nuclear power will not change their mind. Those countries that use nuclear power continue to use it. Therefore, I believe that the best way to promote the directive is to work in a high level group of all 27 Member States and, in this way, to establish a broader consensus on establishing higher nuclear safety standards and better treatment of nuclear waste.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) I would like to ask about the possibility of creating a Black Sea Dimension. We have a Northern Dimension, in which Russia was successfully included and agreements are being adhered to (although Russia does not always adhere to them). Would it be possible to use some elements of the Northern Dimension for a Black Sea Dimension, and thus to adopt a comprehensive position on all the issues?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. The main reason for closure was doubt about safety levels. It was well debated during the whole pre-accession strategy, and a decision was taken by the Bulgarian authorities based on the safety evaluation. The closure is not about supply or lack of it, but about safety. That is why I believe there is no way we can compromise on this. If it was for any other reason, such as excess of power – but it was not, it was only for safety reasons, recognised by Bulgarian authorities when they subscribed to the Treaty. Moreover, this Treaty has been ratified in all the Member States, meaning that not only have the governments that signed it made an obligation, but this obligation has been endorsed by the citizens of all other Member States. In my opinion there is no new data that would allow us to come back to this decision.

  President.

Question No 36 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0474/07)

Subject: Maintenance of fuel stocks in Greece

By decision 334/V/2007, adopted after a review of the market in petroleum products, the Hellenic Competition Commission (EEA) put forward a number of measures and proposals with particular reference to the maintenance of stocks. The EEA had already identified certain problems with the stock maintenance system at the public consultation stage. It pointed out that the current legal arrangements governing the maintenance of security stocks effectively obstruct imports of petroleum products, thereby confining competition for refining to the two domestic refineries. This situation arises because those refineries are not subjected to strong competitive pressure from (low) import prices and the prices which they both charge the distributing companies in Greece are higher than those in the other Member States despite the low cost of crude which the domestic refineries enjoy.

Has the Greek Government implemented the measures proposed by the EEA? What are the Commission's views on the current system of stock maintenance and the solutions proposed? Will the Commission make representations to the Greek Government to implement the above and other, related proposals and strengthen competition?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. The existing EU legislation leaves it up to Member States to decide the system of stock maintenance. The EU legislation imposes certain obligations on stock levels. It does impose requirements on internal arrangements to keep those stocks apart from some general conditions which apply to stockholding arrangements such as the principles of fairness, non-discrimination and transparency.

On the basis of the information provided by the Greek authorities, the European Commission considers for the time being that there is no evidence to justify an infringement procedure in relation to the stockholding arrangements undertaken in relation to the directive.

Taking the above into consideration, the Commission will continue to monitor regularly the level of stocks held in Greece in order to ensure levels required by EU legislation. At the same time, the European Commission would like to point out that in 2001 the European Court of Justice decided that a stockholding arrangement in Greece, not regulated by the above-mentioned directive, breached Article 28 of the European Community Treaty on the free movement of goods. The case was closed after the Commission was informed that the Greek authorities complied with the judgement of the Court of Justice.

However, if there are new elements which would amount to a breach of Article 28, such as banning or inhibiting imported goods, the European Commission would examine this new detailed information.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Commissioner, the new elements are the proposals of the Hellenic Competition Commission itself, which says that the current high levels of stocks imposed by current legislation are in practice preventing imports of ready products and fostering oligopoly situations, given that two oil refineries prevail in Greece.

Greece has some of the highest pre-tax fuel prices in the European Union.

The question is: will you intervene vis-à-vis the Greek authorities as regards the application of the Hellenic Competition Commission’s proposals or do you prefer the role of Pontius Pilate?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. The Commission carries out its duties very responsibly, and we really monitor the level of stocks and the arrangement. At this stage, we have no evidence that Greece is in breach of legislation on stocks. If we receive new information that Greece is in breach of that legislation, we will launch infringement proceedings immediately. At the same time, it would be wrong to equate stocks with higher prices, because stocks have a very minimal influence on the price level of petroleum products.

  President.

Question No 37 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0480/07)

Subject: 'Druzhba' pipeline

In July 2006 Russia broke off oil supplies to Lithuania and Latvia through the 'Druzhba' pipeline. For almost a year, we have received no official information on the reasons for supplies being halted or the prospects for a resumption. Russia cites the ongoing economic and technical studies on the renovation of the 'Druzhba' pipeline, which will show whether it is viable for Russia to repair the pipeline or whether a new pipeline will need to be built running from Unecha to Primorsk via Velikie Luki. Experts believe that the Russian Government has already taken the politically motivated decision to abandon the 'Druzhba' pipeline, since the new pipeline would mean that Russia would no longer have to transport the oil through the territory of Belarus and Poland but could ship it to the European Union through the Baltic port of Primorsk. This would run counter to the EU strategy of transporting less oil by sea in order to prevent the negative ecological impact and would have considerable repercussions on oil supplies to eight countries, six of them EU Member States, namely Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Germany.

The EU Heads of State and Government declared in March that the objective of energy policy was the security of energy supply to EU countries and the diversification of energy infrastructure. The closure of the 'Druzhba' pipeline would represent the clear failure of this EU policy. What practical steps will the Commission take in these circumstances? What forecasts and recommendations are being made by the Network of Energy Security Correspondents (Nesco)?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Since the beginning of the disruption of oil supplies via the Druzhba pipeline, the European Commission has asked the Russian side to provide transparency and information about envisaged steps to remedy the situation. This transparency was repeatedly requested by letter and in several bilateral meetings up to the highest level, including the last EU-Russia Summit in May of summer this year. The Commission notes the resolution of the Russian Government of 21 May 2007 to go ahead with the preparation for the construction of a pipeline from Unecha to the Primorsk terminal on the Baltic, a development which could presumably lead to reduced deliveries via the Druzhba pipeline.

The possibility of further increases in oil exports via Primorsk underline the importance of a strong legislative framework for maritime safety and environmental risks related to the tanker traffic and effective implementation of that framework. The Baltic Sea is a focus of particular attention, its establishment of traffic lines, monitoring of single hub tanker traffic by the European Maritime Safety Agency – EMSA. In the dialogue on transport, it has been agreed that maritime safety is one of the most important subjects.

The Commission considers that pipeline transport of oil is preferable to tanker transport when there is maritime safety or environmental risks. Such risks need to be taken into account by investors and promoters. In March 2007 the European Council endorsed an energy policy for Europe containing an extensive action plan which sets out the strategy. The strategy should be assessed as a whole. Security of supply should be achieved by advances in several parts of the action plan, notably the establishment and functioning of the internal energy market and solidarity arrangement between the Member States within the market. These also include the diversification of energy, making an effort in terms of energy efficiency and last, but not least, work towards a strong single voice in external energy relations.

The network of energy security correspondents set up in May has just started preparing its work but it will be a very good instrument in the future in assessing the external supply risks.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for your comprehensive answer. In Lithuania, the people and also the government very much appreciate the efforts of the Commission but, nevertheless, the Druzhba pipeline does not function. I am afraid to say that the Russian side is not willing to cooperate. What is the role of the Network of Energy Security Correspondents in this story?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. As for the Druzhba pipeline there is no other instrument that continues to keep this question on the agenda. Nesco really cannot help: its role is to prevent or anticipate the disruption of supplies and it therefore cannot provide the necessary information.

We are not asking too much. We need clear data and commitments. Will they use the pipe? If so, when do they expect to use it? We are not asking for secret data. We are just asking normal questions that good neighbours should exchange because it is not related to security of supply. We are saying that it is a good idea to use the pipeline because it stops congestion on the seas and diminishes environmental risks.

We are all hoping that the pipeline will be back in use as soon as possible and, if necessary, we would be willing to provide whatever support was necessary. Therefore, Nesco has a very limited role in this because it is an instrument for alleviating supply risks.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, we have employed coordinators to take care of various pipelines. Do you think that the appointment of a coordinator would be a good solution in the case of the Druzhba pipeline, too?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. For oil, we have not, so far, had trans-European energy networks. I would say it is high time to reconsider this because we have undervalued supply risks concerning oil. So we should bring oil back into our energy debate in this House, as well as in the Council and in the Commission.

We are now preparing a study evaluating all the risks of oil supply, which parts of the world we get it from, what role is played by congestion, where the risks come from etc. I believe at some stage we should move to promote particular projects. One very obvious oil project where we would like to promote development is the reversal of the flow of the Odessa-Brody-Płock-Gdańsk pipeline because it brings oil from the congested Black Sea region to its markets. This is a project I can already mention where I would envisage the need for such a coordinator, but today the legal framework does not apply to oil.

  President. – The questions that have not been taken due to lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 7.10 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

(1) OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 34.

17. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

18. First railway package (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0219/2007) by Michael Cramer, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the implementation of the first railway package (2006/2213(INI))

  Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by expressing my deep gratitude to the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation on the first railway package.

Generally speaking, the first railway package can be described as a complete success. The opening of the networks in Europe to rail freight traffic has proved its worth. The countries who have done particularly well are those who prepared themselves for this early on rather than waiting until the networks were opened. For example, Germany has been able to increase rail freight traffic by 25% and the Netherlands by 42.5% since the opening of the networks, and the United Kingdom and Poland have managed to increase the proportion of freight transported by rail by 60% – albeit at a low level in the case of the United Kingdom. This benefits the environment, and it benefits transport in Europe.

The countries who did not prepare for this, and waited until the last moment, are not doing so well. For example, France, which did not open up its freight networks until the beginning of this year, saw a 28% decrease in rail freight traffic for the same period. Its volume of road freight traffic has increased – which hardly fits in with prevailing climate policy.

In my report, I also discuss the fact that the overall modal split has not changed – the reason for which being, of course, the absence of fair framework conditions between the different modes of transport. Our framework conditions are spectacularly unfair! Transport in Europe could also be described as too cheap, with only rail transport – which is environmentally friendly – being too expensive.

We also have unfair subsidy practice: approximately 95% of total EU cofinancing for transport is spent on road transport – not on rail transport, as is always called for and claimed in soapbox speeches. For this reason, I am delighted that the committee was able to agree that, in future, 40% of spending on transport should be channelled to the railways. It is unacceptable that our efforts should be counteracted by poor financing practice.

The unfair framework conditions also take the form of, inter alia, the imposition by the EU of mandatory rail tolls applying to all trains on all routes and having no upper limit, whilst road tolls do have an upper limit, are voluntary – the Member States can decide whether to levy them or not – and apply only on motorways and only to lorries above 12 tonnes. This is unfair competition, and must change if the railways are to have a chance.

For example, some of the new Member States are levying very high tolls on rail freight services. The eight highest track charges are levied in the new Member States. At the same time, these high tolls are used to subsidise passenger transport, which receives hardly any State subsidies or none at all, whilst road freight transport escapes with no charges. This is a model of how to move transport from the railways to the roads – exactly the opposite of what the competent Commissioner and the EU always claim to be aiming for.

We want fair competition; but this fair competition is not yet complete, as particularly those railway undertakings that do not have a long State tradition are frustrated time and again in Europe. They have complained, for example, that access to the network or to a favourable route cannot be granted because this route has already been allocated to the rail undertaking belonging to the dominant group, that their wishes cannot be met since points have previously been extended or passing loops dismantled by the State undertaking, that low-speed stretches of route (speed limits) have been ordered – for no good reason – in order to frustrate the wishes of the new rail freight operators, that route prices have been drastically increased when State railway undertakings have been sold to another undertaking, that cross-subsidisation is not being prevented, and that non-State undertakings often pay higher energy prices than group subsidiaries.

This shows that much remains to be done in spite of our success. After all, the overall modal split between road and rail in Europe has not improved, but actually worsened. One thing that can be said, however, is that the first railway package has halted the decline. If we are to improve the situation, we now need fair framework conditions for rail transport in Europe.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that the European Parliament has taken up the report by the Commission on the implementation of the first railway package of 3 May 2006, and I should like especially to thank Mr Cramer, the author of the report, for his very serious and solid work.

The challenge of European railway policy is to put in place a regulatory framework that encourages new investments and the provision of competitive transport services in a common railway area. The creation of this common railway area demands the full and correct transposition of Community provisions. In its report in 2006, the Commission identified the conditions to be met to take up the challenge: I will mention the most important of them.

Firstly, restructuring of the historic enterprises must be completed. It must be done while respecting conditions of separate accounting and of neutrality of the essential functions such as allocation of capacities and levying of charges. Secondly, the principles underlying the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure must be established taking into account the levying of charges for other modes of transport. That must be part of an overall strategy encouraging fair competition between modes and therefore sustainable development. Thirdly, the good functioning of the supervisory and safety bodies demands that these same bodies should be granted the necessary financial and human resources. These bodies must enjoy genuine independence.

The European Parliament largely takes up the priorities for action that have been identified by the Commission. These priorities put forward the conditions of intermodal and intramodal competition, as well as rules governing the separation between infrastructure and operation.

With regard to the conditions for intermodal competition, the Commission wishes to create a fair and balanced competitive framework. In your report, Mr Cramer, you mention fairer competition between modes of transport, particularly through internalisation of the external costs of road transport. At the time of the adoption of the Eurovignette directive, I made the commitment to submit, in June 2008, a methodology for the internalisation of external costs. Well, this commitment will be kept!

