Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 14 January 2008 - Strasbourg

1. Resumption of the session

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

(The sitting was opened at 5 p.m.)

  President. – I declare resumed the session adjourned on Tuesday, 18 December 2007.

2. Statements by the President

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, this is the first of our meetings to be held in the new year 2008. May I wish every one of you health and happiness and hope that together we are successful in the tasks that have been entrusted to us, namely to take the European Union forward to a positive future.

Allow me to make a few remarks about the work we have to do. On the day the European Parliament held its last sitting here in Strasbourg, namely 13 December 2007, the Reform Treaty was signed in Lisbon. In a short speech that I made – in the presence of the President of the European Council, José Socrates, and EC President, José Manuel Barroso – I expressed the will of the great majority of the European Parliament that the Reform Treaty should become a legal, and hence a political, reality by 1 January 2009. This objective remains the priority of priorities for the year 2008.

On 21 December border restrictions were lifted for those nine countries that joined the European Union on 1 May 2004. These were indeed moving events. For hundreds of years soldiers had forced their way across the national borders of our continent to inflict war, misery and suffering on others. The removal of the barriers between our nations means this: our neighbours welcome us. We are all common citizens of the European Union, and as it says in the Berlin Declaration of 25 March 2007: ‘We are united for the better’.

(Applause)

Malta and Cyprus joined the European Monetary Union on 1 January. Our common currency, the Euro, is therefore the official means of payment in both these countries. We extend our warmest welcome to Malta and Cyprus.

(Applause)

The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue was celebrated in Ljubljana on 9 January at an impressive ceremony attended by members of the European Council, Commission and Parliament. The Intercultural Dialogue will be a key feature of our work during the coming year and will remain so. I would ask you all to be present tomorrow for the statement by the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun.

Let me now move on to two final items: our legislative work this year will be significantly influenced by climate and environmental issues. As legislators we owe much responsibility to climate and environmental protection, on the one hand, and to the protection of European competitiveness and to the safeguarding of jobs, on the other. Together we have to strike the right balance between the economy and the ecology.

The European Union is based on values, rights and responsibilities. On 12 December 2007 the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in this very Chamber. This marked a significant event for the citizens of the European Union and for the European Parliament too. During the signing a number of members interrupted the proceedings with loud heckling and attempted to prevent the speakers from being heard. Nothing can justify such behaviour.

(Applause)

Free speech is the basis of democracy and of parliamentarianism. Every Member of the European Parliament is entitled freely to express his or her opinion in any of the designated debates. It is our common duty to protect this right at all times. What is more, to prevent speakers from addressing the European Parliament, and especially when they are guests in this House, offends against the basic rights of freedom, democracy and parliamentarianism.

(Applause)

This also means that it contravenes our Rules of Procedure, which cannot be accepted under any circumstances. I therefore intend to take action, as provided for in the Rules of Procedure, against those Members who continued in their attempt to interrupt the proceedings, despite repeated requests from the Chair to desist.

(Applause)

The same applies to those Members who behaved in an unseemly way towards our ushers, who were only carrying out their proper duties.

(Applause)

The new year will pose great challenges for us. However, I am convinced that we will overcome these by showing respect and consideration for each other. It is very much with this in mind that I would again wish you all the very best for 2008.

(Applause)

3. Approval of the minutes

  President. – The Minutes for the sitting of Tuesday, 18 December 2007 have been distributed.

Are there any comments?

  Sophia in ’t Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, before we get to the agenda, I would like a little clarification on an item on the agenda for tomorrow morning, which you have already mentioned: the address by the Grand Mufti of Syria. His will be the first of a series of speeches by religious leaders before the plenary of this House in the context of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. I would like to know why the Conference of Presidents has chosen to interpret intercultural dialogue exclusively as an interreligious monologue and whether it feels a part-session is an appropriate platform for religious messages.

(Applause)

Finally, I would like to know whether the Conference of Presidents is willing to consider widening the list of guest speakers and making it more representative by including women and non-religious organisations. The ALDE Group has suggested that Ms Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, should be invited to address the plenary as well. I hope you can enlighten me.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you, Mrs in 't Veld. If I recall correctly, this was in fact a unanimous decision taken by the Conference of Presidents. Mr Cohn-Bendit has doubts about this, so we shall check it out. In any case, it was a decision taken by a very big majority, wherein we also said that the list did not have to be conclusive and that we would also be calling on the various committees of the European Parliament, in particular, to propose further activities on which we could then vote.

Mrs in 't Veld, you can be assured that in this case the discussion was as broad as possible and that we also remain open to further proposals, though of course these will have to be decided on by the Conference of Presidents or by Parliament.

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to point out that my Group did not agree.

  President. – I would just point out once more that your Group was evidently not in agreement. We shall check this again in the Minutes, not because we question what you have said but to ensure that the Minutes are also accurate. In any case, the decision was taken by a majority of the kind rarely seen in the Conference of Presidents.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, I would just like to add to the point made by Ms in ’t Veld. As I said in an email addressed to you and copied to other Members this morning, another regrettable fact is that it seems that you have made the Grand Mufti comparable to the Pope and the UK Chief Rabbi as a European representative of his particular religion. I think that sends a very bad signal to Muslims who are European.

The visit tomorrow demands every courtesy – although one would like an exchange of views about human rights abuses in Syria. I hope, however, that in your future list of invitees this year you will make sure that a European representative of Islam is invited and not somebody from outside the EU who might be taken to represent Muslims in Europe – which he does not.

  President. – Mrs Ludford, even with all goodwill and understanding for one another it will surely never be possible to reach a hundred per cent agreement on matters of this kind. Even so, I can tell you that the Group chairmen reached their decision by a large majority. With goodwill it will also be possible to balance this out through the activities of our various committees so that everyone feels included in the result. I would now really like to ask that you treat our guests, when they arrive, with consideration and respect. After all, we want to promote dialogue not prevent it. This is essentially my plea to everyone.

(The Minutes were approved.)

4. Membership of Parliament: see Minutes

5. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

6. Signature of acts adopted under codecision: see Minutes

7. Documents received: see Minutes

8. Oral questions and written declarations (tabling): see Minutes

9. Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes

10. Petitions: see Minutes

11. Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes

12. Order of business

  President. – The final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday, 10 January 2008, pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. The following amendments have been proposed:

Monday:

No amendments.

Tuesday:

The PPE-DE Group has proposed that the two Demetriou and Cashman reports on the control of persons at the EU’s external borders be postponed to a subsequent sitting.

  Panayiotis Demetriou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, this report seems to have the Council’s full approval in substance, but there is a procedural issue, since Coreper has not yet met – I think it is to meet tomorrow or the day after. Furthermore, the Slovenian Presidency has asked, for procedural and official reasons, for the meeting to be postponed until the next plenary part-session in Belgium. There is no objection to this postponement.

(Parliament adopted the motion.)

Wednesday:

  President. – The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe moved that the debate on the statements of the Council and Commission on the situation in Pakistan following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto be concluded with the submission of motions for a resolution.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Mr President, we have over the holiday break seen a number of very worrying developments in Pakistan, not least, of course, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

We have the opportunity to discuss this matter this week. It is the view of my group that we should close our debate with a resolution, in particular since we should take a position sending a message to the Pakistani authorities in advance of the visit of Mr Musharaff to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House.

  President. – Does anyone else wish to speak in support of the motion?

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that it is very poor practice indeed for important debates to be concluded without a resolution. This Parliament is here to take clear positions and not just to be a talking shop for group chairmen and other group spokespersons without the adoption of resolutions.

Mr Musharraf will be coming here and he should know what this Parliament thinks about the situation in his country, so that we can argue the matter out with him. I believe we should be bold enough to put an end to the old habit of postponing the adoption of decisions for fear of acting on our own courage, by voting for a resolution.

(Parliament rejected the motion.)

  President. – In view of the shortage of speaking time for the Wednesday afternoon sitting, the Socialist Group has moved that the debates be extended to 6 p.m. With the agreement of the Council, Question Time can be extended until 7.30 p.m.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, you have said everything there is to say as far as the explanatory statement is concerned. It is a good thing that Council Question Time has not been shortened as a result. I just wanted to bring this to your attention.

(Parliament adopted the motion.)

(The agenda was therefore adopted.)

13. One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

  President. – The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE-DE). – (MT) May I express my thanks for your good wishes to my country, Malta, which together with Cyprus joined the Euro area two weeks ago, bringing the number of countries using the Euro as their currency to 15. This means that the majority of EU Member States now use the same currency. During the celebrations held in Malta two days ago the Presidents of the Council and the Commission and also Mario Mauro, Vice-President of the European Parliament, all congratulated Malta on the rapid progress it had made in the three years since it joined the European Union and on its transition to the Euro, which is going well and without any problems. In fact, despite the fact that the dual circulation period runs until the end of this month, I can state that after just two weeks almost all transactions are already being carried out in euros. The people of Malta and Gozo are proud to embrace the Euro and to have made another great step forward in the process of European union.

  Yannick Vaugrenard (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, in December the European Court of Justice handed down a long-awaited judgment that has very worrying implications for the protection of posted workers in Europe.

It sends a negative signal to our citizens, who are concerned about the risks of social dumping. What does the Court say in this so-called ‘Laval’ ruling? It says that the Swedish trade unions were wrong to try to force a Latvian undertaking to sign their collective agreement, in particular with regard to the minimum wage. Under the 1996 Directive, however, posted workers have to observe a nucleus of mandatory rules for minimum protection in the host Member State.

The Court rules that the Swedish system of collective bargaining was not applicable and that such rules could only be imposed by the law. The European message is thus no longer clear: on the one hand, the Commission prioritises flexicurity and the system of collective bargaining as a model; on the other hand, the Court of Justice discredits this model.

Parliament and the Council must therefore clarify this issue. Otherwise, it would be like throwing the Bolkestein Directive out the front door only to allow it to sneak in the back, which would be entirely unacceptable.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Mr President, I rise on a matter which refers particularly to one Member State but, I believe, has wider European implications. This year is the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. One institution which does much to promote intercultural dialogue is the British Council. It is therefore of particular concern that Russia seeks to close the offices of the British Council in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg. The work of the British Council in Russia is perfectly legal. It is regulated by a 1994 cultural agreement between London and Moscow. I therefore request that the matter be raised by colleagues with Russia in the context of our interparliamentary dialogue and that you, Mr President, use any opportunity which presents itself to express concern to the Russian authorities that a cultural matter, regulated by a perfectly normal agreement between two countries, is being trodden upon in an attempt by the Russian authorities to stifle political debate.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the House has debated the problems associated with the demographic shortfall threatening Europe on many occasions, that is to say, we have discussed the consequent social problems. At the same time, VAT on children’s goods in the European Union is charged at the basic rate, in other words, at the highest possible rate.

Children's goods were subject to a special lower rate in Poland before my country joined the Union. One of the legal implications of Poland's entry into the Union unfortunately involved raising the VAT rate on children's goods, which ran counter to the family-orientated policy adopted by Poland.