As for the conditions for intramodal competition, I support your position in favour of rapid deployment of the European signalling system European Rail Traffic Management System/European Train Control System (ERTMS/ETCS) and the reduction in the noise level of wagons. On this last point, that is, noise nuisance, I shall present a Commission communication on the measures to be taken.

We are in agreement also concerning infrastructures. This needs to be a priority in order to promote good performance of rail freight transport. In October, I shall propose to the Commission a communication on a rail network focussed on freight in Europe. This document will present a plan of action which will cover the main suggestions in your resolution.

Finally, I quite agree on the need for strict neutrality of the essential functions to realise the policy of market opening and the strengthening of competition. Your report describes the positive effects of opening up on the performance of rail freight in the Member States that have been the first to open the markets.

Finally, I should like to remind you that the Commission intends to do everything in its power so that Member States effectively implement the provisions of the railway packages. If necessary also, we shall start infringement proceedings. A European market can only develop if the regulatory framework is consistent over all European territory. Non-discriminatory access to services linked with rail transport, for example in the marshalling yards, is vital for the good functioning of the rail market. My services are also assessing options with a view to recasting the legislation of the first railway package on this point, which will lead us to a recasting of the European railway code next year.

That is what I wanted to say in reply to Mr Cramer, whom I thank once again. I wish, of course, to confirm to him that the intention of the Commission and of myself as the Commissioner is certainly to do everything so that the modal shift in favour of the railways is as substantial as possible in the years to come.

I shall now listen, Mr President, to the Members of Parliament with close attention, so that I can answer them at the end of the debate.

  Elisabeth Jeggle, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Mr Cramer, you already know that I have not always been enthused by your report in all respects – we do not need to discuss this fact today. The report lacks balance and practical relevance.

For example, it contains many provisions unrelated to the implementation of the first railway package in terms of content. Therefore, we – our coordinator Mr Jarzembowski and I – have tabled 20 amendments, only 11 of which involve the deletion of whole paragraphs. I was pleased with the outcome of the vote in the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

The important points are, firstly, the call for the Commission to take action, without delay, against Member States who have not implemented the first and second railway packages by the specified date. Secondly, we consider it important, with regard to the financing of the further development of the European transport routes, that support be given in particular to the 30 priority trans-European network projects. Unfortunately, the complete deletion of the paragraph headed ‘Regulation of the separation between network and operation’ could not be pushed through. I reject out of hand a limitation of the choice between the various organisational models. We need solid evidence. We need to know the advantages and disadvantages of such a separation. We still need flexibility for railway undertakings. That is why we have requested a split vote.

I should also like to say a few brief words about the problem of ‘gigaliners’: that is, ultra-long lorries of 60 tonnes and upwards. We cannot support Mr Cramer’s amendment concerning these in tomorrow’s vote on this report – which, after all, concerns the railway package. I do fully agree that goods belong on the railways, and thus my position may appear contradictory, but an amendment on gigaliners has no place in this report. We shall discuss this within the framework of the Ayala Sender report – when we shall also have time for the debate.

  Robert Navarro, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, at a time when we are drawing up the statement for the first railway package, we have to recognise that we are still far short of the target. In spite of the progress achieved and particularly the fact of having stemmed a decline which seemed unavoidable, rail’s modal share remains still too weak. It is all the more unfortunate because in these times of climate change the choice of rail sees its relevance confirmed every day by what is happening.

We know what the reasons are for this mixed statement: we have staked too much on opening up, the contributions of which cannot be denied, without worrying enough about the technical barriers, in particular the lack of interoperability, knowing that this ought to have accompanied the opening up gradually, instead of lagging further and further behind.

This situation is probably due to the fact that in general liberalising does not cost the Member States very much, while harmonisation is a different matter. Today at the very moment when we are at last beginning again to tackle the problems of interoperability, it therefore seems to me worrying that, under cover of co-modality, the objectives of modal shift towards rail, in particular, move into the background. Instead of revising the objectives downwards, we ought to have revised the intellectual as well as the financial means upwards.

I hope that this report will contribute therefore to reminding us of the way we have still to go in order to give back to rail the place it deserves.

  Nathalie Griesbeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you stressed before me, the object of the first package was to lay the foundations of an integrated European railway area and, by modernising the network, speed up the modal shift of freight traffic from road to rail, so as to reduce CO2 emissions and also, obviously, all the road congestion from which Europe is suffering. I wish to thank my colleague Mr Cramer for his own-initiative report which sets out a full assessment of the implementation of the first package, without omitting to underline nonetheless all the factors which affect the performance of rail and those which hold up the achievement of the objectives that we have set ourselves.

In the first place we should emphasise that the opening of the rail network, while maintaining a very high level of safety, has allowed a very significant increase in freight traffic at least throughout the European Union, and small rail undertakings have also been able to take an interest in niches considered unprofitable by the historic operators.

I am pleased that the report also places the emphasis on the current system of levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, which does not allow the setting up of fair competition between the different modes of freight transport. I think that it is essential today to achieve as rapidly as possible a harmonisation of user fees capped by sector which can better take into account the internalisation of external costs and which limits the exponential increase that we are witnessing currently.

I think also that it will be necessary to have more discussion about the Eurovignette directive, as this represented an advance that we must continue, and I am pleased that you have confirmed this evening, Commissioner, that discussions about this are planned from June 2008. I would like, moreover, Commissioner, the Commission to commit itself rapidly, with you, to a process of modernisation and development of intermodal infrastructures, mainly on the international corridors of Road Transport Telematics (RTT), through a European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) equipment system and allowing a genuine junction with the port infrastructures on the one hand and river infrastructures on the other.

Finally, I would like the Commission to present recommendations with a view to financial stabilisation of the railways which, in my view, will have to take into account the reduction in debt from which some historic operators have benefited, in order to put all the rail transport actors on an equal footing.

  Roberts Zīle, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Mr President, Mr Barrot, first of all I would like to thank Mr Cramer for his report, even though it has, certainly, been assessed in highly contradictory ways. In my own brief comments I would like to touch on just one aspect — I was pleased to see that the report stressed that, despite the liberalisation of the rail freight transport market, the European Union’s border states, such as the Baltic States, in reality depend on freight customers, and in our case this usually means Russia. If Russia, however, chooses to work with a rail monopoly company, then it is relatively difficult for us to discern a real impact arising from the introduction of this first package of rail legislation. I think, therefore, that this issue needs to be discussed further with Russia, with other potential aspects in mind also, and this is particularly true in view of the announcement by Mr Ivanov, Russia’s vice-premier, concerning moving the flow of container freight to Russian ports alone. Thank you.

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, for many years, everyone has been saying that, in relation to the transport of goods in all European countries, rail is losing the battle. The same applies even to cross-border, long-distance transport. The railway system is suitable for mass transport and, in some cases, special goods lines have been built for this purpose, mainly in and around industrial areas in Germany. Similarly, the recently opened Betuwe line in the Netherlands, which forms part of freight corridor No 1 from Rotterdam to Genoa via Germany and Switzerland, is a special line of this kind which is totally unsuited for the transport of passengers.

Despite this favourable starting position for rail, the proportion of goods transported by rail has decreased and, in some cases, even the volume is declining. Much of this transport has been taken over by the lorry, and the huge increase in the volume of goods is largely being handled by motorway, as a result of which these are increasingly becoming congested.

This shift is, to a considerable extent, related to infrastructure. Before, rail boasted a very intricate network, opening up both villages in the countryside and ports and factories in the cities. Apart from goods lines, there were also container stations where goods carriages came together and were redistributed across different trains. As many companies had their own connections to the railway network, goods carriages were able to shuttle directly between a harbour quay and a remote company without any interim transhipment of goods. Everything people want to achieve these days using multi-modal systems was already in place then. Unfortunately, the governments have decided to shrink the railway network, because it is deemed loss-making. Many small railway lines have been discontinued and many connections to companies have disappeared. Billions have been invested, on the other hand, in extending the space-guzzling motorway network.

In many cases, door-to-door goods transport is only possible by lorry these days. It is indispensable for pick-up and delivery, and it seems the easiest option then to use the motorways for the much longer, in-between section as well. If the company connections and container stations were restored, this could make a considerable contribution to reinstating goods transport by rail.

The first railway package is partly based on the assumption that rail transport should adopt the working methods of transport by road and air. In this case, it is international companies that arrange cross-border transport from beginning to end, and this is the most attractive option for those people with a transport requirement. My group has always pointed out that this is not the only possible solution. There is an alternative, namely better cooperation between national railway companies. They should not see each other as competitors, but as partners in a comprehensive European railway network. It is precisely by encouraging them to enter into competition with each other that cooperation runs less smoothly. To date, we have not yet seen any positive results in respect of the course taken. The free market is often not a solution to a problem, but its very cause.

The rapporteur is right in always arguing in favour of the new standard safety system, European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). We see eye to eye with him on this. We also notice that the launch of this system is far less swift than had been expected and that, alongside the new system, a second old system should remain in place. Thanks to the average low speed in freight transport, ERTMS makes for fewer problems compared to the high-speed lines for passenger transport.

Finally, we share Mr Cramer’s view that transport by air and road are kept artificially cheap and that transport by rail is kept artificially dear. If we do not change this in any way, the least environmentally friendly mode of transport will continue to prevail.

  Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, that was interesting: Mr Meijer virtually recreating ancient railway history before our eyes. He, too, should have perceived the very idea of laying railway tracks from one village to another for freight transport as being as slow as it is unrealistic.

Mr Cramer, nor can I share your simplistic demonising of the lorry. After all, lorry operators pay corporation tax, vehicle tax, petroleum tax and tolls – and so the assertion that lorries drive for free and competition is distorted is simply unrealistic. I fully share your view that it is not right for Poland’s Ministry of Finance to charge excessively high route prices – but that is an issue for the Polish Government, not European legislation, to deal with. We should perhaps remind the Polish Government that route prices are intended to promote rail transport rather than to reform the Polish budget situation – but this has absolutely nothing to do with the lorry.

Mr President, I should like to ask you to ensure speedy implementation of the second railway package, too, by all Member States. After all, we pushed through the requirement that networks must have been opened up to the national and cross-border movement of goods by 1 January of this year, and I see this as a great opportunity to help European markets operate across borders.

I should like to discuss one of the points the Commissioner raised, and I would ask him to elaborate on this. He said that the Commission is willing to help reduce the noise caused by rail trucks, and announced a communication on this. What I should like to know is when he plans to present this communication. Does he believe that this will put greater focus on European aspects, or will it open up possibilities for the granting of aid at national level? Noise pollution – for example, from trains passing through residential areas at night – is unacceptable in cities, in particular. If the Commissioner is prepared to provide help with this, we would be very grateful.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Cramer’s report on the implementation of the first railway package shows the difficulties and problems it faces. If railway transport develops and runs properly, it can result in more people and goods being carried, thereby taking the burden off road transportation and cutting CO2 emissions. Rapid passenger transport can also compete with local airlines and coach services. Interlinking rail, road and water transport can reduce its costs and increase the efficiency of the economy.

In implementing this package, we should pay particular attention to supporting railway projects, particularly in countries that lack the funding to expand and upgrade their railway network and infrastructure, supporting all activities relating to the exchange of good practice, including for establishing flexible and competitive modes of operation for railway companies, monitoring and removing organisational, administrative and financial barriers to the development of transport, and support for the railways taking over a portion of international road haulage operations.

I would like to thank Mr Cramer for his necessary and insightful report.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) The report being debated today contains aspects that reflect the demands of the large private interests that lie behind the liberalisation and privatisation of public rail transport services promoted by the European Union, which we reject.

Our view is that the report should, instead, denounce the dismemberment in EU countries of public services and public companies, the closure of branch lines and stations, service reductions and cuts in the number of trains, the brutal reduction in the number of rail workers, and the increase in precarious work in this sector. We also believe that the report should, in other respects, fight for the promotion of public rail services through the existence of strong public companies with all their merits, with effective management to ensure high-quality services and high safety standards; for a guaranteed, high-quality, high-capacity, comfortable public rail service with affordable fares, fully meeting the needs of passenger mobility and goods transport; and for job security for the workers in the sector, promoting their inclusion in the companies’ senior management teams, enhancing careers and wages and ensuring continued training.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, I thank each of the speakers for the wise observations they have shared with me.

Nonetheless, I shall say a few words on a point which, to my surprise, has not really received the attention of the European Parliament. It is about the separation between the management of the rail infrastructure and the provision of transport services. It is, in fact, this separation which makes it possible to give to competition its full scope. We have to ensure non-discriminatory access to facilitate the entry into the market of new entrants. That is a very important point.

I should like to answer some questions. In talking about co-modality, our goal was simply to explain that rail transport, which is indisputably the best solution over long distances, must be able to be completed by local transport which, in certain cases, can only be provided, as Mr Jarzembowski has said, by road. Therefore, the idea is not to take something away from rail but on the contrary to allow it to have its rightful place. Oh yes, it is very clear! I am speaking in particular to Mr Navarro: one must make no mistake about the intention. The intention is really to make a success of this modal shift, which is very important to me, as it is to you. I must say also that what we are doing, be it about financing infrastructures across trans-European networks or interoperability, which the European Rail Traffic Management System and European Train Control System is going to make possible for us, or the cross-acceptance of rolling stock or the promotion of freight traffic on European corridors, all these achievements seek to obtain the most substantial modal shift possible. I think that, on this point, our approach presents no ambiguity.

Mrs Griesbeck, I would like to confirm the Commission’s intention to present guidelines on state aid in the rail sector before the end of the year. I should also like to confirm to Mr Jarzembowski that the communication on the noise of carriages is planned for the autumn of this year. I cannot say any more about it for the time being; we are in the process of working on it.

There are certainly other questions which deserve an answer. I would like you to know, in any case, that I really have listened with close attention to all that has been said by each of you. I consider for my part that the work carried out by Mr Cramer and his committee is enlightening for the Commission. I should like to repeat again that what we want are fair intermodal and intramodal conditions of competition which make it possible effectively to develop this modal shift to which, I repeat again once more, we are very committed, particularly for reasons of environment and relief of congestion on our road network.

For all the reasons that you can imagine, we have more need than ever of the railway. I must say that, each day, I work towards this with much determination. I have moreover realised that, with the opening of Betuwe in the Netherlands, a willingness is really establishing itself in Europe with a view to giving rail its rightful place; and indeed, if in certain cases, problems of charging arise, it is incumbent upon the Member States to accept their responsibilities. This modal shift is a real priority cause in Europe. It is necessary also that governments accept making it their priority.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 11 July 2007.

19. Common rules for air transport services (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0178/2007) by Arūnas Degutis, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air transport services in the Community (recast) (COM(2006)0396 C6-0248/2006 2006/0130(COD)).

  Arūnas Degutis (ALDE), rapporteur. – (LT) This future regulation should replace three regulations currently in force, which make up the third set of guidelines for the domestic air transport market. The aforesaid regulations set out the procedures for issue and cancellation of air transport firm licences and the principles for free use of Community air routes by Community air transport companies, and liberalising prices of airfares.

Once the third set of guidelines began to be applied, an unprecedented expansion of the European air travel sector took place: the old monopolies disappeared, a system of local air transport was instituted, and consumer-friendly competition increased in all markets, especially in the area of pricing. What had been a regulated European aviation market based on bilateral agreements became a particularly competitive market.

It is natural that after a few years of applying the third set of guidelines, some guidelines became obsolete, others were applied poorly, and now they need revision, reconsideration or straight-out abolition.

The proposal under consideration urges correction of the three sets of guidelines that have been mentioned to make them easier to apply, to simplify the legal grounds, to remove the obsolete parts and to set new, firmer requirements.

In my opinion the Commission's proposal is logical, and I agree that it would not only be meaningful but also purposeful and essential to review the regulations now in force. In any case, in the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, which I of course support, some important parts of the regulations need to be made more precise.

I would like to mention a few of these parts:

Rentals. There is variation among the Member States in regard to rental agreement practices. This can distort the market and cause social and aviation safety problems. Therefore, without a doubt, new general requirements need to be set. The rules proposed in Article 13 are too strict and do not take into consideration certain characteristics of the air transport industry, especially its seasonality. Therefore, it would be good to find a logical compromise between social concerns and safety, and simultaneously improve the performance of airlines. In my opinion the compromise reached by the Transport Committee may help to resolve this problem.

Transparency of prices. We support the Commission's aim of banning advertising of and publicity about airfares which do not include any costs, surcharges, payments and levies. I believe that the airlines' commitment to publish only final prices has to be clearly formulated. Here too we have found a compromise which also reflects consumer needs.

Particular social considerations. Suggestions concerning particular social considerations put forward by colleagues from other groups are, in my opinion, premature unless the possible consequences are analysed assuming adoption at this time. Therefore, we request that the Commission prepare a study, on the basis of which it would be possible to regulate these matters without creating obstacles for the improvement of aviation industry competitiveness.

Passenger safety. In the Commission's proposal there is no provision for any clear mechanism, which would ensure that passengers would not suffer from the effects of bankruptcy of airlines; for example, not getting compensation for cancelled flights or being abandoned to their fate at overseas destinations. Therefore, we believe that guidelines for passenger safety should be included in the regulations (Amendments 15–16).

Commitment to provide public services and regional airports. I believe that any formulation of the term 'regional airport', which obliges to provide services to the public, will inevitably include airports in economically more affluent regions, whereas airports in regions that need economic or social support may not be included in the definition. Since the commitment to provide public services on this principle is applicable only to airports serving regions having economic and social problems, I would suggest that the difficult-to-define concept of regional airport be dropped from this document.

As well as the points mentioned earlier, one should explain several definitions and conditions in order to avoid misunderstandings and erroneous application of the regulations.

Community's domestic air services. While we suggested some amendments for the subjects mentioned earlier, we support the proposed extension of the Commission's powers in relation to deciding on questions concerning the provision of domestic Community air services. Since the Commission can more effectively negotiate concerning certain rights than can individual Member States, it should have the opportunity to do so. This has been demonstrated by the agreement with Russia on transit flights over Siberia.

Therefore, it is recommended that the Commission's proposed wording for Article 15 be accepted. That is a brief characterisation of service provision.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal we are debating today represents a great success for the European Community. It seeks, in fact, to modernise and complete the 1992 regulation that set up the single aviation market in Europe. The creation of this single aviation market has allowed air transport in Europe to enjoy unprecedented expansion.

The number of airlines has increased and there has been a general increase in traffic and competition. Since full liberalisation in 1997, the number of routes has increased by more than 60%; more cities are served, notably in the isolated regions. The appearance of new competitors has brought a significant reduction in fares on numerous routes. More and more Europeans can travel by plane. This development contributes to economic growth, as well as to the creation of direct and indirect employment.

Taking this success into account, the Commission intends to maintain the fundamental principles of this liberalised market. The proposal seeks simply to simplify the consolidation of current legislation. It proposes also some adjustments to improve the effectiveness of its application. Firstly, the revision makes it possible to clean up the text to remove the obsolete parts linked to the transition phase towards the liberalised market. The text has been clarified, ambiguities have been removed and three regulations have been consolidated into a single text.

Secondly, the proposal seeks to achieve effective and uniform application of Community rules. At present there are divergences between Member States in the application of the third package. Thanks to this revision, we shall have a more uniform application especially in relation to the granting and overseeing of operating licences. The proposal strengthens, moreover, the monitoring of the financial viability of companies, in particular of the new entrants.

Thirdly, the proposal strengthens coordination of Member States on intra-Community services and transit overflight by companies from third countries. It is important to encourage a coordinated Community approach to ensure the integrity of the European market and to facilitate the work of the negotiators with the third countries.

Finally, fourth point, the proposal advocates new rights for passengers. The right for passengers to have complete information on the real price of a ticket with taxes, charges and costs included. The right not to be discriminated against according to nationality or place of residence at the time of purchasing a ticket.

Consequently, this updated version should further strengthen the appeal of the single European market in many third countries. These principles apply not only to Switzerland and to countries in the European Economic Area but also to Morocco and to the countries in South East Europe and they serve as a benchmark at international level.

That is why I thank, Mr President, the European Parliament for the speed with which it has taken up this dossier. I would like to commend the work carried out by your rapporteur Mr Degutis, and to thank the chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, Mr Paolo Costa, as well as all the members of that committee because, I must say, Parliament has certainly improved on our text.

  Elisabeth Jeggle, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by extending the warmest of thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Degutis, and all the Members involved, for their cooperation. I firmly believe that, since the vote in committee, we have a balanced, practical report on the operation of air transport services. The original Commission proposal was well thought-out and goal oriented in this case, so I am much obliged to the Commission, too.

Since I am basically satisfied with the outcome of the vote in committee, I should like to discuss only the transparency requirements with regard to the listing of air fares. From the outset, I have stood up for the creation of transparency without additional bureaucracy, and for the equal, fair involvement of everyone concerned. The air fare advertised should show clearly what charges, duties and taxes this includes and what they are used for. Air-ticket prices should be easy for consumers to understand and transparent. This is particularly applicable to the advertising of air fares on websites.

Nevertheless, there is still disagreement over the means, and the precise extent of this. Amendment 48 lays down that duties and charges must be listed and summarised in four categories: firstly, taxes and other State charges and duties; secondly, air traffic control charges; thirdly, charges, duties, fees and other costs for the benefit of the airlines; and, fourthly, fees, levies, charges and other costs for the benefit of the airport operators. The problem is that air traffic control charges cannot be clearly stated in advance. Tomorrow, then, on behalf of my group, I shall be requesting the deletion of this second category, air traffic control charges, by means of split voting.

Despite this amendment, the compromise reached fully meets the transparency requirement, whilst taking into account the interests of passengers and also airlines, and so I and my group cannot support the rapporteur’s new amendments, Amendments 54 and 55.

  Ulrich Stockmann, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome the Commission proposal and also, of course, the rapporteur’s report, as both make a contribution to the completion of the European internal market for air transport and to increasing safety levels. I should like to mention and highlight four points.

Firstly, the provision on price transparency that has been adopted is a clear victory for consumers. It will no longer be possible in future to lure citizens with false bait advertising. Irrespective of the sales channel, all air fares are to be set out comprehensively and in detail. Naturally, air traffic control prices are estimated on a flat-rate basis – although, at the end of the day, prices must be comprehensible. We do not need to argue about this, however. On the whole, we are creating clarity for passengers and strengthening competition.

Secondly, with regard to wet-leasing contracts, this is a balanced Regulation that, on the one hand, takes account of airlines’ needs in the event that seasonal pricing movements occur or an exceptional need arises and they have to rely on such a model; and, on the other, makes clear that the circumvention of European safety and social standards is unacceptable.

Thirdly, like many reports on aviation legislation, our report contains numerous amendments on social legislation for employees. The Commission is urgently required to make a proposal on this at long last, to close the loophole that the Services Directive has left and the present Regulation cannot close.

Fourthly, the new one-step procedure for traffic distribution is simpler and quicker than all previous procedures. This is a good decision, including in terms of the future, that enables a more flexible response to capacity bottlenecks in infrastructure.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, my thanks to Mr Degutis for his report. We must agree with Commissioner Barrot’s words that the third package in the internal air market, which is now fifteen years old, has significantly contributed to the development of European civil aviation.

Now change is needed, in particular as regards leasing, licensing air transport services, social matters, protecting passengers against carrier bankruptcy and so forth. Other important factors are proper observance of the eight Freedoms of the Air.

The question that raises the greatest emotion is the transparency of air ticket prices. Passengers expect to know how much they will actually pay for tickets, not publicity stunts in disguise.

I support the view that the regulation and the directive we have adopted preventing unfair competition, which will come into effect in five months, will lead to an increase in passenger rights. A passenger must be the subject both of the activities of the carrier and of the airport. Unfortunately, it is too often the case that passengers are simply treated as cargo.

  Jaromír Kohlíček, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I associate the common rules for the operation of air transport services in the Community with the third aviation package or with problems relating to its practical implementation. Perhaps the biggest problem here is transport safety, which involves securing the social conditions of employees, including cases where aircraft are hired out together with crews, as well as the safety of passengers, who are traditionally the priority. Alongside this is the issue of the financial health of airlines and the stricter requirements for the terms and conditions that apply to aircraft leasing, including proposed time limits.

I feel that it would also be desirable for consumers to know what exactly they have bought for their money. You too would surely feel suspicious about airline advertisements promising fares of EUR 1. Another issue is that of how detailed the price breakdown should be, and what exactly it should contain. In this regard, it is very important to clarify the distribution of cost items for processing passengers and aircraft, including the endless discussions on the concept of reasonable profit. I am definitely opposed to the idea that has emerged during the debate that this is about technical standards and that social issues do not come into play.

I should like to thank the rapporteur Mr Degutis, who has also referred to social issues in his speech. His work was outstanding and his report deserves our support. As regards the proposed amendments, we agree with all of them apart from Nos. 16, 29, 37, 40, 42, 49 and 50. In most cases, this is not a matter of substantive disagreement: our objections mainly involve instances where the same thing has been proposed in two places or where better options are available.

  Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to refer to three more aspects. In the consolidation of the third aviation package, it is crucial in terms of the transparency of air fares that there be no false bait advertising, and it is also relevant in this regard whether the flat-rate security charges levied on passengers actually match the costs of the security measures. I have the feeling that airports are using some of these security charges to obtain further remuneration for themselves. It is very important in the interests of the transparency of costs that security charges do indeed correspond to the costs incurred by security measures.

Secondly, I should like to discuss competition between airports, and to do so from two angles. I should like to ask the Commissioner to give one or two examples without delay to show the extent to which the Commission’s guidelines for permissible (or impermissible) aid for regional airports in the Community are actually being applied. As I see it, there are a great many regional airports that are only being kept afloat by subsidies and will never be able to support themselves economically. In these cases, the Commission guidelines should actually be putting an end to the subsidies.

Thirdly, this consolidation of the third aviation package changes the definition of an ‘airport system’ slightly. I would ask that the Commissioner elaborate on this, too, at some stage. It is unacceptable that, by law, an airport system can only exist if it serves the same conurbation, and that airports such as Frankfurt and Frankfurt Hahn can claim that, despite being 120 km apart, they serve the same conurbation and must therefore be recognised as an airport system. The Commissioner should on no account permit such mushrooming of what is recognised as an airport system.

  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Degutis, on the wonderful flexibility he has shown in accepting some of the proposals of the various Members. I would also like to congratulate the Commissioner on his magnificent presentation, because it has demonstrated that this text represents a definitive improvement of the legislation, since it updates, simplifies and consolidates the best aspects of rules that had become obsolete and which needed rapid updating, given the sector’s development.