I call on the European Commission to consider amending the relevant provisions for the benefit of all Member States of the Union, and in particular for the benefit of the poorest families bringing up children. This would help us all to implement the Lisbon Strategy.

  Mikel Irujo Amezaga (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, the Commission’s Work Programme for 2008 states that the citizen is and should be the core of the European project.

Extrapolating on this idea, I believe that the European Union is not approaching the Kosovo process in the correct manner. We cannot continue to debate whether this or that international situation is appropriate for recognising Kosovo’s independence. One question must take precedence over all the others: what do the people of Kosovo want? They are the most important of all. The key to resolving the conflicts lies in two elements: respect for human rights and recognition of their right as a people to decide freely on their future.

I believe that the European Union should use these words as a reference for situations that arise both within and outside its borders.

  Daniel Strož (GUE/NGL). – (CS) I would like to talk about an awkward issue, which is the widespread campaign against smoking and smokers in the European Union, a campaign which is also based on legal acts passed by the European Parliament. There is no doubt that the motivation for the campaign is a noble one, as it relates to citizens’ health. However, in my opinion it is also highlighting issues which are not dignified and which discriminate against a large section of society, which has practically been criminalised due to its dependence on smoking. The heavy financial losses of pub-type establishments in the countries that introduced a ban on smoking in restaurants cannot be overlooked either. I presume that the attention that is given to smokers should also appropriately be given to the tobacco industry. It is not a secret that for decades some ingredients have been added to tobacco, such as nitrosamines, which are nitrogen compounds that cause cancer and an increased absorption of nicotine. In most cases the damage to a human being is caused not by nicotine but by these very admixtures. In my opinion, tobacco production and the composition of tobacco products should also be subject to regulation.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, three years ago this month, Robert McCartney was brutally murdered by IRA members in Belfast. Abhorrence at that murder reached this House when the McCartney sisters brought here and put their case for justice in respect of that.

Three years on, justice still evades them. Why? Primarily because the party which could help the most – Sinn Fein – is still more interested in protecting their own than seeing the killers brought to justice. Indeed, the situation has worsened, because pressure on Sinn Fein has been eased by their admission to government, with the result that, for the sake of maintaining that government, those like my former party the DUP are prepared to let Sinn Fein off the hook.

Tragically, justice for Robert McCartney is secondary to maintaining the ‘chuckle coalition’ at Stormont. Likewise with the more recent murder of Paul Quinn, undoubtedly by the military wing of Sinn Fein – it, too, will be shamefully whitewashed and swept under the carpet. That is what happens when you treat with the forces of terrorism.

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, in our first part-session of the New Year, I would like to talk about the political crisis, which continues to beset Lebanon be mired and the role that our Parliament should play.

Together with the complex economic and political problems faced by this friendly nation, there is still an institutional vacuum, because since 23 November 2007 it has not been possible for its parliament to elect a president; this election has been postponed 12 times. Thus parliament remains closed and there is no possibility of discussing problems and prospects, or of putting to good use all the parliament’s constitutional powers to elect a president.

I am aware of your sensitivity and the messages that you have sent to try to achieve this aim, Mr President, but I want to stress once again that we must express our deep unease concerning the consequences of this crisis for the suffering people of Lebanon, as well as for peace and stability in the region. Our democratic duties oblige us to do this, as do our obligations within the partnership. The association agreement with Lebanon provides for a stable political dialogue between the European Parliament and the Lebanese Parliament; we must make good use of this opportunity and send an effective message.

  Pierre Pribetich (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Slovenia, the only country of the former Yugoslavia to have joined the European Union, has now taken over the Presidency of the Union. On the occasion of this historic event we would like to wish it every success with its Presidency.

Nonetheless, there has never been a more pressing need to resolve the Yugoslavian crisis once and for all, be it the Kosovo issue or speeding up the accession of its Balkan neighbours. The only solution for the countries that were part of the former Yugoslavia is swift accession to the Union, in accordance with the established criteria. Peace requires an ambitious vision and, in particular, the will to move beyond the Balkans’ history and look towards a European future.

To date, the Kosovo issue has not been resolved because the international community has been unable to come to an agreement. The European Union has also been a victim of this deadlock, this syndrome. Between the countries that are fearful of the effects of independence and those who dream only of validating their independence as soon as possible for various diplomatic reasons, Slovenia will initially have to ensure the cohesion of the Union by seeking first and foremost an internal compromise, if the EU’s foreign policy as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon is not to be trivialised or even ridiculed.

We know, nevertheless, that Mount Triglav in Slovenia symbolises determination and accomplishment. Let us hope therefore that it will be the symbol of 2008!

  Romana Jordan Cizelj (PPE-DE). – (SL) Croatia announced an environmental/ fishing zone in the Adriatic in October 2003. Slovenia and Italy objected to it. This led a year later to the signing of an agreement between Slovenia, Italy, the European Union and Croatia. According to that agreement the zone does not affect the Member States. In spite of that, the Croatian Assembly decided unilaterally last year that the environmental/fishing zone would affect the Member States as well from 1 January of this year at the latest.

The Assembly thereby made the lives of people living around the Adriatic difficult. This unilateral decision by Croatia presented problems for fishermen, for example, because it reduced their fishing territory and the port of Koper lost its access to international waters. The Assembly’s decision that the environmental/fishing zone should affect the Member States from 1 January of this year is contrary to the international obligation accepted by Croatia and gives reason to doubt its credibility. Obligations adopted by a country should not be violated in modern, democratic, legal states. It totally contradicts the political culture of the European Union.

I therefore wonder if Croatia truly wishes to become a member of the European Union. If it does, it must act immediately and start complying with the agreement on the environmental/fishing zone as well as with all other agreements reached thus far.

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – (HU) The Szigetköz, lying partly in Austria and Slovakia and the Hungarian stretch of the Danube, is one of the most beautiful areas in Europe. It is an island of biodiversity with its natural features, the wealth of its fauna and flora, its water habitats and the traditional way of life of the people who live there.

Unfortunately the flow rate of the river nourishing this region has dropped to danger level over the past decades due to hydrological interference. It is not just in the interests of the area affected but in the interests of Hungary and the entire Union that this unique natural asset is not lost to future generations.

We already have good laws, such as the Water Framework Directive, which should in principle protect the region. However for these to be successful they need to be enforced at national and Union level. It would be desirable for Slovakia, regardless of the Nagy-Duna matter, to cooperate with Hungary in stabilising the water supply to this area.

I would like to invite you on a tour in this romantic landscape in the Spring, but unfortunately we cannot do it without water, and so we need every possible assistance.

  Thierry Cornillet (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to draw the attention of this House to the fate of two French journalists, Pierre Creisson and Thomas Dandois, who are currently in prison in Niger. They are accused of undermining state security, which carries a possible death sentence in Niger.

There is no doubt that the two journalists and their driver, Al-Hassane, broke Niger laws by entering a prohibited area. In my opinion, however, it was for sound journalistic reasons because their aim was to report on the Tuareg rebellion, and they also intended to return to the capital to question the Niger authorities so that they would have as broad a view as possible.

I therefore believe that it is essential for us to take action to help these two journalists: firstly, because they risk being sentenced to death, a punishment that is out of all proportion with their actions, and secondly, because Niger is considered to be a friend of ours and a country that we help a great deal. It would not deserve the reputation that this attitude could generate.

I believe, Mr President, that you and my fellow Members could be of great assistance if you participate in this request for reflection, for clemency from President Tandja, so that these two journalists can be released. Even though they did break Niger laws, their actions do not warrant such a long imprisonment.

  President. – We shall monitor all this very carefully.

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I take the floor today as a member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and also as a citizen of a country that has been forced to fight for its independence and freedom on many occasions.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the lack of respect for human rights and denial of freedom of expression in the People's Republic of China, as this affects the inhabitants of Tibet. The latest example of the regime's policy towards Tibet is the repression of the monks who expressed their delight at the award of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama has also received the Nobel Prize and has been fighting for respect for human rights over several decades.

We cannot allow Tibet or any other 21st century nation to be extinguished by a dictatorship, a tyranny, or by the sadistic desire to exert political dominance. The House must say ‘stop’. It must say ‘stop’ to attacks on a culture that is deemed to be the most peaceful culture on earth. As free people committed to the fundamental values of the European Union, we should do all in our power to ensure that the people of Tibet can also come to understand the true meaning of the word freedom.

  Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, we are very shocked at the Russian Government’s closure of all the regional offices of the British Council. These regional offices have been sacrificed as a result of the worsening relations between Russia and the United Kingdom. Can civil society in Russia expect nothing more than this kind of provocation?

The murder of Alexander Litvinenko has still not been solved and Russia refuses to cooperate in the matter. The chief suspect, Andrei Lugovoi, has been a member of the Duma since the end of 2007. The circumstances surrounding the death of Anna Politkovskaya have also still not been explained. Is criticism being stifled under a mantle of secrecy or is it simply being eradicated?

The EU must call on Russia to respect human rights and the rule of law. We can set an example by naming our press office after Anna Politkovskaya.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, following on from the third round of negotiations between the Polisario Front, the only legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, and the Kingdom of Morocco, which took place under the auspices of the United Nations on 8 and 9 January, I must stress the current necessity and importance of demanding full respect for the inalienable right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination. This is the only fair and lasting solution to this dispute and is also in accordance with international law and the UN resolutions. The Moroccan authorities must be told to end their dilatory manoeuvring, which is aimed at delaying and, if possible, boycotting the current negotiation process. The Moroccan authorities must also be told to end the repression and colonisation of the occupied territories of the Western Sahara.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Mr Hu Jia, an AIDS campaigner, a human rights activist and nominee of this Parliament for the Sakharov Prize in 2007 was arrested in Beijing on 27 December 2007 by the Chinese authorities and charged with subversion.

I am an admirer of the progress made in recent decades in China; however, the arrest of Mr Hu Jia by the Chinese sends out completely the wrong message, one that is very difficult for us to understand. Are the Chinese going to ignore the commitment they made to the international community when they promised to improve the human rights situation in China in return for the Beijing Olympics?

We as a parliament need to respond very firmly to protect this man who is now incarcerated, most probably for cooperating with the European Parliament when he gave testimony to the Subcommittee on Human Rights in November 2007. We also need to lend support to those campaigners in China seeking his release.

Since diplomatic language alone would only be regarded as acquiescence in Chinese culture, I believe we need a strong parliamentary resolution – hopefully this week – to protect Mr Hu Jia. I urge you, Mr President, to raise the case of Mr Hu Jia with the Chinese authorities: it is imperative they hear the views of this Parliament.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, I rise to raise what may seem, on the face of it, a rather mundane issue: the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive of 2000 in Ireland. The sad fact is that this Directive is being implemented in Ireland by the Irish Government by charging schools for water usage. Because most schools in Ireland are funded to a large extent by voluntary fundraising, this essentially means that parents must raise the money to pay for the water.