In reality, all of this benefits all of the actors in the sector, particularly passengers, in a sector such as aviation that has suffered so much. Furthermore, inconsistency amongst these kind of regulations does not just usually distort the operation of the internal market, but we believe that it also leads to risks in terms of the quality of service, safety and working conditions.

Of the improvements and achievements that Parliament has introduced – most of which have been mentioned by other Members already – I would like to stress the demand for greater transparency and control of the financial situation of companies and operators in the sector.

In view of the exponential growth of this sector and the appearance of tempting pockets of potential customers – such as immigrants, who have increasing purchasing power thanks to work regularisation, in my country for example – it has become much more urgent to apply rules and conditions rigorously in order to prevent the fraud and abuse that usually arise in the sale of tickets and also the deceitful offers from companies that appear all over the place.

We also believe the provisions to prevent and alleviate the social consequences of such fraud and of possible bankruptcies to be very reasonable. Furthermore, transparency of prices and non-discrimination in acquisition, through whichever channel the passenger acquires the tickets, also seem to us to be fundamental improvements to this text.

Other aspects that I believe have emerged and have also improved are those relating to the social conditions for workers in the sector. Preventing social dumping, which disrupts the economic and social situation, and preventing games from being played with displaced workers employed by transnational companies operating from different bases, has been a positive achievement and an improvement.

Better still is the fact that the debate that has opened up during the process of drawing up this report has led to the request, in Amendment 61, for a legislative proposal on social and working conditions, which I believe the Commission must present urgently.

  Jim Higgins (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the opening-up of air travel to millions of citizens has been brought about by the low-fares airlines. I agree with the Commissioner that the single aviation market has been a singular success. Airlines such as Ireland’s Ryanair have revolutionised the aviation sector and have put pressure on the older, more established and more expensive airlines to follow suit. Such competition is good for the consumer and the traveller.

However, I want to focus on what has already been mentioned by four people tonight, and that is that there is a problem. In such a competitive market, airlines have indulged – and still continue to indulge – in extremely attractive but grossly misleading price advertising. A travel fare advertised at five cents looks very attractive indeed, but when the consumer goes to book, either online or otherwise, the five-cent ticket can be several hundred euro when taxes and other charges are factored in.

I raised this issue by way of a parliamentary question here last January, and the Commission replied, ‘the Commission, while maintaining the general rule of price freedom, proposes that “air carriers operating within the Community [...] provide the general public with comprehensive information on their air fares and rates and the conditions attached”. Consumers will thus be informed of the actual price (price of ticket plus the various charges and taxes).’

The Degutis report, which we are debating here tonight, will give practical effect to this, and that is extremely welcome. The obligation on airlines to introduce full transparency is extremely welcome and very important, because the consumer will now see from the very outset exactly what he or she will have to pay. That alone will not reduce the numbers of people travelling – as a lot of people think it might – but in my opinion it will further enhance competition and benefit the travelling public.

Finally, could the Commissioner tell us when exactly we can expect this to come into effect? The sooner the better, in my view.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank all the speakers and I am pleased about most of the amendments proposed. These amendments usefully clarify several points, especially concerning the economic and financial monitoring of companies or again the issues about leasing of aircraft.

I fully support the proposed improvements concerning the principal place of business in order to ensure effective monitoring of companies for which a national authority has responsibility. The Commission also agrees with your proposals in relation to the conditions for granting or revoking licences, even if we cannot accept that this action could be taken on the basis of suspicion alone. The simplifications regarding public service obligations and coordination of airports will allow a more flexible and effective implementation of these measures.

Moreover, although the Commission can support the major part of the amendments without any problem, I am going nonetheless to tell you about some reservations. I can understand and support the need to find solutions for passengers who are stranded when an airline goes bankrupt. Mrs Ayala referred to that. It is, indeed, such situations that have led to this updating of the regulation, which seeks to strengthen the conditions for granting licences and the economic and financial monitoring of companies. I cannot, however, at this stage, accept a new obligation whose feasibility and scope in economic and financial terms we have not yet analysed. That is why, in my opinion, we should make reference to the need to make provision for conditions for reimbursement and repatriation, without, for all that, deciding on a solution the real impact of which we do not really know yet.

My second reservation concerns the social dimension. It is of the utmost importance that national authorities correctly apply the appropriate national and European legislation. It is a good thing to remind Member States of these obligations, which are laid down by the Treaty and by national legislation, but this sectoral regulation does not seem the most appropriate to deal with this matter. We must look more closely at this subject in order to grasp all the implications and to define the real needs that call for a response at Community level. Also, the proposal made by your rapporteur seems to me right, that is, to make reference to the obligations of Member States in a recital.

Furthermore, I wish to answer, of course, those who asked me about the proposal. Yes, the Commission is carrying out a study on the effects of the internal aviation market on employment and working conditions. This study, which will be finished at the end of 2007, will give us food for thought and enable us to decide what practical measures to take.

As Mr Jarzembowski has mentioned, the Commission is hesitating in relation to the obligations that are too specific for the distribution of traffic between airports. It is legitimate to require reasonable and effective connection times with city centres. Is it not, however, going too far if we insist on a fixed time, as well as an obligation for there to be links between airports?

I come to the problem of prices. The provisions on transparency of prices and full information for passengers are necessary, but they must be feasible and intelligible. Your rapporteur is right to wish to cover all flights leaving from an airport in the European Community. However, the extension of this obligation to only the Community companies in third countries gives rise to serious legal and commercial difficulties.

I should like to respond to the question of costs linked with security. It is true that the Commission is in favour of the cost of security and the portion of the price resulting from it being known. Moreover, it also wants the various costs, charges, taxes and surcharges to be clearly shown. However, if it is true that this regulation seeks to ensure information for passengers, we cannot use it to lay down the use and characteristics of each charge or tax; provisions of this kind will have their place in the directive on airport charges under discussion in our institutions.

Mrs Jeggle, with regard to advertising on the Internet, I agree with you, but Amendment 48 seems to us very complicated. It really needs to be clear and practical.

I want also to respond to Mr Stockmann and Mr Kohliček concerning the issue of wet leasing. It is necessary to allow relative flexibility to meet exceptional needs while laying down strict conditions for safety and frequency. I am in favour of a system that makes it possible to reconcile safety requirements with the need for recourse to wet leasing in exceptional circumstances and for a limited period.

Finally, for reasons of fair competition with third countries, I consider it is justified to compensate for the removal of Article 23 on price leadership by the possibility of imposing restrictions, when a third country with which an agreement has been signed does not recognise the same duties. It is a principle of good sense which should help us in the negotiations with third countries. I thank Parliament also for having supported the Commission’s approach concerning relations with third countries, which must be conducted in a coordinated fashion. There too, I shall still need the support of Parliament, Mr President, for the next stages.

I do not pretend to have answered all the questions. I say again, quite simply, that Parliament’s work has improved our text. Therefore, Mr Degutis, Mr Costa, it is really with much satisfaction that I thank Parliament for its work; the questions that you have raised are also very sound. I observed that, for some of them, it was not necessarily in this text that an answer needed to be provided. On the social level, I pointed out that we are in the process of working, and that by the end of the year, I would have a better idea for a possible proposal.

Mr President, I felt it was necessary to provide rather detailed answers in order to close a debate of high quality.

(FR) Commission position on Parliament’s amendments:

Degutis report (A6-0178/2007)

The Commission can accept the following amendments: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56.

The Commission can accept in principle the following amendments: 1, 8, 10, 12, 20, 23, 31, 32, 36, 44 and 49.

The Commission can accept in part the following amendments: 33, 45 and 47.

The Commission cannot accept the following amendments: 2, 15, 16, 17, 25, 35, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48, 50, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 11 July 2007.

20. Sustainable mobility (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0190/2007) by Etelka Barsi-Pataky, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on Keep Europe moving – Sustainable mobility for our continent (2006/2227(INI))

  Etelka Barsi-Pataky (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (HU) Parliament welcomes the mid-term review of the fundamental document of Europe’s transport policy, the White Paper. We are pleased that the Commission has prepared its report on the subject after broad coordination, and that it has done a thorough job. We also welcome the fact that it has made suggestions in several areas with regard to modifying the existing transport policy.

Parliament recognises the achievements of the past five years, while at the same time we are critical on several matters. Parliament requests the Council and the Commission to consider our recommendations as the cornerstone of European transport policy.

Now, what do these consist of? First of all, the experience of past years shows that the use of regulation is the weak point of transport policy. As for implementation, it has been the case more than once that this came only after considerable delay, while sometimes it has been done incompletely or not at all. The Commission’s report does not face up with sufficient thoroughness or honesty to this problem, and therefore it does not suggest appropriate solutions. Parliament emphasises the importance of cooperation among the European, national and regional levels, of strengthening this cooperation and of working together.

Second, the majority in Parliament is of the opinion that we need to shape our transport policy more realistically than was done in the past. The review quite rightly observes that transport, as a service, plays a key role in the economy and in society, and that it is inseparable from the latter; our recommendation is therefore that we integrate it fully into the Lisbon Strategy.

For the most part, we agree that existing capacities must be utilised more efficiently on their own or in integration, and that each and every mode of transport must be sustainable on its own; this applies particularly to logistics. In addition to co-modality in certain areas, the modal shift, in our view, plays an important role especially with regard to long-distance transport.

Third, as far as the growth of the European economy is concerned, the inadequate financing of infrastructures poses a risk. Neither the Commission’s report, nor the Council’s position faces up adequately to this problem. European transport requires more Community financing, more financing by Member States, more courageous financial solutions and, above all, political support, in order to implement its key projects. We ask, and we expect, that the tasks of reviewing the seven-year budget for this area begin immediately.

Fourth, we should talk about the changed circumstances and new challenges since 2001. Among these I would highlight first of all those tasks, which follow from the reunification of Europe in 2004 and 2007, which considerably increased the differences within Europe, as well as its diversity, which needs to be analysed much more thoroughly in European legislation. We have a common interest, moreover, in the interconnected, interoperable trans-European network. Thus it must be the joint responsibility of every level and every institution to make full use of those sources that ensure cohesion.

Fifth, we need to face the fact that the impact of transport on climate change has increased and continues to increase. Although the spring session of the Council formulated worthy general objectives, their practical transposition is the task of the legislation that is before us, and that will be carried out in the coming period. Among these, for instance, is the Commission proposal, due in 2008, on the internalisation of external costs.

Sixth, we must consider here and take account of the fact that traditional arrangements are gradually reaching the limits of their effectiveness, and therefore we must take advantage of the potential of intelligent transport systems. We need to create a legal, economic and technological environment that is suitable for the industry. We have launched some large, comprehensive Community projects, European projects that are promising. But the Union does not have any experience in these innovations, so we need to blaze a trail in this area.

However, European responses to climate change are worthless if we cannot implement these on a global scale. Commissioner, it is our opinion that after this mid-term review, there needs to be a progressive renewal of Europe’s transport policy in this direction and an adjustment to the new challenges, otherwise overcrowding, the pressures on the environment, and the problems of social sustainability will present serious obstacles to the growth of Europe’s economy and well-being. I thank all those fellow Members who have lent their constructive support to the preparation of this report.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very happy to be here to take part in this debate on European transport policy. I wish to commend the quality of Mrs Barsi-Pataky’s work which, by the conciseness of its messages, has given a strong political signal. You said just now, Mrs Barsi-Pataky, that any transport policy must be able to be constantly updated, for the very reason that it has to adapt, and you have underlined the importance of making this growth in transport sustainable. I am pleased by the soundness of your report and its relevance to the mid-term review of the White Paper.

You received favourably the realistic approach of the Commission’s communication; it is an approach that needs to be brought up to date, in compliance with the Lisbon objectives, and made part of the framework of the European strategy for sustainable development. These objectives relate to the four pillars of our approach: sustainable mobility, safe mobility, innovative mobility and the international dimension.

You also supported the concept of co-modality and we must indeed, in order to make a success of the modal shift, reduce the negative impacts of all modes of transport precisely so as to ensure the environmental efficiency and performance of each mode of transport. The promotion of intelligent systems of transport and logistics, urban mobility policies, the development of intelligent charging systems are all ways of contributing to it without jeopardising the mobility necessary for growth.

I shall mention now the items under this heading that are due shortly. The Green Paper on urban transport, the importance of which you have emphasised. The action plan on logistics that I intend to submit to you soon and which will include actions intended to remove administrative, operational and functional obstacles: to encourage training and exchange of best practice, to promote standardisation across the different modes. A communication on port policy is planned for the autumn, in which there will be, among other things, assessments of aspects of integration of port infrastructures in the logistics chain. The forthcoming appointment of a European coordinator for motorways of the sea and of another European coordinator for waterways, and we are going to consolidate the institutional framework of inland navigation with harmonisation of pilots’ certificates and the setting up of a fund for innovation in this sector.

Next, the communication on a rail network focussed on freight in Europe. Next, the levying of charges on infrastructures. As you wanted at the time of adopting the new Eurovignette directive, the Commission will present in 2008 a methodology for the internalisation of external costs. There, now, is a good agenda which corresponds, Mrs Barsi-Pataky, very much with your recommendations.

I should like to add a few comments about certain passages in your report beginning with a reminder that the Commission carries out a rigorous policy of initiating proceedings for infringements, which is beginning to bear fruit.

In another vein, I understand that the international negotiations are a sensitive subject for Parliament. Having said that, it is up to the Commission to negotiate international agreements, but it will keep the European Parliament regularly informed about the progress of the negotiations. I also take note of your request for a report concerning the directive on the interoperability of electronic road pricing systems and we shall present, as set out in the directive, a report for 2009. The Commission is in the process of assessing the impact of the European modular system. Despite the advantages and increased efficiency in some instances, this option remains controversial.

Finally, the Commission fully supports the development of biofuels with the establishment of European standards for this type of fuel. It is a matter of making it easier to achieve the European Union’s minimum target: 10% of biofuels out of the total fuel consumption by 2020.

I am going now to listen with attention to your comments and once again I thank Parliament and the Commission for giving informed opinions on this mid-term review of the White Paper.

  Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks go to the rapporteur, Mrs Barsi-Pataky, for the work she has done.

On behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I nevertheless have to say that I am sorry that the Committee on Transport and Tourism took only very little account of our committee’s proposals. The traditional way of thinking is that the more transport there is the better it is for the economy and industry. The Committee on Industry, however, took the view that transport caused others to incur much more in costs which are not at present internalised in the price of transport.

Transport is the sector where carbon dioxide emissions are growing the fastest. For example, emissions from road traffic have increased by more than 25% since 1990; the figure is more than 50% in the case of air traffic. This renders meaningless the reductions in emissions which have been achieved in industry and energy production.

It is therefore time we started applying ‘the polluter pays’ principle in transport too, and internalised the costs of environmental damage in the prices of different transport modes. Fair competition between the different transport modes also makes this necessary. The Committee on Transport regrettably wanted to water down this principle so that the environmental charges on transport would be spent in the transport sector. Transport, however, also needs to take the issue of carbon dioxide emissions seriously. We have to set clear targets to reduce not just emissions from vehicles but all forms of transport.

Part of this will entail less traffic generally, especially car and air traffic. Half of the car journeys taken every day in the European Union are less than five kilometres long. They are mainly in the cities. If just a third of these short car journeys were stopped and people walked, cycled or took buses instead, carbon dioxide emissions thorughout Europe would go down by several per cent. For example, emissions in Germany would fall by 4%. Moreover, air pollution would be reduced precisely where people mostly tend to live.

According to the World Health Organisation, every year over 300 000 Europeans die before their time from air pollution, the main cause of which in cities is car traffic. Business would also benefit as a result of less illness caused by pollutants.

  Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by congratulating Mrs Barsi-Pataky on this report and by thanking her for her hard work and willingness to compromise. She has managed, in a very short, but accurate and perceptive report, to give an overview of the key priorities for Europe's future transport policy. Experts – especially those who can read between the lines – will appreciate that. However, our citizens will lament the lack of detailed, tangible examples and practical proposals.

The mid-term review on the European Commission's 2001 Transport White Paper shows that we have a lot of catching up to do. This is not only true for the security aspects, but also for other areas such as sustainability, investment (particularly in TENs) and logistics. Mrs Barsi-Pataky has indicated the right approach through her support for an intermodal transport network in which each carrier will develop their strengths so as to create goods transport services that are in the public interest.

I was struck by the absence of any call for an appropriate Community framework for intermodal tourism, in other words for structuring the movements of European citizens. We also need intermodal approaches in public and private long-distance passenger transport in order to satisfy the constantly growing desire for mobility.

I very much welcome the decision to link existing transport problems to the development of intelligent transport systems and innovative technical solutions. Policies should be bold enough to give priority to security-related legislation in the transport sector.

This should include strict rules for HGVs up to 44 tonnes and transport infrastructure safety management.

  Inés Ayala Sender, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Barsi-Pataky most warmly on her ability to synthesise such a heated process and procedure as the revision of this Green Paper, despite all of the, shall we say, good intentions. It was only to be expected, however, that all of the Members would want to add some of the huge number of ideas inspired by the Commission’s proposal.

I would also like to congratulate her on her ability to reach valid compromises, which are going to attract broad support from the whole of Parliament.

She has achieved a good balance between the unquestionable objectives, such as the modal shift in favour of modes that are still under-developed and which offer great environmental advantages, such as railways and inland waterways, while at the same time being able to interweave it with a new notion of co-modality that gave it a touch of realism that was more acceptable to all of the actors in the sector and which reduced many of the pressures that were preventing us from moving forward in a more reasonable manner.

I would point out that one of the great problems with Community legislation – though not just Community legislation – is its deficient application. It is therefore crucial that we call for innovative instruments for that application.

We also agree with her criticism of the insufficient funding of the trans-European networks and of the other transport measures at European level and we believe that it opens up future perspectives which may be very useful to us in the 2008 debate, in order finally to achieve funding that is a match for our ambitions for European transport.

We are also grateful for your understanding in relation to integrating transport into the heart of the Lisbon Strategy. We believe that that will finally make the Member States act responsibly in both fields: that of legislative application and that of sufficient funding.

The proposals in favour of logistics also seem to us to be hopeful signs, and we will try to follow them in the report that we are currently drawing up, as well as the innovative solutions and your total and ongoing support for intelligent transport systems.

We also support your call for diversity and what that has meant since enlargement, which you understand better than anybody.

We agree with your approach with regard to the global approach and relations with third countries, which we believe to be crucial to the future of the whole issue of European transport.

We also welcome your support for the Green Paper on urban transport and, finally, we are grateful for your understanding over the need to update your report in relation to climate change, taking up the Council’s latest proposal on reducing CO2 emissions.

The only thing I must say, finally, is that we will not be able to join you in supporting the modular aspect that appears in paragraph 11 of your report, but I believe that, by means of the proposal with which Mr Grosch will perhaps provide us, we will be able to find a solution to that little problem between the two groups.

  Paolo Costa, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Mr Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, what we are examining is an excellent report, which enables Parliament to understand, support and align itself with the work that the Commission must carry out in this last brief period of its activities. The Barsi-Pataky report covers all the problems with which we have dealt in recent years and thus can make a strategic contribution to our policy.

I had the misfortune, if I may put it that way, to arrive just a moment before that clear change in priorities that has occurred over the last few weeks, with the possible inclusion within the Union’s activities of the fight against climate change and direct responsibility for the issue of energy costs. I believe that this makes it necessary for us to review the whole text in the light of the new priorities, justifying or clarifying all the policies that we must implement to ensure that transport, too, makes its contribution to the attainment of these two objectives.

This means working to use alternative fuels or the same fuels with more efficient engines, trying to organise more efficient journeys with the aid of logistics but also, and above all, adding principles and logic to our need to insist on the better use of more energy-efficient and climate-friendly transport, as well as organising our lives in such as way as to reduce unnecessary mobility demands.

This merely underlines once again the historic strategies, which all in all are a credit to the European transport policy. Interoperability, access to the markets and the integration of networks are making a dominant reappearance on the stage, albeit with two qualifications: time and money. Time is becoming more urgent: everything needs to be accelerated and pushed to achieve swifter results if we wish to maintain the objectives of reducing CO2 and energy costs, as anticipated in the new objectives that the Union has set itself.

The other problem is funding. The way in which the Union acts as intermediary regarding the Member States’ investments needs to be reconsidered in the medium term: I am referring not only to the funding of infrastructure, which is certainly the largest amount, but also to interoperability and to other measures that are designed to facilitate market access. This funding not only needs to be obtained at European level, but also requires the Commission to have the possibility of coordinating the policies and funding of all the States, so as to ensure that the results we require are rapidly achieved.

  Sepp Kusstatscher, on behalf of Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, the report has a promising title: 'Keep Europe moving – sustainable mobility for our continent'. The clearest statement in Mrs Barsi-Pataky's report is in paragraph 14: 'the mid-term review of the Transport White Paper 2001 has not laid down long-term objectives nor given answers'. The EU's transport policy is riddled with inconsistencies. Many good principles are correctly identified, but often are not put into practice.

The report makes it clear that the negative effects of climate change have increased, not least as a result of a bad transport policy. Many people still believe that growth is a constant: ever faster, ever higher, ever further. Growth may be sustainable, but is not a good thing. Incessant growth will not achieve the Kyoto targets, and the aim of halving CO2 emissions by 2050 will remain a pipe dream.

Often we only treat the symptoms, not the cause of the evil. Satu Hassu from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy has already cited various examples. We have been afraid to tell the whole truth about the costs. We want to build new, ridiculously expensive high-speed train tracks while the existing tracks, in Italy for example, are rusting away. Air traffic emissions are not included in the CO2 calculations, and transport is being promoted all over Europe.

Let us look at a very real, topical event: today in Vienna, the transport ministers from Italy, Austria and Germany have again happily declared their commitment to the Brenner Base Tunnel. The economic viability of the Brenner Base Tunnel is very dubious in the light of our experience with the Channel Tunnel. The finance comes from Member States who are already contravening the Maastricht criteria, which puts it on a very shaky footing. Some of the approach sections have not even been planned. It really is a massive white elephant. There is talk of transferring goods traffic to rail, yet the plans are for a high-speed passenger line.p

The objectives of a socially acceptable and environmentally-friendly transport policy need to be: reducing unnecessary traffic flows, moving to more environmentally-friendly transport methods, being honest about the cost – which means transport prices must include all the costs of construction, maintenance, addressing environmental and health problems, and the cost of accidents – and sustainable taxation of transport based on CO2 emissions, including, most importantly, for air traffic.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, practice has proved to be more inflexible than theory. Halfway through the planning horizon of the White Paper on transport, it transpires that the objectives are not yet within reach. The Commission’s decision to fine-tune the objectives is both courageous and sensible. I take my hat off to you. The change of course does, however, mean that we need to have different irons in the fire. It is no longer only the intention to shift cargo, but to improve every modality. This requires copious amounts of international decisiveness and tenacity in a number of cases.

There is also plenty to do in Europe, including the introduction of adequate infrastructure, the use of new technology, specific action programmes for market sectors and the further introduction of the polluter, that is, the user pays principle. These elements have been included in the Barsi-Pataky report with very good reason. As such, I can identify with most of the content of her report.

I have tabled amendments in respect of two points. This House lays down transport legislation, whereupon it is often up to the Member States to transpose this legislation. It has transpired that one and the same piece of legislation is interpreted and enforced in different ways in different Member States. This means, for example, that lorries driving across various Member States comply with this selfsame piece of legislation in one country and not in the next, with all the consequences that this entails. I regard this as unacceptable. This is why, in my Amendment 4, attention is drawn to this, and Member States and the Commission are urged, where necessary, to agree on a common interpretation of legal documents. This amendment does not provide for common penalties applicable to infringements.

The second point concerns urban transport. Although I am well disposed towards it, I take the view that this should fall within the Member States’ remit, and should remain so. The role of the European Union can therefore be nothing more than facilitating. By way of conclusion, I should like to thank Mrs Barsi-Pataky for her efforts and congratulate her on this result.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the Commission's mid-term review rightly highlights a number of common transport policy successes, notably the constant improvements in incorporating transport policy priorities in other policy areas: the internal market for one, and environmental policy for another. I would like to thank Vice-President Barrot for specifically referring to the study on internalising external costs. We are eagerly awaiting the findings and recommendations for further action.

The mid-term review must also recognise that many actions that were identified as necessary have either failed or are threatened with failure because of the lack of funding and unwillingness to provide funding on the part of the Union – or more specifically, the Member States. This indicates that new impetus is called for at half-time. We need more money. We need better systems. We need more, better and new technologies, and above all, we need better logistics.

There are also new issues to address. It is vital that we involve the new Member States and the candidate counties in the older existing system of trans-European networks so that we can all grow together. With all the different facets of security considerations, there is still a lot of work to be done.

On the subject of urban transport policy, boldness and sensitivity must be our watchwords. A methodical approach is needed: it is not necessary to enshrine every feasible and conceivable idea in European law straight away. It may be better to opt for less binding legislation, and more stimulus in the form of best practice and respect for subsidiarity.

Transport as a whole is set to keep increasing, not decrease. Some have a vision of the future in which transport growth and economic growth will be completely separate. We do not want to fall flat on our faces, though: growth is not appropriate for all areas.

Amendment 6 from our Scandinavian fellow MEPs should not be seen or used as a back door for the so-called EuroCombi HGVs. What may be good practice in Scandinavia is not suitable in the rest of Europe. My thanks to the Commission. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for this excellent report.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Barsi-Pataky, who has produced a skilfully worded report with some very clear messages. I also wish to thank the Commission and Commissioner Barrot for their evaluation of the White Paper, involving a lot of constructive new thinking about the EU’s transport policy. The White Paper will be the framework for sound and wide-ranging transport decisions over the next few years. The evaluation may help bring about better decisions. The EU’s Heads of State or Government have, of course, decided that efficient transport should be a part of the Lisbon Process, designed to make the EU into the most competitive knowledge-based economy before the year 2010, and that of course sounds all well and good. It shows that there is increasing understanding for the fact that efficient transport is crucial to economic development.

At the same time, the Commission’s commitment to co-modality and its focus on the interplay of different forms of transport testify to a more realistic understanding of what drives demand for transport, which is to say that people want the safest, most efficient, comfortable and inexpensive means of getting from A to B. We must develop each individual mode of transport in ways that are environmentally sound and we must do more to coordinate the different forms of transport so that proper consideration is given both to efficiency and to the environment. Such a policy requires investment, and one might well doubt somewhat whether the EU Heads of State or Government will honour their fine words about enhanced transport. We shall get some perspective on the matter shortly when we hear what the Trans-European Networks are to get. I am afraid that not enough money has been set aside for the Trans-European Networks for 2007 to 2013, and we must demand that the agenda for the mid-term review of the 2009 budgetary framework includes more money for transport investment.