That would be bad enough, but the Irish Government has decided to blame Europe for this decision, when of course it is entirely a matter for the Irish Government as to what policy it implements in relation to implementing the Water Directive. The sensitivity of the issue arises because we are having a referendum in Ireland to make a political decision, and a cowardly political tactic to blame Europe for the Government’s decision runs the risk of alienating all the parents in Ireland against Europe.

This is, in my view, a serious matter and I would urge the President of Parliament and the Vice-President of the Commission, who is here today, to make it clear to the Irish Government and to make a public statement to the effect that they are free to charge or not to charge schools for water and that they should not be taking risks with the future of Europe with cowardly political tactics.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Mr President, in some of our Member States it is possible for people to walk in off the street and receive training in the use of guns, and indeed Magnum guns, without any identification whatsoever, or without having a gun licence. I raise this here because there is evidence to suggest that organised criminals in Ireland are coming to parts of the European Union for such training and then returning to Ireland and murdering people through gangland murders. Often innocent bystanders are murdered as well.

I raise this because, in November, Parliament approved a new directive, and that directive is now with the Council. I urge the Council to approve this directive this month so that it will pass at first reading.

Secondly, I want to ask the Commission not to wait until this is transposed into national law in 27 Member States – that could take up to two years – but to start implementing some of the provisions, one of which is to set up a contact group of the 27 Member States with the Commission to start working to counteract the illegal use of weapons. I urge that this be done without further delay.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen.

We have been keeping an eye on Georgia for some time now. The Presidential elections are over and finally the result is clear.

Revolution, it is said, devours its own children. President Saakashvili was probably somewhat overcome by his fear of it. The exercise of physical power by a country is the sign not of the country’s might but of its weakness.

Objectively, we should note that following the suppression of demonstrations there, Georgia at least tried to hold democratic elections. Democracy, however, is not a thing. It is a way of thinking and cannot be removed one day or transplanted from one country to another.

Considerable opposition has emerged in Georgia. In the name of democratic progress we should help government circles to understand the nature of the essential ingredients of democracy.

Georgia must find the strength within itself to step back from crisis. Parliamentary elections are in the offing. The country needs democratic reforms to continue and the people are expecting nothing less.

It would be wrong of us in the European Union to stake things on one individual. What we should do is support institutions, provide expert assistance, and honestly and openly point to any aspects which are incompatible with democracy.

Finally I would like to say that what is happening in Georgia is perhaps also the key for Armenia. Presidential elections are also in the offing there.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, for the period 2008-2012 the European Commission has allocated Poland the right to emit only 208 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is almost 30% less than the amount the Polish Government applied for. Poland has appealed against this decision to the European Court of Justice, but unfortunately it is not known when in the future the Court will rule on the matter. The Polish economy therefore has to adjust to the low limit set.

Cement works, steel works and other undertakings have to cut their production. Most importantly, there will be a marked rise in the cost of electricity. It is estimated that prices will rise by approximately 10% this year and by 20% over four years, because the emission limits have also significantly affected the electricity-generating industry.

Imposing emission limits in this way, and sharing the burden involved unfairly, will not only slow down the development of new Member States such as Poland, but it will also impact significantly on the cost of living for their citizens. I wish to register a strong protest against this.

  Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, on Friday, 11 January I was refused access to the Lille-Lesquin Detention Centre for foreigners. My visit was part of the European Action Week against the detention of foreigners in Europe. Mr President, in July 2003, following, in fact, a request by the then President of our Parliament and Vice-President Onesta, the French authorities were obliged to stipulate that the rules that apply to visits by Members of the French Parliament and Senators also apply to Members of the European Parliament.

I would therefore ask you, Mr President, to speak to the French authorities once again to ensure that the commitments they made at that time are fully respected and, in particular, that Members of the European Parliament are treated in the same way as Members of the French Parliament. This is all the more pertinent as the Members of this Parliament are currently examining a proposal for a directive on the return of third-country nationals, which could have very serious consequences for the detention of foreigners.

I would add that unannounced visits to detention centres are aimed at preventing ill-treatment, which generally goes unpunished in France, as indicated in the most recent report by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

  Maria Petre (PPE-DE). – (RO) I am speaking today to bring to your attention the position of Romanian farmers one year after Romania's accession.

In Romania, agriculture is still inefficient or not efficient enough, and yet it is a vital occupation for most of the population. Farmers make up a significant proportion of the working population, but there is also a significant number of elderly farmers.

In this context, I welcome the Commission’s decision not to activate the safeguard clause in this field; however, this is not enough.

In 2008, European disbursements will amount to 25% of the European average; only in 9 years’ time will Romania be able to reach that average.

Over the last few years, Romania has been quick to transpose the acquis in the qualitative, health and phytosanitary fields.

Adjustment costs can be a major obstacle to Romanian farmers taking advantage of the common agricultural policy. Romania is the second largest agricultural producer in Central Europe, after Poland, and it is only by capitalizing on European funding that this potential can be intelligently exploited and put to good use.

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  Vladimír Maňka (PSE). – (SK) The December session of the European Parliament was incorrectly informed that radio broadcasting for minorities in Slovakia is about to end and that the public service is closing down the Rádio Patria broadcasting in minority languages.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Slovak broadcasting service is not preparing any restrictions concerning Rádio Patria. On the contrary, since January 2007 Rádio Patria has, for the first time in its history, an independent broadcasting radius, which covers 100% of the Slovak Republic. It broadcasts daily 8-10 hours of high-quality programming that consists of news, journalism and culture. That is more than ever before. No other European public service offers a similar range of broadcasting services for national minorities.

Mr Chairman, it is sad when a Member of the European Parliament imagines that in a democracy one can say anything without having verified whether it is correct. Such attacks result in tension and they are detrimental to the good name of the country.

  Jelko Kacin (ALDE). – (SL) Slovenia has taken over the Presidency of the European Union, and the Prime Minister of its government, who is also the President of the Council of the European Union, has already made two assessments of the extremely dramatic situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which differ from the earlier assessments of the situation in that country. He said that the situation was so dramatic as to be worse than in Kosovo.

This provoked very heated reactions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the institutions of the Federation and in those of Republika Srpska, as well as among the population as a whole. Even the High Representative, Mr Lajčák himself, had not given such a bleak assessment so far.

It seems to me, therefore, that the assessment is unrealistic, incorrect and unprofessional and does not provide the motivation for institutions or citizens of that country to be more successful in getting closer to the European Union. It seems to me that, at this point in time, with issues as sensitive as Bosnia and Herzegovina, we need more harmonisation among the institutions of the European Union.

  Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) In September 2006 the European Parliament appealed for an end to trade in seal products. A record number of Members supported that declaration. Unfortunately, however, despite such strong support and Parliament's subsequent adoption of the so-called Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals, calling for a total ban on trade in seal products on the territory of the European Union, no positive outcome has been achieved. The ban has proved ineffective and has not put an end to trade in seal fur within the Union, which remains one of the largest markets for such fur.

Young seals just a few days above the age protected under the ban are hunted for commercial purposes and sold legally. The hunting methods fail to comply with even the most elementary principles. The animals are skinned whilst still alive and their bodies then dumped in the water. This slaughter will continue as long as the European Commission does not impose a total ban on trade in all seal products.

  Jim Higgins (PPE-DE). – Mr President, we have two million drug addicts in the European Union. We have a drug epidemic, which has to be tackled head-on.

Fifteen years ago in Ireland, drug addiction was confined to Dublin. Now it is in every city, town and village: heroin, cannabis, cocaine. People are dying every day in Ireland and within the EU from drug addiction.

I welcome the current eight-year EU drug strategy. But we have to ask ourselves realistically: is it working? We need to tackle the drug problem on all fronts. First of all, we need to cut off supply. Secondly, we need to try and persuade users to stop using drugs and to try and persuade people never to start using them, by means of high-profile advertising campaigns to simply frighten people. Last but by no means least, we need more and better international cooperation.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) 2008 is the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. This is an opportunity for all 27 Member States to promote their culture, history, language and traditions.

The Union’s motto is ”Unity in diversity”, and 2008 should make a real contribution to strengthening cohesion within the Union, using intercultural dialogue as a basis.

Over the centuries, Romania has been under various influences – Byzantine, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman. 86% of the Romanian population are Eastern Orthodox, and Romania is the only Romance-speaking country where Eastern Orthodoxy is dominant.

I would like to emphasize that 18 denominations enjoy official recognition in Romania. However, intercultural dialogue should include interdenominational dialogue.

I would like to ask the 34 delegations of the European Parliament to enhance their promotion of European values on other continents in the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, and to facilitate the knowledge of other cultures and traditions.

It is my hope that the intercultural dialogue of 2008 will make an effective contribution to fostering peace, one of the European Union’s fundamental values.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, the matter I wish to raise follows directly on from what Mrs Ţicău has just said: the 2008 Year of Intercultural Dialogue. I agree with this and respect the fact that the Conference of Presidents has taken certain decisions, but I note with some regret that the religious representatives that are to speak here, with the exception of the Pope, all come from outside Europe.

Do we not have enough religious leaders here in Europe who can be invited to address this House? I therefore believe that it would make sense, and indeed you have just touched on this, Romania being a large Orthodox country, to invite as speakers to this House not only the Pope and Protestant church leaders – for there is also an intercultural dialogue between Christians – but Orthodox representatives too. I would therefore request that you also consider extending an invitation to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomaios as part of this Year of Intercultural Dialogue.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, with this new year two new countries have joined the Euro zone and adopted our single currency. This brings to the forefront once again a demand that should already be a reality in an advanced, modern and progressive Union: gender equality on new coins.

This has been a constant theme in history: women have scarcely ever been portrayed on newly minted coins. Female figures, contributions and work have never been given any symbolic recognition, not only in this respect. Gender equality is one of the values on which we are building the European Union and in that context equality should extend to all areas.

It is important to recognise and support the action of so many women in different spheres – science, culture, education, politics – whose work, lives and names should be recognised, studied and remembered. In some countries, such as my own, Spain, the Parliament has approved a proposal to this end.

This Parliament and the Commission should take the necessary initiatives and recommend to all the Member States that they take the appropriate measures to ensure that when Euro coins are being minted, equal consideration be given to references and images of both men and women.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, one of my colleagues has suggested that a mundane matter has been brought up in this House, and that is the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Ireland. I think it is anything but mundane. If it is mundane, we need to have more debates on it, because the Irish Government has got itself into hot water by blaming Europe for forcing it to charge schools for water, when in fact the issue is how it is underfunding schools and how badly it is communicating and implementing this important piece of legislation.

What is at risk is the view the Irish have of the European Union, because we constantly blame Europe for decisions that we are unhappy with, even though the government is party to the process of decision-making. At a time when we are facing a referendum on the Reform Treaty, not only are parents looking at the EU with a side glance and believing it is the problem, but farmers and other lobby groups are also certainly not happy with the European Union at the moment.

Therefore, the Irish Government needs to explain fully how it is implementing this Directive; it needs to fund the schools properly and it needs to answer the question of if and when domestic rates will be levied on Irish people. That is what we need to know at this stage.

  President. − That concludes the item.