  Renate Sommer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is stuck in traffic jams, and the situation is getting worse. Change is needed. Yet transport plays a vital role in our economy. If our transport policy is poor, the economy will suffer because it is dependent on the transport sector. So it is important that we create links between transport policy and other policies.

We can and must make progress on a lot of important regulation, such as harmonisation, starting at European level, but we must remember that political measures can only be taken at Community level if they offer a clear added value. This means constantly evaluating the need for all EU transport policy regulations. Existing measures have to be reviewed regularly, so as to be able to nip any undesirable trends in the bud. Overregulation is detrimental to the transport market.

In order to make real improvements to mobility and environmental protection, we need to establish substantial incentives for the relatively environmentally-friendly, but hitherto neglected rail and inland waterway sectors. We need to get the Member States on board in this area. There is still a wealth of unexploited potential, and that is a challenge for Europe.

At the same time, there is no satisfactory answer to the question of whether the European Commission should intervene in urban transport. Are we responsible for this sector? Does that not go against the principle of subsidiarity? Can Europe dictate how our towns and cities manage their internal affairs? The European Commission cannot be allowed to use the current hysterical climate change debate to extend its powers.

If we want to make sustainable improvements to the transport situation and thereby to environmental quality in our cities, we need to get Europe's citizens behind us. Only through changes in the behaviour of our citizens as transport users will we achieve substantial and genuinely effective results. This will require targeted information campaigns, however, which would need to be initiated and supported at European level.

To close, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Barsi-Pataky, for her excellent and thorough report on the subject and for always being open to discussion.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. European transport faces major challenges: a uniform market and good connections and cross-border permeability, services in large cities, safety and quality of services and working conditions for transport workers. This involves above all good and systematic regulation of European and national legislation. It also involves proper organisation and logistics, a lot of investment in infrastructure, but above all it involves energy consumption. There is no such thing as transport without energy supplies.

Using energy in transport creates harmful emissions. We must limit these emissions on environmental grounds using the requisite technology. The cost of fuel is high, and we must reduce fuel consumption by incorporating new technology into engines. But new pollution-cutting and fuel-saving technologies cost money, and we have to develop them further to bring down their price, as cheaper technology in transport is cheap transport, and cheap transport means a competitive economy. So here again, the main problem is new technologies.

I would like to ask this House, during the mid-term budget review, to greatly increase expenditure on transport research and technology. We need to be innovative in transport technology, otherwise we will lose the race for competitive transport, a competitive economy and the Lisbon strategy.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all, quite simply but frankly, to say to Mrs Satu Hassi that I am surprised by her comments as we are totally committed to sustainable mobility. I am surprised, Mrs Hassi, that you should think that we are forgetting the ‘polluter pays’ principle. I think I made, with Mr Dimas, a brave commitment about sharing with aviation the allowances for greenhouse gas emissions. We observe a political line and I am very surprised by your comments which, if I may say, seem to me a little excessive.

I am also going to take the opportunity of saying to Mr Kusstatscher that I find it difficult to understand him: it is quite clear that at a time when we are building infrastructures for high speed trains, we are freeing up conventional lines for freight. It is not just by chance that I stated just now that there would be a communication on railway lines dedicated to freight.

Mrs Sommer, may I say to you also that I am not looking for competences. On the other hand, I take into account, on the one hand, the expectations of citizens and, on the other hand, the fact that, if you want rail to have its rightful place in Europe, it is necessary to ensure interoperability. If you want a sustainable development policy, there comes a moment when you can do it only by coordination and harmonisation on a European scale. I say this to you straight out, because you will understand that as a Commissioner, committed as I am, I am happy to accept a certain number of justified criticisms, but I feel obliged to answer back directly when the criticism becomes excessive.

I come now to some comments that I wanted to make. The Commission has already begun removing obstacles to the running of trains: simplifying the certification of railway vehicles, railway interoperability and safety, the third rail package. I thank your Committee on Transport and Tourism for their work in this field towards reaching an agreement.

In the aviation sector, we have two regulations concerning the interoperability of European traffic management systems. We adopted, in 2007, an ‘airports’ package that is focussed on the role of airports in the competitiveness of the internal aviation market and, as for infrastructures, we have a new trans-European network (TEN). Mr Costa is right, however, when he says that we shall have to really redouble our efforts to coordinate financing because, as Mrs Ayala and others have emphasised, we find ourselves faced with a budget which is too limited to be able really to undertake the major works on infrastructure that will enable sustainable mobility. You are absolutely right and I thank Parliament for forcefully pointing it out.

Mr Koch spoke about co-modality in tourism and he is right. Co-modality must also work in favour of passengers. As far as infrastructures are concerned, as I have just said, we are going to try to mobilise all possible resources and to develop public private partnerships with the involvement of the European Investment Bank.

I shall say a brief word on the social aspects of transport. From April new social rules in relation to professional road transport came into force and we presented three proposals for regulations with a view to modernising admission to the occupation of road transport operator and access to the road transport market. With regard to passengers’ rights, we have, thanks to Parliament, begun to introduce rights for passengers with reduced mobility in all modes of transport, particularly by coach and by sea. I will admit to you, knowing Parliament’s sensitivity on this subject, that we must now actually put these rights into practice.

As far as safety is concerned, I should like to emphasise again the priority of road safety in our action, as the first European Road Safety Day attests. We have also simplified the rules in relation to transport of dangerous goods and we have three air, sea and rail safety agencies, which are not idle. Safety will keep us busy in the autumn in the context of conciliation on common rules in the aviation sector.

With regard to innovation, on which Mrs Barsi-Pataky was right to insist, it is really a major problem. Transport has to benefit from new technology. That will be the case with the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) for air traffic. It is the case with the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) to equip new railway lines and then, of course, it will be the case with energy saving and green propulsion to ensure the sustainability of road mobility. All that will be the subject of an action plan for energy efficiency and will be part of the European strategy for energy defined by the European Council.

I shall not elaborate on the international dimension. It is obviously necessary to pursue this policy that has enabled us to sign an open sky agreement with the United States and with other countries. Henceforth, we are going to pursue all these efforts.

Mr President, I shall leave it at that, because, of course, all of that deserves much more explanation. I thank Parliament and particularly Mrs Barsi-Pataky, because I think we are engaged in a transport policy that really takes into account future requirements, which looks not to the past but very much to the future, with this double objective: to enable mobility such as the Lisbon objectives require and, at the same time, to ensure that this mobility remains compatible with the demands of environmental protection and the fight against global warming. It is a very difficult battle. I thank Parliament very much for its support and, personally, I feel very committed to these efforts towards sustainable mobility.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 11 July 2007.

21. Recent developments in bilateral trade relations with China (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on bilateral trade relations between the EU and China by Helmuth Markov, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade (O-0032/2007 – B6-0129/2007).

  Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL), author. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to be able to introduce this subject on behalf of the Committee on International Trade. I would like to begin by thanking Commissioner Mandelson and his services, who have dramatically improved the flow of information sent to our committee regarding the various bilateral and interregional trade negotiations. The committee hopes that this style of cooperation will continue for international negotiations on partnership and cooperation agreements in which, as in the case of China, trade is a significant factor.

Our trade relations with the People's Republic of China are of great importance for both sides. Last year, China took over from the USA as the largest exporter to the European Union. At the same time, the European Union's trade deficit with China rose to EUR 128 billion. The Committee on International Trade has been monitoring China's growing importance in international trade for some time now. As early as 2005, our committee chose to produce an own-initiative report on the subject: the first report ever produced on an individual trading partner. A second report looked at the consequences of the expiry of the quota system for the Chinese textiles and clothing industry. We should congratulate the rapporteurs – Caroline Lucas and Tokia Saïfi – for their foresight two years ago.

In the European Union and developing countries, concerns about the textiles and clothing industry and the impact of opening the market to China have still not been allayed.

This uncertainty has been increasing as the 2005 Memorandum of Understanding is now due to expire. We need a clear statement about China's market economy status in order to investigate allegations of dumping in this area.

The Lucas report looked at the issue of Europe's strategy in terms of optimising the value creation chain and increasing production of high-tech goods. The belief that the European Union can continue to offer cannier solutions in the long term and set the pace for scientific and technical progress has to be called into question in view of the incredibly high numbers of well-qualified Chinese school leavers. We do, of course, recognise and welcome the reduction in poverty that China's meteoric rise has brought about in the past 20 years. At the same time, it is reasonable to expect China to comply with the WTO rules that it accepted when it became a member. This includes provisions on intellectual property and the principle of non-discrimination for imported goods. Nor can we afford to ignore the ecological and social consequences of China's growth. We should be prepared to support those who are addressing the problems on the ground.

Commissioner Mandelson, I believe I read that last month at a trade union conference in the United Kingdom you said that in international and bilateral trade talks, we seek to set fair environmental and social standards. I only hope that this applies to our major trading partners, not just the small ones. So we expect the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement that you are currently negotiating with China to incorporate all these elements, and that the interests of all affected parties will be considered, instead of focussing solely on market access. Commissioner, perhaps you could tell us to what extent this message is being conveyed through the EU's stance in the negotiations on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with China, and also how China has responded to our position.

Another, more general, question is that of the relationship between international and bilateral negotiations. The European Union's trade strategy sees national bilateral and interregional trade relations as complementing the multilateral efforts made within the WTO. The WTO negotiations seem to have stalled. Could you, Commissioner, explain what is the basis for conducting bilateral discussions, given that it is currently unclear what shape the global framework for future negotiations will take, and therefore what the agreements will need to look like.

Lastly, I would like to ask you whether it is really necessary, before we reach an agreement in a multilateral framework, to negotiate individual WTO-plus agreements containing provisions that we know many developing countries are not happy with. Would this type of conduct not make concluding a multilateral agreement – which is the solution that our committee favours – even more complicated than it is at present?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, let me say straight away in response to Mr Markov that I am grateful to him for acknowledging the increased flow of information that comes from the Commission to his committee and the stronger cooperation that he has seen. As far as China is concerned, the EU side has as its objective in the prospective Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to lay the foundation for enhanced cooperation, including enforcement and, where possible, the upgrading of environmental – including climate change mitigation – social, labour and safety standards, so we are on the same wavelength on that.

I welcome this opportunity to give this House some feedback on recent developments in bilateral trade relations with China. China has been a top priority since I took office. We have a lot to gain, but also some things to lose, depending on how we conduct this important relationship.

I chose the European Parliament last October to present, together with Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, the Commission’s China strategy paper – ‘Closer Partners, Growing Responsibilities’ – and, more specifically on trade and investment, the policy paper entitled ‘Competition and Partnership’. I argued in that policy paper that Europe benefits from an open and balanced economic relationship with China based on fair reciprocity.

That fundamental argument still holds good today. Our economies are complementary: China has strong competitive advantages in many areas; we have an enduring competitive advantage in high value-added services and goods, especially ones that require strong intellectual property right (IPR) protection.

However, we have not yet achieved the balance in our relationship that will guarantee that it can be sustained to our mutual benefit. Europe’s trade deficit with China is indeed growing. I accept that part of this deficit may be the natural result of market forces, but we also know that our export potential is being hampered by barriers in the Chinese market and that an important part of the current trade balance is consequently artificial. It is a product of politics, not economics; it can be addressed by politics. A recent study has even put a number on the cost of China’s barriers to our trade at about EUR 20 billion annually in lost exports, that is 30% of our exports to China. China must take practical steps to address the problem.

So what is the EU looking for? Well, we want improved access to China’s goods and services markets and, for EU investors, a sea change in protection of intellectual property rights and copyrights, especially by cleaning up the huge street markets that sell counterfeit products and by ensuring Chinese companies pay royalties due to EU companies when using their technology.

We want an ambitious approach to negotiations to update the 1985 Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement between the EU and China. This has to be a genuinely high-standard agreement that addresses long-term concerns, and we want assurances that the drive for growth and the lack of domestic market signals in China will not lead to over-production and dumping, especially in key products like steel.

The fundamental case for a positive trade relationship with China remains correct, but we are at something of a crossroads in our trade relations with China. A policy of dialogue to address the problems we have is credible only if it delivers more than the alternative means of trying to force change.

The policy of dialogue and engagement can be challenged. It will be challenged if things do not improve between us and if people cannot see tangible, deliverable, practical improvements and benefits as a result of that policy of dialogue and engagement.

So let me repeat: openness to China is in Europe’s interests, but it is sustainable only if we can show that EU products and services are just as welcome in China as Chinese goods are in Europe. That is why China needs to reciprocate by strengthening its commitment to economic openness and market reform behind its own borders.

I have made this case openly and frankly to the Chinese authorities, most recently with Commerce Minister Bo Xilai in our recent EU-China Joint Committee meeting in Brussels on 12 June. At that meeting, the Chinese leadership recognised for the first time that the current trend of the trade imbalance between China and the EU is simply not sustainable. I was able to agree with Bo Xilai to set up a high-level group that will explore ways to address this issue. I am looking forward to the initial report of this group at the next EU-China summit in November, and I expect it to identify some first tangible and practical steps to address this shared challenge, notably in ensuring higher Chinese imports from the EU.

I agreed with Minister Bo Xilai on 12 specific points that address EU companies’ concerns regarding their access to the Chinese market. One of these was the agreement on terms of reference for the upgrading of our 1985 trade pact. This was an important step forward, as I had withheld our commitment until I felt the terms of reference were right from our point of view.

It is important to stress that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of which our trade discussions are forming part will encompass the full scope of the EU-China bilateral relationship, including enhanced cooperation in political matters. The PCA will contain a standard clause on human rights. The clause will cover all issues related to democratic principles and fundamental human rights. As I have already said, one of our objectives in the PCA is to lay the foundation for enhanced cooperation on matters to do with environment, social, labour and safety standards.

On the trade side, the agreement will cover important issues for both sides such as IPR, investment, non-tariff trade barriers, capital movements, sustainable trade, and natural resources and competition. These negotiations are an important tool to try to rebalance our trade relations and create opportunities for EU business operators. However, this is not a preferential agreement, and tariffs will, therefore, not be discussed.

In parallel, the European Commission will continue to monitor closely China’s implementation of its WTO accession obligations. This will remain a central priority for the Commission in the years to come. China’s non-accession to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement leaves important Chinese markets closed, and China needs to honour its commitment to open negotiations on accession to this agreement in 2008.

The Commission will also launch a comprehensive review of market openness in China and China’s implementation of its WTO commitments later this year. IPR was another focus of my talks last month with Minister Bo Xilai. Cooperation and dialogue on IPR issues are not an end in themselves. They have to produce real change. Talk is not enough. That is why the Commission has made it clear to China that the cooperative approach we are presently favouring must produce tangible results.

The next meeting of the EU-China IP working group should be held in the coming month. If significant progress is not made in the short-term on key issues for the EU, such as fake markets and payment of royalties, we will have to reconsider our approach with China in the IPR area. The Commission does not exclude using the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. In addition, the Commission is working actively to stop Chinese exports of fakes from entering the Community, most notably through strengthened customs actions at EU borders. I believe this must become a higher priority for the EU as a whole.

Europe can cope with tough competition, but it needs to be fair competition. This means that we have to ensure that we are acting on a level playing field, rejecting anti-competitive trading practices and standing ready to apply our trade defence instruments against dumping and illegal subsidies, as well as stepping up the fight against counterfeiting.

I should also like to share with you key elements of our updated assessment of China’s request for market economy status. This issue is important in the context of the EU’s application of its trade defence instruments when faced with allegations of unfair dumping in Europe by Chinese exports. The updated assessment reflects the significant and welcome steps of China towards becoming a market economy. Progress was recorded across the board and brought China closer to fulfilling the four outstanding market economy status (MES) criteria. In particular, we think that the adoption of a number of important laws deserves recognition – the bankruptcy law, the new property rights law and the new accounting standards. However, the updated assessment also makes clear that still further progress is needed. None of the four outstanding criteria has been fully met. In particular, proper implementation of the new pieces of legislation will be crucial. It is not enough to pass new laws. They, as I believe China’s state authorities understand, must also be used and respected. We will review the situation again in 12 months and continue technical talks in the meanwhile.

I value the views of this House very highly and I am committed to providing early and clear information to you. Where possible and appropriate, this has been done in writing, for instance the MES assessment has been transmitted to the Committee on International Trade. On other occasions, it may be more appropriate to provide information orally because of its sensitivity. This is fully in line with Article 19 of the Framework Agreement. What matters is that I will continue to keep Parliament fully informed.

To summarise my approach, I believe in a balanced partnership between the European Union and China based on fair reciprocity, a partnership whose core task is to open markets to fair trade for the benefit of Europe, China and the wider world. I believe the EU has been playing its part in delivering that partnership. It is right that we insist that China should play its full part as well.

  Georgios Papastamkos, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner Mandelson is not only an inspired orator, he is also a tireless negotiator.

Six years after the accession of China to the WTO, we are still waiting for a balance in bilateral trade between the European Union and China. China enjoys fully the benefits of the open markets, without itself complying fully with its obligations under multilateral rules and disciplines.

The Chinese markets are still to a large extent closed and non-transparent. There are high import barriers, which result – according to estimates – in lost profits of EUR 20 billion a year to European businesses.

Protection of intellectual property is inadequate. I need only mention that, in 2006, 80% of imitation goods seized on the borders of Europe were of Chinese origin. The Commission preferred to continue bilateral dialogue with China on intellectual property issues rather than coordinated action between the ΕU and the USA, which activated the WTO dispute settlement mechanism against China.

Dialogue would appear to be the way forward. However, we are awaiting concrete results from this specific dialogue. In any event, dialogue does not preclude the use of other legal means.

In the textile and clothing sector, all means should be used to safeguard the smooth development of European flows when the Shanghai Agreement expires in 2008. As far as footwear of Chinese origin is concerned, the Commission is called on to monitor imports closely, in order to prevent the risk of China’s circumventing the already inadequate trade defence measures adopted by the Union.

China, as a trading policy power constitutes both a threat and an opportunity. What we need to fight against are China’s competitive advantages that derive from prohibitive import barriers, from unfair competition and from economic, ecological and social dumping practices.

The liberalisation of trade, which we enthusiastically support, should be based on reciprocity and accompanied by equivalent institutional counterbalances.

  Francisco Assis, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Mr President, based on the fundamental premise that relations between the European Union and China are of vital strategic importance in political terms, we have to ensure that our trade relations are governed by two principles, which have been very well expressed by the Commissioner: on the one hand we must invest in cooperation and, on the other, we must always keep up a very demanding attitude in our relations with China.

Our trade relations with China are extremely asymmetrical. It is not just our more direct interests that are at stake, but also our essential values in terms of environmental protection, respect for employment rights and guaranteed protection for certain fundamental social issues.

In that context, we must establish a permanent debate on our cooperation efforts with this emerging great power, which is absolutely essential for keeping the international system in balance. That is why we cannot close ourselves off from China. Indeed, we cannot close ourselves off from a growing market that is opening up new opportunities for us, which, of course, we have to seize. Here, too, we have to be demanding about the opening-up of those markets and about respect for intellectual property rights, for example. At the same time, the European Union must adopt this highly demanding attitude in relation to fundamental issues concerning certain core principles of our model of economic, social and political organisation.

That, in fact, forces us to adopt the balanced position that I have mentioned (and I believe that the European Commission has been making efforts to do so by adopting the trade protection instruments that are available to us whenever we find that there is a real danger of Chinese exports threatening certain European industries, particularly footwear, clothing and textiles) and to be extremely demanding in the relations that we have to maintain with China in this area.

That, I believe, is the path we need to take, which must be based precisely on the fundamental idea that we cannot forgo having ever closer relations with China. At the same time, we have to try to promote some of our values.

To conclude, I feel that we Europeans are in a very special position in the international context, in that our interests are to a great extent identified with our values. Protecting our interests depends on promoting many of our values and, if we do manage to promote them, we shall certainly be defending our interests.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I feel it is appropriate to begin by expressing Europe's support for the flood victims in China.

Our fellow Member, Mr Markov, has raised an extremely important question, for which I would like to thank him on behalf of the Committee on International Trade. The EU and China are two of the oldest cultures in the world. On the one hand we have the largest trading bloc and on the other the fastest growing economy in humanity's history. So this is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed outside the WTO: an issue that requires a bilateral approach and a bilateral agreement.

Both sides have a great deal at stake. We should not allow ourselves to be pressurised by the USA. So I would like to thank Commissioner Mandelson for refusing to adopt a common WTO strategy for dealing with China on the subject of pirate goods. Both sides – China and the EU – have both interests and instruments to protect against and to allow abuses of intellectual property rights: anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures. What matters is how we deal with one another – how we use those instruments. The Commissioner has said that reciprocity is vital, and I would agree.

We Europeans benefit from the fact that China has adopted our continent-wide European patent laws wholesale. That is a good thing. But having the laws is not enough: the rights must be enforceable and they have to be enforced. It is also in China's own interest to do so, though – you know that the Chinese company Heier will soon have an interest in protecting its own patents. Which proves that China does need this strategy.

What should we do in the meantime, though? We are threatened with a very hostile scenario, whereby the Chinese apply for patents that are similar to ours, then close their market. They have already proved that it can be done. Thanks to the former President of the European Patent Office, Mr Pompidou, in around four years' time, China will actually have overtaken us in terms of the number of patents.

I think we should link the patent issue to the EU's climate protection targets. That is right, with our climate protection targets! Let me explain why: China is a win-win culture, a culture that strives to achieve harmony. So I think that if we have something to offer, we may succeed. China is currently experiencing massive environmental problems. Social stability is threatened; the government is under great pressure because of huge environmental problems. At both the IPPC Conference and the G8 summit, China indicated that it wants to work towards the climate protection targets. Yet in many areas China lacks the technology. So our offer could be that we will support a CO2-free coal-fired power plant with our technologies, as a gesture, but in return we can demand that our patent rights be respected.

Commissioner, you are on the right track. Thank you very much for the information that you have provided today.

  Cristiana Muscardini, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when the European Commission has begun talks with China with a view to a new partnership and cooperation agreement, Parliament’s Committee on International Trade feels a duty to draw the attention of the Community executive to some well-known issues, which characterise relations with the Asian giant.

China has a right to economic growth and development, which equates to well-being for its citizens, which also constitutes an opportunity for the world economy. This should not take place, however, at the expense of compliance with the rules of international trade, of what has been agreed within legitimate forums and of what China accepted when it entered the WTO, otherwise the consequences for its economic partners, starting with Europe, could be disastrous, as they could for Chinese citizens themselves.

The talks with China are the most appropriate opportunity for tackling these issues bilaterally. We need to find a way to tackle the issue of insufficient protection of human rights and inadequate environmental, social and safety standards. Nobody is expecting China to achieve our levels, but to gradually achieve more acceptable standards. We need to act as ‘exporting fathers’ to improve access to the European Union market by means of the gradual removal of non-tariff barriers and, more generally, of administrative obstacles of various kinds that very often discourage businesses, especially small ones, from investing in China, and we need to take a firmer position on combating counterfeiting.

The Chinese Government must do its part and show political will and take effective action to combat a phenomenon that concerns a large number of businesses, and especially consumers, worldwide. Above all, food-related counterfeiting, which has recently been an increasing problem, deserves the greatest attention because it affects the health of ignorant and defenceless citizens who trust in the appearance of labels. This battle against counterfeiting and forgery must involve both the European authorities and the Chinese Government.

On these three aspects we expect the Commission, in the course of the talks that Parliament will follow with the utmost attention, to adopt a firm approach that will lead to clear and unequivocal results for our entrepreneurs, our consumers and also for Chinese citizens, because by ‘well-being’ we mean not only European well-being but also the well-being of Chinese citizens.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Commissioner, the status of market economy is not yet within China’s reach. There are still too many irregularities in the bilateral trade relations for this. The frequent violations of intellectual property, for example, spring to mind.

Commissioner, I have gleaned from your excellent intervention that following your meeting with Chinese Minister Bo Xilai on 12 June, the dialogue on intellectual property rights has been resumed. This news has brought me great joy. Moreover, I take the view – unlike my Liberal counterpart – that in matters such as these within a WTO context, the EU would do well to tag along with the United States straight away. After all, the United States remains our most important strategic ally.

Commissioner, I should actually, above all, like to draw your attention to another important aspect of our trade relations with China, namely the European export of secondary raw materials, such as used paper. This is a huge issue at the moment. Last weekend, the Dutch prominent press dedicated a large article to this very subject. As you know, the new European rules for the export of these raw materials will enter into force in two days’ time. It is through the Commission’s fault that no agreements have as yet been concluded with important countries such as China and India. This means that, as from 12 July, used paper and other recyclable materials will become the most dangerous form of waste. You will appreciate that this has major implications for the export of these products.

I would urge Commissioner Mandelson to promise this House a transitional provision that runs until 1 January 2008. During this time, you will be able to conclude agreements with those countries with which there is nothing in place as yet. With this, you will be able to prevent exports from grinding to a halt and these products from accruing in European ports, such as that of Rotterdam. I hope, Commissioner, that you will really take action, because this is a matter that comes across to the Dutch public as very negative in terms of Europe.

  Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, we would agree that precisely because of the scale of EU's trade deficit with China, the European Union needs to be given much better market access opportunities, that the distortions created by Chinese State aids have to be reduced, and the Chinese Government needs to enforce WTO-standard intellectual property rights in the provinces as well.

We also need to work together to convince China that we are not just presenting a list of demands, but rather that it is in China's interest to allow fair market access. We have to make China understand that if they want to lick their environment into shape, if they want to create an efficient energy supply – after all, China has plenty of money, there is no problem on that front – then we need to be given access to their public procurement market. Then we will be able to sell our products in China in a sensible trade in goods, and China will be able to purchase modern coal-fired power stations and sewage plants and suchlike and make use of our technologies.

China does not need handouts, it has plenty of capital: it has the largest foreign currency reserves in the world. China is currently setting up a fund to invest its money worldwide. Our message to the Chinese Government should be: invest your money in your own country! Do something for environmental protection and energy security, improve safety in the coalmines. If we are successful, we will also be able to improve trade relations in the long term.