14. CARS 21: A Competitive Automotive Regulatory Framework (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0494/2007) by Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on CARS 21: A Competitive Automotive Regulatory Framework (2007/2120(INI)).

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen, the report that we are discussing is in fact only a report on a report, namely that which was drawn up by the Commission on the motor car of the future. However, on 19 December the European Commission adopted a proposal relating to future permitted CO2 emissions from passenger cars. The public is therefore naturally interested to see how the European Parliament will react to this proposal and the extent to which the decisions taken by Parliament are consistent with others that have been adopted more recently. We have just been debating and voting on the report presented by my colleague Chris Davies and it is therefore important that we should also be consistent. I would like to say something about this at a later point, for the CARS 21 report also covers many aspects that have nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 emissions.

It is very important that we should concern ourselves in this House with the subject of motor vehicles. Why? Because we have been discussing the Lisbon agenda for years now, and because all this while we have been debating the competitiveness of European industry. Here we have a sector where we really are competitive. In the premium market, for example, Europe has been setting the standard at international level. More than 80% of the world’s top-of-the-range motor cars come from Europe. The industry is one of the cornerstones of Europe’s economy and is also a key factor for European competitiveness.

CARS 21 stands for Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st Century. This is a Communication from the Commission, which in 2005 set up the CARS 21 High Level Group in order to draw up proposals for a future regulatory framework for the EU automotive industry. The aim of this exercise was to identify the adjustments that would have to be made to the automotive industry in order to keep this sector competitive in the years ahead. It is not possible, at this point, to go into all the proposals that were made. However, the members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy have drawn up a list of 89 of these. I cannot deal with them all here, but they relate to issues such as road safety, environmental protection, the internal market, global trade, research and innovation, and many other things besides.

Let me just single out a few of the aspects involved. We need to complete the internal market for car tuning parts and spares, for example. It is unfair that German automotive tuning companies, for instance, are not allowed to sell products such as wheels in Italy because that country bans after-market tuning parts, while Italian manufacturers on the other hand can export to any country they choose, including Germany. Here Europe needs a proper internal market for tuning and spare parts and we also need equal safety standards for the automotive tuning sector. In addition, we need to introduce an EU-wide type-approval system, for there are blatant discrepancies in this area at the present time.

Here is something else too: we need a more simplified system for regulating type-approval procedures for used vehicles acquired within the EU and elsewhere. Some national states have set high obstacles and built up a massive bureaucracy that makes it very difficult for dealers and private buyers of used vehicles. Europe needs a common regulatory system in this area. This will also be an important tool when it comes to fleet renewal. We are developing a climate-protection policy in many other areas and we need it here too, which means we need to adjust and adapt.

Another important issue concerns research funding. The automobile industry needs more research money from the Member States. The growing number of mandatory targets, such as legislation on CO2 emissions, requires continuous adaptation on the part of the car industry. If Europe is to strengthen its position in this market, both the Member States and the European Union will have to invest far more in vehicle research, and not just in developing alternative drive systems but in other areas too, such as energy storage. We are already five to ten years behind our Asian competitors when it comes to research into storage battery technology.

Now to the subject of CO2: in coordination with Chris Davies, the rapporteur for the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, we have once again set out a number of central parameters. These are based on the concept of penalties instead of bans, with vehicle weight being a key parameter, but they are also centred on a realistic assessment of when the CO2 legislation can take effect. Parliament has decided that the target date should be 2015. We have also voted for the figure of 125 grams as the basic emission target. If I could now just make one comment to the Commission: the penalty that you have specified in your proposal is 15 times higher than that imposed on CO2 emissions from chimneys. This makes CO2 from vehicle exhausts 15 times more expensive than that which is emitted from chimneys. For this reason we require a realistic rating. What we have at present is too ambitious. I should like to express my thanks to those colleagues who helped put this report together.

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the significance of CARS 21 extends far beyond the automotive sector. It is also the model for Europe’s future industrial policy. Here for the first time, and by working closely with all the parties involved, we are attempting to reach joint agreement on a long-term, stable framework for the development of one of Europe’s key industries. I am very proud to say that we have been successful in this.

This is all based on a quite clear division of responsibilities. We told the European car manufacturers that they could not expect us to introduce protectionist measures in order to safeguard them from the growing competition coming from other parts of the world. We also said to them, however, that they could count on having a set of stable, reliable and predictable framework conditions and, more importantly, sufficient time – which is something Mr Chatzimarkakis just mentioned – in order to prepare themselves for the mandatory requirements to come.

I should at this point just like to say something about the position of the European car industry: this is one of the very few market sectors in which Europe continues to be the undisputed global leader. It is a key industry for Europe, for technological development, for growth and, last but not least, for employment. I put up a vigorous defence against those voices in Europe who give the impression that there is something immoral, even criminal, in building, purchasing and driving motor cars. The car is part of our European way of life and it must be affordable, it must be safe, it must be reliable and it must be clean. This is precisely what CARS 21 is all about.

The European car industry is not opposed to the ambitious environmental targets that the European Commission has put forward in its proposal. I should at this point also like to make something else quite clear: I am not against them either. The next stage in limiting CO2 emissions from private motor cars – with no ifs, ands or buts – will be to set a European average of 120 grams per kilometre. This is not inconsistent with the 125 grams mentioned by Mr Chatzimarkakis, because 5 grams of this is to be achieved through the use of bio-fuels. There is absolutely no disputing the fact that this will be our next target.

I am also confident that the European car industry will benefit from such a legislator-driven innovation surge in that the sector will not only be producing the safest and best-quality vehicles but also the most environmentally-friendly cars in the world. I have not the slightest doubt that this will happen.

In the course of the debate there were some suggestions made that I did not like at all, namely – and I will not put too fine a point on this – the attempt to pit manufacturers of large cars against those who build smaller vehicles, or to play off drivers of larger cars, those who can afford and wish to own such vehicles, against those who can only afford or prefer to drive smaller ones, the motto being: big car bad, small car good.

The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, introduced a noteworthy argument into the debate when he wrote to the Commission President that the ability to spend a lot of money on a car – in other words to buy a big and expensive vehicle – did not entitle you to produce more pollution. This is certainly an argument worth reflecting on.

I do not live in France but I know that in France there are people who live in large castles and who need a lot of energy to heat these buildings. I also know that in France there are people who live under the arches of bridges and who generate no heating costs whatsoever. Where is the difference? If it is immoral to drive a large car and therefore to cause more pollution than someone who drives a small vehicle, then it is also immoral to live in a detached house and to generate more heating costs than someone who lives in a one-room apartment.

I would just like to draw attention to the fact that while this argument may seem quite convincing at first glance, on closer inspection it would mean that the CO2 issue would, in a roundabout way, lead us down the road to pervasive lifestyle regulations in Europe. That is something we certainly do not want and the Commission does not want it either. We want to retain the entire range of models being produced by the European automotive industry and there is no reason why this should not be possible.

I believe that in the consultation process that is about to commence we shall have to weigh up very carefully exactly what we can and want to ask of manufacturers, consumers and other road users. Ladies and gentlemen, I have to say to you that we are expecting a very great deal of them. Everything that we have already agreed on by way of the Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards, which have already come into force, will make European motor cars much more expensive.

The regulations that we will be introducing to give pedestrians better protection, in other words those measures directed towards vehicle design that will protect pedestrians more effectively in the event of their being involved in an accident, will also cost a great deal of money. The compulsory introduction of electronic stability control systems on European cars will be very expensive too, and on top of this there is the cost of CO2 reduction. We are doing this against the backdrop of a situation in which there is one particular sector of Europe’s automotive industry that is under attack from international competitors, a sector that is already earning the least revenue, where export opportunities are declining and where imports are exceeding exports, namely the small and medium-sized vehicle market.

I am quite concerned for the future of a large number of European manufacturers. I am fully convinced that it is absolutely vital for all industrial products, and this includes the motor car, to be taken to the maximum level of eco-friendly development that is technically feasible. However, I am not of the opinion that we should do this in such a way – and this applies to all industrial products, not just cars – that we compromise the international competitiveness of our industries.

We have to be quite clear about one thing: if by our policies – and I say this with next week’s debate very much in mind – we cause industries to abandon their European facilities and to set up production sites elsewhere in the world, the effect on the environment will certainly not be a positive one, for in these other places they will be then be producing their goods under much worse environmental conditions. If the steel manufacturers were to move out of Europe to Kazakhstan, believe me, in that country the rules are far less strict than here in Europe. The result would be an increase in emissions and at the same time tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs would be lost.

I would appreciate it if these points were not forgotten in the course of the impassioned debate to come. A modern European industrial policy and a modern European environmental policy can demonstrate that economy and ecology are not natural opposites, and that it is possible to solve the ecological challenges of the future by way of a rational economic approach combined with modern technology.

This was the subject discussed by all those involved in CARS 21, which is being debated here today, and this was the ultimate outcome. I believe the result is one that deserves the broad support of the European public at large.

(Applause)

  Erika Mann, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Chatzimarkakis, I was responsible for drafting the relevant report for the INTA Committee. Here we essentially focused on three key aspects.

First of all, we called on the Commission to ensure as a matter of urgency, and with due care and diligence, that all recommendations are examined to determine to what extent they impact on the multilateral stage – the so-called Doha Round – and on the bilateral agreements. These bilateral agreements were of special interest to us, as here in the case of Korea. However, we also focused attention on other countries such as India and the ASEAN states.

It is important to ensure that market access is only opened up provided that we are also able to have appropriate guarantees from the other side. This relates especially to the so-called non-tariff trade barriers.

Secondly, we wish to see greater coordination when it comes to setting international agreements and international standards.

Thirdly, we would urgently recommend that when examining internal competition we do not lose sight of international competitive conditions, which have changed considerably in recent years. We now recognise that we have many more international competitors to deal with.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (ES) Mr President, the automotive sector, which provides the European economy with a significant number of jobs, needs an ambitious framework that provides for coherent, integrated measures, in accordance with the Lisbon Strategy, to cope with the new challenges.

Our industry is the world’s largest producer of cars and second largest producer of lorries, and it has good after-sales services. As such, it needs to assert its position and ensure that it is capable of meeting the mobility and transport requirements, increasing productivity, improving safety and benefiting the environment.

To achieve this, economic efficiency is crucial. It is what is going to allow us to meet all of the objectives and guarantee affordable prices for fleet renewal, i.e. purchasing vehicles, and for maintaining them during their useful life. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has highlighted this aspect and expressed its support for efforts to improve competition and the protection of intellectual property rights, and to improve the tax treatment of the sector.

These points are to a large extent incorporated in the report and I therefore congratulate the rapporteur.

  Ona Jukneviciene, reporter of the opinion of the Employment and Social Committee. ? (LT) I congratulate Mr Jorgo Chatzimarkakis for preparing this report. The car industry really is one of the most important ones. 2.3 million people work directly in it and another 10-12 million in auxiliary sectors. This makes 7 percent of all the people working in the industrial sector of the Community. Members of the Community must take care of those people who could lose their jobs due to structural changes in advance and prepare for this appropriately. Currently, problems are solved only when they occur. We have to ensure that Community funds allocated for enterprises undergoing reconstruction directly reach the employees. Most especially, it is necessary to support those who want to start their own business – I have in mind the Globalisation Fund. Humanity is the most important when various changes take place and our responsibility is to take care of the Community's citizens, protect them from unemployment and effectively use social guarantees. Only this can help to gain the confidence of people.

  Claude Turmes, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to add to the debate by introducing two figures, so that we all know what we are talking about. There are now 700 million cars in the world at a time when oil prices are at 100 dollars. Last week Tata Motors brought out a cut-price motor car that averages five litres per hundred kilometres, but five litres is still a lot for such a small car.

This all goes to show that in the years to come hundreds of millions of private cars will appear on the roads of the emergent nations – China, India, other Asian countries, South America and the African states. In the light of such a scenario, we are surely not planning to protect those European manufacturers who believe that they have to market two-tonne limousines with fuel consumption rates of seven, eight, ten litres or more, simply because we have a so-called competitive advantage in this area.

I find the current debate to be nothing more than a fiasco. Mr Ferber of the CSU recently threatened Commission President Barroso that his CDU/CSU Group would not support a second mandate if Mr Barroso continued to back Mr Dimas in opposing the German automobile industry.

Mr Verheugen, if you pardon my saying so, you surely cannot be cross with Mr Sarkozy. Why are you cross? Because he and Mr Prodi wrote a letter that sought to ensure that the Commission would not set the growth curve at 80, as the German car industry wanted, but that a compromise would be found. I find what Mr Prodi and Mr Sarkozy did in relation to this debate to be absolutely and completely legitimate. Nor am I surprised that here again an FDP politician has naturally fallen into line behind the German car lobby.

If I may say so, Mr Chatzimarkakis, your report falls behind what Chris Davies produced, because instead of footprint you are now giving priority to vehicle weight, and because instead of 125 grams based on vehicle technology you are now calling for an integrated target of 125 grams. This means that today Parliament has backtracked somewhat. As for the argument about a timeline, what are we doing there? By setting the date 2012 we are only trying to bring more quickly to market technology that already exists.

The most important element is missing: where is the target for 2020? Mr Verheugen, you are calling for a solid framework. How should I, as a car-industry manager, know which direction to go in when Europe’s policy-makers fail to set any terms of reference specifying how energy efficient I should be by 2020. There is no mention of this either in the Commission’s proposal or in yours.

If this Parliament is to do anything when it comes to the report on the legislation then it should produce a proposal on where we need to be by 2020. That is what we need: stable, long-term planning.

  Malcolm Harbour, Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. − Mr President, I want to start my speech by agreeing for once with Mr Turmes. This report is all about giving a crucial industry a stable framework within which to meet the societal demands that we are placing on it – whether they concern environment or safety. Whether Mr Dimas has achieved that and done a proper impact assessment in comparison with what is in the CARS 21 report, I beg to differ. One of the things I would like to ask Commissioner Verheugen to do is to take a message to Mr Dimas and ask him to explain how the process that he is currently using to develop this regulation is in any way compatible with what is in the CARS 21 proposal.

I declare an interest in this because I was a member – a working member – of the High Level Group. This is the third report. The High Level Group made its report, the Commission made a very good response accepting most of the recommendations of the stakeholders and now this Parliament, thanks to the good work of Mr Chatzimarkakis, is going to convincingly endorse those conclusions.

But there is one other group that characteristically is conspicuously missing from this debate, and that is the Member States. One of the most important recommendations of CARS 21 is an integrated approach. Member States have a major stake in this, so why are they not here this evening? They are the ones who behave idiosyncratically in their national regulations and undermine the achievement of that stable framework, that internal market, that achievement of the environmental and safety goals that we want to achieve, those targets of reducing road deaths – where we have very ambitious targets and where they can make big investments in infrastructure and driver training. Why are they not here?

We need to send a clear message to them. One of the things that we ask from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is for this Parliament to take an initiative in getting other national parliamentarians together in this House to talk in the framework of CARS 21 about how they, as national and local politicians, are going to contribute to these overall goals of achieving a competitive car industry with the highest possible technology and preserving and developing jobs and employment, while achieving the goals that we all want to meet in terms of science, safety and environmental improvements.

(Applause)

  Luca Romagnoli, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to include a few suggestions in the opinion on A Competitive Automotive Regulatory Framework in the 21st Century, given its high strategic value for growth and jobs in the Union, but also in view of the need to do more, by adapting vehicles and infrastructure and applying technological innovation, to make European roads safer.

I believe that all of this can indeed be done by reducing emissions, but an integrated approach should have been pursued to this end, as proposed by the CARS 21 Group; I do rather get the impression that the Commission has somewhat disregarded this approach. I particularly deplore the failure to emphasise the policies needed to attain the accepted cost-benefit principle.

Furthermore, I note that, in order to achieve the aim of increasing the use of biofuels, it is vital to promote the necessary locally-based facility network enabling citizens to obtain supplies. Otherwise this aim will not be achieved. I will conclude by saying that I had hoped – and still hope – that judicious approaches will be taken to ensure that the cost of technological adaptation can be met on a level playing field guaranteeing free competition and genuine competitiveness within the EU. As a matter of fact, I have also drawn the attention of my fellow Members and the Commission to the importance of maintenance, but with little success.

  Gary Titley, Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. − Mr President, the Committee on Legal Affairs supports the CARS 21 initiative, which we believe was an exemplary example of stakeholder involvement.

We say yes to the integrated approach, which we believe is fundamental to the success of this initiative. But, like Mr Harbour, I would raise the question about Member States’ commitment, given their unilateral desire on occasion to legislate or implement fiscal regimes which undermine the integrated approach.

Yes to simplification, replacing 38 directives with UN regulations – as long as we are not seen as abdicating our right to legislate should we need to – and yes to the development of technologically driven solutions such as ECOR. But I would hope that the Commission could take more action, as Ms Mann has suggested, on intellectual property rights, particularly in relation to China. We would like to see a proper implementation of the Regulation on Motor Vehicle Distribution in the EU and we believe it is fundamental to address non-harmonised implementation, the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive.

We have to improve cross-border inspections of vehicles and cross-border enforcement of traffic rules in other Member States, because otherwise the whole situation becomes very disparate. But, like Mr Turmes, I believe that what we should be looking for is a framework which extends to 2020 and beyond.

  Nicole Fontaine, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Verheugen on having taken the initiative to create a high-level group, CARS 21, to examine the European automotive industry.

In 2003 several Ministers for Industry, including myself, were in favour of this new method, which involves examining a given industrial sector in detail in order to find the appropriate solutions for it. You will recall that this method was successfully applied to the textiles sector, for example. It enables us to involve the stakeholders and to achieve an integrated approach.

I have just one wish for the future: representation that gives greater consideration to the diversity of professions covered by the sector and even greater involvement of the European Parliament.

That being said, I would like to mention three of the proposals put forward in the excellent report by Jorgo Chatzimarkakis. The first is the importance of stressing that the automotive sector is a source of jobs, competitiveness, growth and innovation and thus calling for greater investment in research and development, particularly in the areas of hydrogen motors, fuel cells or hybrids. The message is clear and research into vehicle technologies will certainly have to be one of the priorities of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology.

Secondly, as regards the contribution of the automotive industry to the fight against global warming, the targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions are in line with the Davies report we adopted in October. We must give the industrial sectors time to prepare. As a result, I believe that it would not be wise to bring forward the 2015 deadline. Nonetheless, the fight against greenhouse gas emissions must also involve tax measures that act as an incentive for fleet renewal.

Finally, I am pleased that our rapporteur calls for the creation of an internal market for custom and tuning parts and for greater efforts to combat the import of counterfeit spare parts. The safety of the citizens and the survival of thousands of European SMEs are at stake.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to point out that it is essential to take into account the pressure on the European automotive industry and the ever-increasing competition.

I would like to thank Mr Chatzimarkakis for his excellent collaboration with the shadow rapporteurs and congratulate him on having achieved this very dynamic result, which augurs well for this important sector of our economy.

  Matthias Groote, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, setting up the CARS 21 High Level Group was exactly the right thing to do. The results speak for themselves. We had two representatives of Parliament in this Group – Malcolm Harbour and Garrelt Duin – and they produced some very good work. As the shadow rapporteur for this report in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I only wish to deal with the environmental issues. However, as a member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy too, I am firmly convinced that preserving and increasing the competitiveness of the European automotive industry is closely tied to the question of how eco-friendly and environmentally sustainable vehicles stamped ‘made in Europe’ will be in the future.

I therefore welcome the fact that we were quick in implementing the Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards for motor cars and that the Commission proposal for a Euro 6 standard for goods vehicles has now been put forward. This source-based legislation will enable us to help the towns, cities and communities of Europe to meet the particulate emission targets that have been set and in this way to provide a better air quality.

However, it remains a mystery to me that when it comes to emissions reduction people are always trying to postpone the 2012 deadline set for the introduction of the CO2 legislation and move it back to 2015. That is not right. We have had the Bali Climate Conference, where Europe put forward a very assertive front. However, when it comes to the actual legislation we always take a nifty step backwards. Car manufacturers have known since 1995 that something had to be done in the area of research and development to produce environment-friendly models. I think that a set-up time of 12 years would be sufficient to achieve the 120 g/km target by 2012, and this includes any complementary measures. That is something quite important.

Climate change will certainly not wait for us, which means that we have to act now. It is also important to ensure that CO2 output will have peaked by the year 2015 so that we can then set about reducing these emissions. Here every industry will have to play its part, including the vehicle manufacturers.

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the car industry should have reduced its emissions by a great deal more than it has, but we are where we are and it takes time to achieve change economically, so I welcome the rapporteur’s proposal to set a target of 125 g by 2015, to bring it in line with the vote of this Parliament last October.

I think it is ambitious, but it is achievable. And, to a significant degree, it now reflects the Commission’s proposals for only a very gradual phase-in of penalties after 2012. But I am sorry that the rapporteur has proposed that the target values should be based on weight, because this removes an incentive to reduce the weight of cars and it goes counter to the vote we had in October. So, please, let us be consistent. In its proposals, the Commission has recognised that footprint may have great merit; it simply says that we have not got the data to establish the credentials for that yet, so let us get the data as fast as we can and keep the options open.

We do not want to fight our business leaders and our entrepreneurs. On the contrary, if we are to combat climate change and reduce the threat that now hangs over the survival of billions of people in the poorest parts of this planet, we have to get them to accept responsibility for their actions. I was wrong in November when I claimed here that Michael O’Leary, the boss of Ryanair, had said that he did not give a toss for the environment so long as he could stuff his pockets and those of his airline full of gold. That may be the impression his scorn for environmentalists sometimes creates, but I apologise and withdraw the claim, and look forward to taking up his offer of a debate. But if we are to tackle the problem of climate change, we need people like Mr O’Leary and his counterparts in the car industry on side, working with us, pushing the boundaries of innovation and leading from the front.