Of course, as you indicated, these agreements also contain a human rights clause because we have been discussing human rights with China for years; we must stand firm on that point. As a previous speaker said, no one expects China to respect all human rights overnight, but we do need to see significant progress. The People's Republic of China signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights several years ago, but has not ratified it and does not apply it. So we need to turn around and say: you chose to sign it, you said you wanted to uphold human rights, now do it!

  Joan Calabuig Rull (PSE). – (ES) Commissioner, I would like to thank you for the information that you have given us and also for your work in favour of balanced relations that are beneficial to both parties.

I agree that China must not be seen just as a threat to certain sectors, but also as a great opportunity. We also agree, however, that it must continue to make efforts to apply the agreements, to open up its markets and to create an open climate for investments.

As you have pointed out, European industry is still complaining that there are an excessive number of barriers and obstacles that put it at a competitive disadvantage. In this regard, we are still talking about tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers, such as piracy, counterfeiting, discrimination between national and imported products and so on.

We therefore believe that opening up negotiations on a new partnership and cooperation agreement with China is a good initiative that must enable the European Union to strengthen its bilateral trade policy on the basis of the principle of reciprocity, which you yourself have mentioned.

We are delighted to agree that the issue of human rights should be one of the issues tackled within the negotiations on the agreement, of course. Specifically, we must point out that the Chinese Government is making progress in this area and the rights recognised by the International Labour Organisation should also be taken into account, since they are a crucial aspect of human rights.

The agreement must also serve to continue promoting a commitment on the part of the Chinese authorities to effectively – not just theoretically – protect intellectual property rights through the adoption of relevant measures in the administrative, legal and border-control fields.

I would like to refer to the 'memorandum of understanding' between the European Union and China on trade for the textile and clothing sector, which expires this year. There is concern in the textile industry about its expiry and about the fact that the conditions of the agreement between the United States and China are being extended until the end of 2008. In view of this disparity, therefore, I would also like to ask you what measures can be taken to prevent situations of tension such as those which took place in 2005.

  Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (UEN). (PL) – Mr President, once again this forum is discussing trade relations with China, which has over the past decade emerged as a world economic and political power.

In October last year, the European Commission approved a programme for EU-China relations, which entailed an increase in mutual undertakings. In this situation, it would be sensible to support changes for greater openness and pluralism in China, as well as cooperation on energy and climate change because we know that China is one of the world’s major producers of greenhouse gases. On the other hand, we must not forget about the alarm that was caused when thousands of tubes of counterfeit toothpaste, some of them manufactured in China, were discovered in Spain, and containing doses of toxic diethylene glycol far in excess of European standards.

China means cheaper goods in European shops and greater competition, but is it always healthy? I am in favour of making the best of the opportunities offered by the dynamic development of relations with China, especially following my visit there, when I was able to see first hand this fast-developing world power.

The Commission says that a strong Chinese economy is in the economic interests of Europe, and rightly so. However, we should not forget to look after the interests of the members of the Community above all, and to assess the opportunities but also the threats that cooperation with this Asian tiger poses through the prism of these interests.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE-DE). – (SV) I am convinced that fear of China’s economic growth really is exaggerated. I believe that those who have a sufficiently long historical perspective on trade policy recognise a good deal of the disquiet and a good many of the arguments from the debate about the incorporation into the world economy of Japan and of other Asiatic tigers (such as Korea and Taiwan). Certainly, it is easy to allow oneself to be frightened by the relative size of the countries concerned. As the Commissioner pointed out, however, their economies supplement Europe’s economy, and their size is, rather, a great opportunity for Europe. I am convinced that the strong and sustained growth and the boom being experienced in the world right now is due in large part to the fact that China, India and other large countries in the world are in the process of being incorporated into the world economy.

That does not, however, mean that there are no problems in trade relations. I believe that we have many important problems to get to grips with, for example infringements of copyright and issues concerning intellectual property rights, as well as Chinese markets closed to everything from financial services to car parts.

I am almost more concerned, however, about the protectionist tendencies to which China’s growth is giving rise in Europe. Not that I believe the Commissioner to be in favour of such tendencies, but there are many voices that are now demanding more trade barriers in order to stop imports from China. Talk of stopping, for example, Chinese textile exports has been heard in this House in the course of this evening. I am convinced that the European trade barriers against China cost European consumers and European companies more money than do imports of Chinese goods. We should, therefore, continue to combat European trade barriers rather than Chinese exports.

The fact is that China’s growing prosperity, together with trade with China, not only give thousands or millions or, indeed, hundreds of millions of Chinese people richer and more dignified lives; they also make Europe richer. We must not forget that trade is never a zero sum game. We are both winners.

  Carlos Carnero González (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, allow me to begin by saying something that is said so often at these night sittings, which is that we are discussing such an important issue amongst such a select band that I have the impression that we do not even have a representative from the Chinese Embassy present at this sitting.

I am entirely confident that the verbatim reports of debates that Parliament's services produce so efficiently will enable them to read what we are saying.

If I am to follow on from the previous speech, I must draw a conclusion: the globalisation that we are currently seeing would be unimaginable without the explosion of China. China’s presence on the world market has simply been a decisive and unquestionable reality, but a very recent one let us not forget.

The explosion of China, which has been direct and immense in the case of production, will be even more so in the case of consumption and also in distribution at world level, becoming one of the main determining factors of both elements.

But neither must we forget that the quantity and characteristics of Chinese goods, largely defined by the profile of its workforce, its internal market, limited in income terms but incomparable in absolute quantity terms, and, more recently, its investment capacity, make China a great supply and demand power.

However, as a wonderful article today by our fellow Member Mr Martin points out, China is a key factor in the success or failure of many international negotiations, including that of the recent G4 meeting.

Can our approach to relations with China be simply to say that everything is a free-for-all, that is to say, all doors are open to what we send and what we may receive? I believe not. We must do it in a regulated manner and, furthermore, we must demand clear reciprocity, the removal of barriers to access for European products, adequate protection of intellectual property rights and patents, full respect for the standards required in social terms – which I believe to be crucial – and equal respect for environmental and safety criteria for goods produced in China.

And of course we must not forget human rights. We are not just talking about values in metaphysical terms. We are talking about rights applicable to people, to citizens like ourselves. We are talking about values that are quite simply beyond dispute and which cannot be treated in relative terms. Just today more people have been executed in China, and that is the most serious violation of human rights imaginable.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for a very clear and convincing message and I see that we share the same concerns.

Ten months ago this Parliament decided that trade relations with China require reciprocal market access, which has to be founded on the WTO rules, fair competition and a reasonable balance of interests. The ‘round’ situation, sadly, does not match those expectations today. We are worried about the increasing trade deficit with China. We are worried about the fact that 70% of all counterfeit products on the European markets originate from China and that EU industries are suffering extensive damage as a result of unfair competition and social dumping. At the same time, many EU exporters are handicapped when trying to enter Chinese markets. Therefore, the EU representatives should insist first of all on providing legal security for foreign companies in China.

I agree with the Commissioner that imbalance in the relationship is mainly a product of politics and not economics. The widespread use of slave labour, including children, is an extremely alarming problem that should be addressed at the highest possible level. The recent cases exposed are only the tip of an iceberg.

China has now been a member of the WTO for six years but it has not implemented significant WTO commitments, including protection of intellectual property, national treatment and transparency. I still see leverage to create a fair and reciprocal balance of relations in linking firmly China’s request for market economy status with Peking fully meeting its WTO commitments.

Lastly, China is to be seen as a sobering example, bearing in mind Russia’s impending WTO membership. As far as we would be hesitant about insisting on reciprocity and meeting commitments, it would be unrealistic to hope that EU support for Russia’s membership will make Mr Putin’s state behave according to the WTO rules.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – (HU) Two weeks ago, 20 Members of the European Parliament went to China, and their trip there confirmed that the picture is much more complex and nuanced than what we have available to us here. I agree fully with Mr Fjellner that the 21st century could be China’s century, and that for the European Union this represents an enormous challenge and an enormous opportunity.

There is very great asymmetry not only in trade, but also in the fact that the Chinese are much more familiar with the European Union than we in the European Union are with China. The picture is much more nuanced, be that in terms of human rights or on other questions. This is an enormous competitive disadvantage for us. The problem is not only that we do not know the Mandarin Chinese language, but that they know the English and European languages much better – this is an enormous asymmetry. We need to overcome this, for if we do not make changes to this situation, we will not progress in excellence.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, bearing in mind your probable desire for this House to rise before midnight, I would just like to say that overwhelmingly the contributions to this debate have been very balanced and very realistic. I think that Mr Calabuig Rull and Mr Carnero González, for example, made appropriate observations in stressing the fact that China is an opportunity for Europe, as well as a threat. Another appropriate observation was that of Mr Fjellner that we need to take the longer-term political view in our relations with China, but he also referred to the growth of protectionism, of a sort of Chinese nationalism which is becoming more prominent in China’s trade practices. My view is that China’s nationalism does not sit comfortably with the enormous benefits that it is deriving from the internationalist trading system that is based on reciprocity. Without reciprocity China will not be able to expect in the future the continued goodwill and balanced approach that it has been receiving from Europe.

The fact is that China is falling below our expectations. It is not that it is failing to comply with or implement all its WTO obligations and commitments, because in many respects it is. But in certain other key areas of economic activity in China, in financial and other services, it is failing to implement fully the commitments that it made upon its accession to the WTO.

One or two concerns have been expressed about textiles. This House will recall that in 2005 I negotiated a voluntary agreement with China that gave European industry an extra period of two-and-a-half years to restructure and to adapt to the new global situation in the textile sector. It was a once-and-for-all, bilaterally concluded agreement and the Commission therefore has no means simply to seek an extension of the agreed levels that have been operating beyond the beginning of 2008. However, I will be putting in place means to monitor and to keep under surveillance any sudden and large-scale changes in imports of Chinese textiles that threaten to disrupt our market in Europe, and I will consider what, if any, action I can take in the light of disturbances to our market.

This is quite distinct from the use of trade defence instruments. The textiles agreement was based on fair trade. It was not unfair trade. It was just a disturbance that we were unable to take on on such a scale at this time. In other respects, the use of TDI is not against China’s natural competitive advantage but against unfair competition, and we will retain the right and the full use of our trade defence instruments and employ them as and when necessary.

In conclusion, others have referred to the need for China to consciously build up the standards it operates in relation to social, labour and environmental standards. That will always be a feature of the discussions that I undertake with Chinese officials.

I am personally very committed to growing technology transfer with China on climate change projects. This is a key way to ensure Chinese interest in tackling climate change. It is a win-win situation. The EU can export energy-efficient, clean technology and China can make a contribution to tackling its environmental problems. This is at the heart of our dialogue with China on climate change and it is something in the trade realm that I intend to build up in the future.

That concludes my remarks in response to this debate, which I greatly welcome. As I say, it has been very balanced, and I will certainly ensure that I and my services take into account fully the remarks and observations that have been made by Members of this House this evening.

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I asked the Commissioner a very clear question: at the moment there is unrest in my country, a big news report on a mission of the Commission agreeing to the export of so-called secondary resources such as old paper, recycling material, etc.

What are you going to do, Commissioner? I ask you to conclude agreements with countries such as China and India and pause until 1 January 2008, because otherwise there is a standstill in exports in harbours like Rotterdam. I asked you what you were going to do. I did not get an answer. I hope you forgot it.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. I think in the circumstances and in view of the time, it might be better if I gave the Member a written response to his question.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Sebastiano (Nello) Musumeci (UEN), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the last serious and very recent case of widely-consumed counterfeited goods – a toothpaste containing antifreeze, sold on the European market and produced in China – brings back into the limelight the problem of combating ‘multinational forgery’.

It is in this large Asian country, where de facto slavery is permitted for workers deprived of any sort of protection, that most of the products of the counterfeiting industry are concentrated – medicines, cosmetics and food products, as well as toys and items of clothing containing carcinogenic chemical substances that are strictly prohibited in the European Union.

Unfortunately, this is a phenomenon that, while until a few years ago was restricted to high-end products (luxury lotions, perfumes, watches and bags), is now expanding to include products within the reach of an ever-growing number of users, leading to a high risk for consumer health.

Today, more than ever, it is necessary for the political and industrial West to adopt a strong position towards powerful, wealthy China. On the one hand, we need to step up coordination between the Member States in inspections of imported products and, on the other hand, we need to persuade the Chinese Government to apply wide-scale, very strict on-the-ground, checks in order to protect European industry from unfair competition resulting partly from counterfeiting and piracy.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) China represents a major political and commercial challenge. It is in fact essential to rethink economic and commercial relations between the EU and China, based on respect for the rules of fair and honest competition as well as on the application of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. China must commit itself in practice to global responsibility and in favour of the establishment of commercial relationships based on reciprocity. Our European markets are open to those who open theirs, but they are closed to those who close them.

We must not resign ourselves to unfair competition and monetary, social and ecological dumping practices. On the question of environmental standards, the EU must, in the framework of the new agreement, denounce the importing of products into the Community market that do not respect the environmental and phytosanitary rules (which the EU itself imposes on Community producers). China is a major stakeholder and must cooperate on the matter of climate change and energy in order to strengthen international environmental governance. The achievement of parallel progress on the political and commercial fronts is, one can understand, a more than decisive factor for an EU – China agreement.

22. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

23. Closure of sitting

(The sitting was closed at 12 midnight)