  Vladimír Remek, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that in this case the rapporteur has done a great deal of work and demonstrated considerable skill in how to negotiate and how to compromise. This concerns in particular the matter of emissions reduction in the automotive industry. We must be realistic and keep in mind that the industry belongs among the top industries in Europe and at the same time is one of the key employers. As mentioned earlier, the industry provides more than two and a quarter million jobs and millions more in related fields. In my opinion, reducing emissions in this industry will be a very difficult task. In my view, the result here is a respectable and realistic document. It is important, too, for it to support the endeavour to simplify significantly the legislation affecting the automotive industry: there are more than 200 regulations in existence today. In this vein, I have tried, in my role as shadow rapporteur, to support the report with my amendments. Their main objectives were to prevent the ambitious plans from tripping up the development of the field in Europe and our ability to compete in the world.

  Ján Hudacký (PPE-DE). – (SK) Please allow me as an introduction to thank the rapporteur, Mr Chatzimarkakis, for his excellent report, which takes into consideration and pragmatically addresses all aspects of the regulatory framework, which are so important to the future of the automotive industry.

When we talk in this report about the European automotive industry’s ability to compete under the conditions of global development, we have to take into consideration, above all, those aspects that could significantly limit this ability. I thought originally that it was not necessary to remind the European Commission of the significance of this industry to the economic and social development of the European Union, but since the Commission came up with the proposal of setting emission standards for new private cars, I am no longer so sure. If that is correct, then the Commission would obviously pay more respect to the majority view of the European Parliament, as well as to the views of the expert groups who are advocating a more integrated approach.

The European Parliament is also critically considering the time within which the European automotive industry is able to meet the technologically ambitious emissions targets such in a way that would have the minimum impact on the European industry’s ability to compete. The European Parliament expressed this clearly in the report by Mr Davies and in this very report: by majority vote the committee expressed its belief that the car companies could reach the CO2 level of 125 g/km by 2015. If we really hope to reduce emissions throughout the automotive sector, we must have a more comprehensive understanding of these issues.

The proposed step would definitely lead to a slowdown in the exchange of old cars, besides other negative impacts, such as the inability of less wealthy citizens to purchase new cars. This aspect would be most likely to prevail in the new Member States where the level of exchanging old cars for new is, for economic reasons, low. This certainly would not contribute to the reduction of CO2, quite the contrary.

  Dorette Corbey (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, transport emissions are responsible for a fifth of greenhouse gas emissions. The number of cars per thousand inhabitants is increasing fast all over the world, so cars really must become sustainable. However, this is a message that is scarcely to be heard in the response of the Commission to the CARS 21 report and in the report itself. The document speaks about making cars cleaner and the competitiveness of the automotive industry but it makes no connection between these two things, while it is obvious that sustainable and economical cars are the future.

Indian and Chinese car manufacturers are sweeping the world with small, economical, clean and cheap cars. The European automotive industry meanwhile is fighting a rearguard action to be allowed to emit even more CO2. That is unfortunate for the environment but it is also unfortunate for employment in the European Union. The CARS 21 High Level Group was a missed opportunity to put in place a vision of a sustainable automotive industry, a vision that provides an answer to the real challenges.

Innovation is the key word here. In the United States a hydrogen highway is being laid and the market is being prepared for electric vehicles. Where are the European initiatives? Some car manufacturers have the prototypes ready, but there are still no hydrogen vehicles on the road. It is time for governments and industry to unite and work together in order to make rapid progress. Research alone is not enough.

The setting-up of high level groups is an excellent idea in theory, but unfortunately CARS 21 was dominated by a conservative branch of industry. It is really important that the composition of high level groups does justice to the challenges we are facing. Millions of new cars are going to come on to the market over the next few years and it would really help if they were clean and economical.

  Holger Krahmer (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, car manufacturing is one of Europe’s key industries. It employs some 12 million people, it represents innovation and growth and it produces something designed to provide individual mobility. It must therefore be our aim to see that the European car industry maintains its global leadership and its competitiveness. At the same time, however, we need to remember that in today’s global economy there is a very fine line between incentives for innovation and penalties for economic actions, and that, at the end of the day, we are still exporting the best products in the world and not just outsourcing our production locations.

I essentially want to focus on the CO2 issue, which is without doubt one of the most important aspects of the subject we are discussing here. Lifestyle criticism, which Mr Verheugen mentioned, has long been an unpleasant aspect of the European climate debate. It is very ‘in’ to criticise individual lifestyles. Claude Turmes has just done as much. The thing is, if we were to withdraw all the two-tonne limousines from the market, as he would dearly like to do, the CO2 reductions would scarcely be measurable, but the damage to the national economy would be enormous.

Let me now comment on the proposed CO2 regulation that is currently on the table. Mr Verheugen has said quite clearly in this respect that he has no wish to introduce legislation that would constitute a lifestyle criticism. However, when I look at the penalty payments now being proposed for minimal deviations from the prescribed limits, I tend to be of the view that this is precisely what the Commission has done. In actual fact, the regulation that we are discussing and approving here today is hostile to innovation, for the money that the car manufacturers will have to pay out is needed for innovation and research.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the car of today is, in some ways, very much the same as that of 100 years ago but, at the same time, it is extremely different regarding security, efficiency and its effect on the environment. This proves one thing: the strength of competition develops technology at a pace we cannot imagine. It also underlines the need for Europe to have a competitive car industry if we are to contribute to the global agenda and to better standards for the environment in the global economy, because, if we do not, we will not be able to influence that development.

Those who call for a policy that would decrease the competitiveness of the European car industry do not contribute to a better environment – it is important to state that. It is also important to state that the target of 125 g, as stated in the report, is acceptable and a step forward.

But the important thing is not to discuss emissions from individual cars – big or small – because we need big cars and we will need small cars: they play a different role in different parts of our Union, in our countries. What we need is an overall development that decreases emissions in all sorts of cars. Therefore, it is important to support new cars, because they are better, to support better road systems, better transport systems, better fuels and better engines. That can only be done by a competitive European car industry and that can only be achieved if we have the right policies to balance the environment and competitiveness, and this report makes a good contribution towards that.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) First of all, I would like to extend my congratulations to the Rapporteur for the work done on this report.

I consider this to be an extremely important debate.

The European Union can have the most dynamic knowledge-based economy only if it invests enough in research and especially if the results can be integrated into industrial production.

Climate change is one of the major challenges of the century.

In major urban areas, traffic and pollution constitute a problem for 66% of European citizens, and 70% of the citizens expect the Union to show active involvement in dealing with these problems.

The automotive industry should be capable of delivering less polluting products; however, the industry needs support in its research activities and it is especially important that any constraint should take into account the time required to develop new types of cars, from concept to design, manufacturing, testing and marketing.

We should also take into consideration market demand and in particular the citizens’ buying power. In this context, I believe that Member States should be encouraged to devise tax incentives for end-users, so as to encourage them to invest in greener cars.

Such a system was introduced in Romania as early as 2003, with very good results.

The development of the European automotive industry will lead to the preservation and creation of a significant number of jobs.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, I thank the rapporteur for a good piece of work on an important and sensitive matter. We all know how important the car industry is in the EU. Our car industry, not least in my home country, is a leading contender in the fields of development, research, performance, the environment and safety. A successful car industry is important to the Union. We are talking about jobs and growth, but also about responsibility for our environment, for the global climate.

The Commission proposes far-reaching legislation focused on compulsory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from engine exhausts, improved vehicle technology and use of biofuels. The rapporteur has misgivings about targets which are so difficult for industry to attain that they can jeopardise the competitiveness of companies, but we have heard that before in this debate. I have also heard such arguments back home. I can understand and share those misgivings, but I believe that it would be unfortunate in this situation if Parliament were to lower the level of ambition. I am quite confident that the EU car industry can cope with targets set at high levels through research and development. It has demonstrated its ability to do so in the past.

The people of our countries do not want to pay too much for their cars, but they also know that we must get to grips with climate change and that we need to act quickly.

  Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE). – (DA) Mr President, I should like to join the many Members who have thanked the rapporteur for the excellent report we are discussing here. It is clear that, given so many cars, the increasing mobility and an increasing desire to give even more people the opportunity to drive, the issue of emissions is a key problem that we shall have to address.

Carbon dioxide is not toxic to humans in itself, and a little more CO2 in the atmosphere would actually make plants grow slightly faster. It is, however, ruinous to the climate, and so it is important that we do what we can to reduce CO2 emissions. In my opinion, we must place greater reliance on research, to enable us to develop engines that run at a significantly higher temperature than is currently the case – possibly using ceramic or other materials, and especially by means of a much more widespread use of software for control purposes.

I believe that the objectives laid down will be easy to achieve. There is no reason to believe that, given a concentrated, targeted effort and substantial research resources, Europe should not be able to achieve the objectives it has set itself, and make itself the leading industry within the automotive sector that it already is.

  Joan Calabuig Rull (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Chatzimarkakis on his report as it urges the Commission to set ambitious yet realistic targets. It also follows some of the CARS 21 recommendations, such as the integrated approach to the reduction of CO2 emissions, the need to ensure appropriate lead-times and the protection of the internal and external competitiveness of the European industry.

I would like to highlight a number of issues. The first of these is the fact that the road safety objectives are a key element and here, too, we need an integrated approach that incorporates vehicle technology improvements, infrastructure measures, and education and information.

As regards trade, and in particular the negotiations with Korea, it is important to ensure that Korea abolishes the existing non-tariff barriers and does not create new ones. It is also essential to emphasis the crucial role played by the better regulation principles, i.e. proper impact assessments, the cost-effectiveness principle or appropriate lead-times, in creating a competitive regulatory framework for the automotive industry.

In this respect, the roadmap is an integral part of the final CARS 21 report and should be respected.

There are clearly some structural problems and, of course, it is necessary to establish general conditions to make the automotive industry in the EU sustainable.

The only way to do that is to enable our industry to remain in the forefront of technological, ecological and social innovation with the support of a highly skilled labour force. Consequently, one very important aspect is the commitment to education and training for workers in the car industry. Community environmental, road safety, and energy efficiency legislation requires proper training for workers to enable them to adapt more easily to changes, both of a technical nature and as regards regulation, and to enjoy the same or better job prospects.

In addition, in order to guarantee the future of the European automotive industry, it is crucial to strengthen in the Union the rights of workers and their trade unions to information and consultation. One example that illustrates this is the recent agreement between Ford and the General Workers’ Union in the Valencia factory, which will allow new investment for modernisation and for the production of new models.

Participation strengthens the sector, and in cases where restructuring is necessary can mitigate its negative effects. As a result, it is essential to emphasise the need to reinforce, with the corresponding revision, the Directive on the European Works Council.

  Ivo Belet (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen, ladies and gentlemen, rapporteur, tomorrow in Brussels the 86th car showroom will open its doors and the environmentally-friendly car will take centre stage. It is clear that both the car manufacturers and consumers have finally been convinced of the urgent need for a change of course. It is also clear that a change of course and change of mentality will only be possible, will only be achievable, through compulsory measures, and this will require measures in a number of different areas.

Anyone who is still thinking defensively is wrong, in my opinion. A significant number of European and other medium-sized cars already meet the new standard of 120 grams of CO2 per kilometre. Even German cars, Mr Verheugen: the new Golf TDI 1900 is already on 115 grams per kilometre, so it really is possible in Germany too, and I think that we have to vigorously pursue that route further. Environmentally-friendly technology: that is what it is about. It is a sector that has huge potential for growth and offers huge opportunities. It is good, therefore, that the Commission is forcing the issue. We need to invest now, as you have already said, Commissioner, in order to lead the world in this field.

I have checked the figures: the Seventh Framework Programme contains over EUR 4 billion of loans for the transport sector. That is a great deal of money but in the view of Parliament – it is in Mr Chatzimarkakis’s report – not enough to fulfil our high ambitions. That is why we are asking for more loans to be earmarked for research into new technologies at the budget review.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, it is also high time that the Council moved more swiftly, especially in the tax field. There is a proposal before the Commission to couple vehicle tax to the emission of harmful substances. What are the national governments waiting for? They are not represented here, unfortunately, but I hope that the message will get through to them. Why are the governments waiting to take action on this proposal? It is the only way to really get the environmentally-friendly car adopted in the short term.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, we are all fully aware that the European Union's car industry is one of the most important sectors of its economy, producing 19 million vehicles a year. Most importantly, it also accounts for 2.3 million jobs. A further 10 million jobs in associated sectors are indirectly dependent on this industry. It is worth noting that it is not only the quantity but probably essentially the quality of the jobs provided that accounts for the key role the car industry plays in the economic life of the European Union. The best way of illustrating this success is by reference to the EUR 35 billion annual export trade surplus and the high level of innovation.

Despite all this optimistic data, the European car industry is facing some very serious challenges.

I fully support the final report of the CARS 21 High Level Group and the European Commission’s communication on the subject. Nonetheless, I should like to call for further action aimed at creating a genuine single internal market in cars. Individual Member States are still applying different tax regimes concerning cars, either by charging duty or through other registration charges, perpetuating the inequalities between consumers.

I welcomed the compromise achieved in the European Parliament concerning the so-called ‘repair clause’, because it most certainly represents a step towards unifying provisions in this area, thus contributing to better law-making. The car industry should be relieved of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens, especially as regards increasing the number of international provisions already in existence.

Pursuant to the principles of better law-making, a proper impact assessment and the principle of optimising costs and benefits should always be taken into account when creating a competitive legal environment for the car industry. In view of the ongoing technological development in this sector, I support the Commission's action introducing a review and revision mechanism to ensure that legal provisions do not slow down the technical advances that are constantly being achieved.

The European car industry is one of the most competitive of its kind in the world. Nonetheless, its position may be threatened if its competitors resort to unfair trading practices or fail to respect intellectual property rights.

I should like to call on the Commission to take more consistent and effective action to ensure respect for intellectual property rights and their implementation in all parts of the world, notably China. The importance of the strategic partnership with China is beyond dispute, but European intellectual property has to be protected. This is absolutely vital.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Mr President, I think that the frantic attempts of the auto lobby to get absolutely essential environmental measures postponed have been successful. Time after time members of this Chamber appear to be susceptible to this lobby: first Mr Davies and now Mr Chatzimarkakis.

Waiting until 2015 to substantially reduce CO2 emissions from vehicles is highly irresponsible. What is more, it is technically possible to achieve 120 grams per kilometre by 2012, and the automotive industry itself is solely to blame for the present situation. After all, attempts to reduce emissions voluntarily have failed miserably. It turns out that only setting compulsory standards will work.

We expect the citizens of Europe to make sacrifices to save our climate. Why should we not demand as much of the automotive industry? Thus there must be a maximum 120 grams of CO2 emissions per kilometre by 2012.

  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I wanted to direct a further question to Mr Verheugen. Mr Verheugen, in your speech you said that the rules that we are now laying down for the car industry would as good as mean the relocation of European industry. You repeatedly referred to the pressure being applied to the European automotive industry. Could you perhaps subsequently make it clear in your presentation that the regulations that we are introducing will of course apply equally to all motor manufacturers worldwide? This naturally means that the Japanese car industry will also have to comply with these rules.

Moreover, in this respect let me just add a further comment: last week you presented us with the ‘lead market initiatives’. Does this not then mean that in the car manufacturing sector in particular we are positioning Europe as the market that now has the most demanding legislation and that we are therefore specifically creating a lead market for efficient motor cars, even allowing for environmental constraints and oil supply problems?

  Günter Verheugen, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to respond immediately to the question from Mr Turmes. My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the car industry but was one of principle on the connection between industrial policy and environmental policy, between economy and ecology. You will of course be aware of my viewpoint: we in Europe have to set the highest standards. However, it makes no sense to run so far ahead of things that industry migrates away and we begin to export pollution and, as a result, import unemployment. These remarks were not related in any way to the car industry. There I fully share your view that we not only have the opportunity, but also the obligation, to establish Europe permanently as the lead market for environmentally-friendly cars.

As I now have the floor I would like to point something out to Mrs Corbey: it is not correct to assert that the Chinese are building cars that are more environmentally friendly than those made in Europe and that these are now flooding the European market in their millions. The few hundred Chinese cars that are currently to be found in Europe are of extremely dubious quality, not exclusively but also from an environmental viewpoint. The same can be said for the people’s car, the Tata, that is now being manufactured in India. If you relate the weight of these vehicles to their fuel consumption you will see that their performance is significantly worse than that of the cars currently being built in Europe.

The same applies to the US: it is now quite unrealistic to make the accusation that American cars are more environmentally friendly than European ones. If you think about it for just a moment you will soon come to the conclusion that this cannot be true. When it comes to modern technology, the only working hydrogen-powered cars in the world are to be found in Europe. Nobody else is spending more on research in this area than we are.

I would like to close with a thought that will perhaps unite us all: I am able to remain quite composed throughout this entire debate for I really do believe that we are on the right road, because I know that the European car manufacturers and, more importantly, the European automotive suppliers – for they really are the driving force behind European industry – have not been asleep in recent years but have been working on a whole series of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to achieve our objectives.

Mr Turmes, you are perfectly correct and I would have been happy to support such a proposal: the industry would be delighted – and so would I as the Commissioner responsible for industry – if we could now say what the next stage in the process should be. This is precisely what we have set out in CARS 21, namely a long-term, stable and predictable regulatory framework. This can be as ambitious as possible provided that it is long term and provided it is stable.

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking my fellow Members for this truly fair and open debate. It has been conducted on a high level and has covered the issues of climate protection, innovation and – as we have been aware of at all times, especially when it comes to our fellow Members from the GUE/NGL – job security. These are three areas where we all have to find common agreement.

I should also like to express my thanks to Claude Turmes for his various clarifications and suggestions. However, I would like to say quite openly that I consider the remarks made by Mrs Liotard to be unfair. It is not all about running after some lobby group or other. It is about fighting fervently for a policy that represents a key market for us in Europe. Here I am fully behind the Commissioner and I am also fully behind you too, Claude.

I would maintain that you have been unfair here, Mrs Liotard. It is not right that you should call this lobbyism. I would at this point just like to quote from the great German sociologist Max Weber, who said that politicians must have passion – and I am actually trying to show some of this now – but at the same time they must have a sense of responsibility and a sense of proportion. The latter sometimes seems to get lost in debates of this kind with all the hysteria about climate change.

Keeping a sense of proportion means ensuring that the great objectives that we want to achieve are also feasible. I would now just like to mention my colleague Chris Davies, for I am just a little proud of him. There is no one in the ALDE Group who is greener or more ecologically minded than Chris Davies. Nonetheless, he has had the sense of proportion in his report to call for practical limits and deadlines. That is what all this is about: we should not be giving the people of Europe the run-around, but should be doing things that are really achievable.

I am pleased to see that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted the report by a large majority. I also want to thank the members of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for having adopted this report by a fairly large majority and I hope that tomorrow many of the Members will vote for it here in this House.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE), in writing – (HU) As People’s Party shadow rapporteur on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I would like to emphasise that the report does not deal with the car of the twenty first century but regulations for a competitive automotive industry in the twenty first century.

By now motor traffic has become the second largest CO2 emitting sector and is responsible for 12% of all the CO2 emissions throughout the Union. The rate of increase is alarming, for this sector increased 26% between 1990 and 2004, making it 26.5% of the Union’s total energy consumption.

The car manufacturers’ voluntary agreements on emissions reduction are not working, and the Union’s regulations are powerless, since they can only bring the vehicle sector into the Emissions Trading Scheme after 2013, if at all.

The only ‘success’ is that the average consumption by cars was 12.4% less in 2004 than in 1995. This is entirely due to technological innovation as cars have been continuously increasing in size and power.

Both the Member States and car buyers have to make further efforts. There have to be, on the one hand, tax incentives for fuel-efficient and low CO2 emission vehicles to gain a market presence and support for manufacturers for targeted development. On the other hand, we have to improve the information available to purchasers, update and extend the labelling system for light trucks, harmonise energy efficiency classes and propose annual running costs. Finally, we have to sell the idea of eco-driving and training, run attention-grabbing campaigns and adopt regulations for obtaining a driving licence.

15. Tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0188/2005) by Mrs Kauppi, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations [2007/2144(INI)].

  Piia-Noora Kauppi, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to start by emphasising what my report, which is being debated today, is essentially about. While the report is nominally about taxation, the real issue at stake here is the proper functioning of the internal market of the EU.

The global economy is developing in a way that puts an increasing amount of pressure on Europe to maintain its competitiveness, a fact that has been underlined and widely agreed upon in various instances, notably in the Lisbon Strategy and its revisions. We must be proactive in rising to the challenge and I believe that a fully-functioning single market is the first priority in achieving this.

In addition to the freedom of movement of goods, people and services, this implies, crucially, a level playing field for European companies to establish business in any location in Europe as if it were a single country, a home market – a genuine home market – where decisions are based according to a real economic advantage, not a distorted one created by red tape.

Obstacles to this freedom do not only lead to suboptimal economic choices but also prevent European businesses from expanding. The fact that some such obstacles still remain is regrettable, as a Europe-wide home market is a stepping stone to growth for European businesses and a precondition for creating more European world leaders.

Cross-border consolidation of losses – the subject of this report – is a step towards such a working home market. Currently, in this respect, the tax treatment of a group operating within a single Member State is heavily preferential compared to a cross-border situation. Within a single Member State a company can usually offset losses incurred by its branches and subsidiaries in the taxation of the parent company. However, in the case of branches and subsidiaries in other Member States, the national legislation varies considerably.

In most cases, if consolidation of losses for tax purposes within the same group is possible, it is nevertheless granted with considerable and varying delays. This discrepancy has grave consequences for the proper functioning of the internal market. It distorts investment decisions, constituting a barrier to entering some markets while tending to unfairly favour the large markets where losses can more easily be absorbed. It particularly hampers the SMEs’ capacity to expand, as they frequently incur start-up losses that they cannot immediately absorb – even the time factor is very relevant to SMEs. The existence of differing Member State legislation obviously also increases compliance costs, ill afforded by SMEs and conducive to tax engineering with larger companies.

Finally, delays in loss relief are understandably costly and burdensome to all European companies. There is a considerable cost burden involved when capital that is legitimately recoverable is tied up, often for years, because the current national loss relief legislation will not allow consolidation without delays.

The report promotes a remedy to this by promoting the possibility to offset losses in the same tax year, which would transfer the unreasonable time burden away from the company and to the public sector. It would also level the playing field, at the same time lowering companies’ compliance costs. It would also mean that the tax domain is one where there is still work to be done to make the most of the internal market. This does not imply harmonising tax rates, rather that tax competition is a healthy feature of the European economy. However, it does mean legislating to facilitate cross-border business, to establish a level playing field where investments are based on undistorted economic benefits.

I therefore welcome the Commission’s activities in this area in promoting cross-border loss relief measures. I would like to see Parliament support this urgently needed legislation, and I am grateful for the messages of support we have received during the process. I think that Parliament’s opinion on the question will also be very timely because the European Court of Justice has called for political guidance on the issue as well.

I would further like to encourage the Commission to push ahead with the CCTB as a longer-term solution, which I hope will also be supported by this House in this report. However, the CCTB is a long-term project, the realisation of which lies far in the future. In the mean time, cross-border laws, relief and consolidation of losses are urgently needed as an intermediate remedy to some serious problems encountered within the functioning of the internal market.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, some weeks ago, as you remember, we discussed the contribution of taxation and customs policies to the Lisbon Strategy of growth, jobs and competitiveness. Cross-border loss relief is one key element for establishing a competitive internal market without obstacles and thus contributing to growth and employment.

Let me explain the importance of granting cross-border loss relief for the internal market. Imagine a small or medium-sized enterprise which is operating successfully in its domestic market. Once it plans to expand its operation to other Member States, to the internal market, it will not only run into problems regarding additional compliance costs. Thus, in many cases, this SME will not be able to set off any start-up losses against profits which it may continue to generate in its Member State of residence.

The non-consideration of foreign losses results in double taxation and discourages many SMEs from investing in other Member States. With the new initiative on cross-border loss relief, large enterprises – but also SMEs in particular – could more easily extend their activities abroad and enjoy the full benefits of the internal market.

The initiative on cross-border loss relief constitutes a targeted solution in the short to medium term and represents an intermediary step. But please note that this initiative could in the future be complementary to the common consolidated corporate tax base (CCTB), notably for companies that are not covered by the CCTB.

The initiative on cross-border loss relief is more limited in scope than the consolidation of the tax base under the CCTB would be, as this provides automatic and comprehensive off-setting of all profits and losses within a group of companies.

I highly appreciate the strong support expressed in Ms Kauppi’s report for the Commission’s initiative in the field of cross-border loss relief, for the coordination approach and of course also for our work on the CCTB.

Like you, I am persuaded that we should continue our efforts to dismantle tax barriers in the internal market.

  Zsolt László Becsey, on behalf of the PPE-DE group – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. I would like to thank the Commissioner and Mrs Kauppi for this report. They have dealt with an important issue eliciting sensitive and contrasting emotions.

Two comments. On the one hand, I feel it is important that from the standpoint of the internal market there should be no danger that a parent company and a subsidiary are at a disadvantage simply because they are operating in two different Member States, compared with companies operating in only one Member State.

So I urge that double taxation is ruled out, as the Commissioner has said, perhaps through the mechanism of electronic cooperation. Given time factors, we could encourage efficient cross-border activity by the economic players and employ credit and exemption methods.

At the same time I feel we must be concerned when a subsidiary makes a profit and a parent company makes a loss. Mrs Kauppi, in the new Member States, for example, this is of more interest from our point of view.

My second point about scrapping double taxation concerns the common consolidated tax base. We still have to debate this but I have reservations. I do not want to champion tax sovereignty but I cannot yet see clearly the effect of the common consolidated tax base. I am also fearful that there will be a lot of political pressure for a minimum level, just as with VAT or income tax. The proposals suggested by the Socialist and Communist, and perhaps the left-wing representatives too, demonstrate this, although the Maastricht criteria, I believe, put a stop to this.

But my fear here is that I do not know what the effect will be on the new capital-poor eastern European Members in the light of the flow of capital in the internal market. Where will the administration be? And will it be possible to keep individual tax concessions to counterbalance a disadvantageous infrastructure situation?

For these reasons I will abstain from these sections but I wish to thank the Commissioner and the rapporteur again. Thank you, Mr President.

  Donata Gottardi, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the motion for a resolution that we are to vote on tomorrow is symptomatic of the need for a fiscal policy at EU level.

This does not mean emasculating or curbing national tax policies; no one doubts the competence of individual Member States in this field. It does however mean flanking and coordinating them, especially when, as in the case of corporate losses in cross-border situations, merger and relocation decisions taken by companies within and outside of Europe transcend national borders.

Clearly, not only national regulations but also bilateral agreements are insufficient, given that in this age of globalised financial markets and globalised production such phenomena occur in large numbers and exceed the confines of individual countries. The content of the motion is the result of a consensus on many points and I shall just recall the main ones, with heartfelt thanks to the rapporteur for her constant willingness to cooperate.

Twenty-seven different tax systems hamper the smooth operation of the internal market and constitute an obstacle for businesses, especially small ones, as Commissioner Kovács has said. The first assertion made in the text is self-evident, expressing the gravest concern over the negative impact that the different treatment of cross-border losses by Member States has on the functioning of the internal market.

The proposed solution is still transitional and temporary because the only perfect solution is a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). That is why we support the Commission communication as an important step in addressing the situation, while calling for adequate coordination among Member States as regards timing and solutions: I am quoting from paragraph 4.

It is important to have recalled the existence of common European institutions such as the 'European company' and the 'European cooperative society', as well as EU procedures concerning Community-scale groups of undertakings. These must be built upon, because they enable us not only to evoke the link with industrial relations, and hence the effects on employment, but also to acknowledge the formation of Community-scale groups of undertakings that are stable. After all, what we aim to foster is the development and implantation of a system of production with Europe, and not the individual Member State, at its heart, a system of production that does not follow the siren voices and decide tactically to diversify into other countries on the grounds of tax advantages, offsetting charges and losses wherever convenient. The production system must be able to rely on equal treatment and avoid differential accounting according to whether the controlling undertaking is based in just one country or has a presence in various countries.

This result cannot be achieved without appropriate rules and uniform conditions. Acknowledging that profitable tax competition would fundamentally undermine the content of this proposal does not amount to waving an ideological flag in opposition to it.

  Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Thanks to Piia-Noora Kauppi for a good report. She gives a balanced account of the problems and difficulties which arise on the internal market when we have 27 different tax systems. Globalisation, which has been mentioned, has after all increased still further the need for a common approach to tax matters in the EU so that obstacles to competition can be avoided. Different rules and bureaucracy also mean a loss of economic strength to companies and a loss of jobs in the EU. We need clearer rules and an approach which favours enterprise, such as Mrs Kauppi proposes. Perhaps some of us also need to remove the blinkers from our eyes.

Taxes, as we know, are a very sensitive subject. The keywords here are tax competition and freedom of countries to determine their tax rates. The long-term goal of the Commission is to achieve a consolidated corporate tax base. As this is not attainable, targeted measures should be pursued within those areas which are conducive to effectiveness in the internal market.

The report reviews various possibilities for action and shows how individual countries have chosen different approaches, which is good but not enough. It is in principle also reasonable for businesses to offset losses across frontiers within a company or between companies in a consortium. In order to facilitate such an arrangement a common approach is needed to what has to be taxed, in other words a consolidated corporate tax base. We in the ALDE Group think that this is the right way to go. Introduction of the common CCTB will not in itself prevent tax competition, rather the contrary. The tax base will be common, and transparency will be better. This new system will improve the possibilities for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular to offset their losses. Worried finance ministers – and there are many – can rest assured. Your power to tax will stay in place.

Regarding Amendment 1, our Group would like a split vote the first part of which can deal with excise duties separately. As regards the rest, we are inclined to abstain in the vote on Donata Gottardi’s amendment to recitals E and F in order to facilitate a broad consensus and broad support in the House for this excellent report.

  Dariusz Maciej Grabowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the rapporteur deserves credit for her work, but this is a controversial report. We shall be voting against it and I shall now explain why.

This is an attempt to unify tax regimes within the Union, and to impose tax solutions on the Member States. Furthermore, it also amounts to favouring cross-border companies over SMEs, and that would in turn oblige many domestic companies to set up branches and subsidiaries in other countries with no economic justification, simply to benefit from the provisions applying to cross-border companies.

I would just like to point out that for many years cross-border companies took advantage of the lack of qualifications and corruption of officials in the post-Communist countries, resorting to tax and accounting fiddles to declare losses and avoid paying tax. The Union condoned this. The new provision would allow such behaviour to continue and put it on a legal footing. I am particularly surprised because there would be negative consequences for the countries of the old Union, as their taxes would be reduced.

I believe it is necessary first to resolve the problem of tax and accounting fiddles by cross-border firms within the Union and improve the fiscal apparatus, especially in the new Member States. This would assist in the prevention and detection of tax offences.

  Sahra Wagenknecht, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we can to some extent agree on one thing: the present situation in the EU, where there are 27 different tax systems operating alongside one another in an integrated single market with completely free movement of capital, is fatally flawed. This is where unity really comes to an end. Tax competition is tax dumping for the rich and the powerful and only imposes a greater tax burden on the shoulders of normal earners and consumers. It is hardly surprising that this situation is particularly pleasing to the property owners and big companies.

What is really astonishing and alarming, however, is that this reality is still being talked up here in this House, which should really be representing the interests of more than just the elite few. In spite of all its nuances and nuanced assessments, the Kauppi report is still just a typical piece of spin. That goes for the position being adopted on the alleged positive impact of tax competition just as much as for the manner in which it deals with the actual subject matter, namely the tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations.

It is an open secret that companies regularly use cross-border loss relief to reduce their tax bill by moving their profits to low-tax zones and low-tax countries. They are very successful in doing this, as the statistics show: such virtual loss offsetting has in fact meant that over the last 20 years the amount of tax paid on the profits made by the multinationals has fallen continuously. The rulings of the European Court of Justice have only served to make this tax arrangement easier and have therefore intruded massively into the fiscal sovereignty of the Member States. All this simply fuels the race to dump corporate tax.

Those who support this development clearly want to see a Europe in which untold wealth is able to accumulate at the top of the pile, while down at the bottom poverty levels increase and the former middle classes have to survive on incomes that are falling in real terms. We want to see a different Europe and we want a socially just taxation policy. For this reason our Group will be rejecting the present report.

  John Whittaker, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, the rapporteur claims that this initiative will encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to expand their cross-border business. But I have little doubt that it has been heavily promoted by the large multinationals, because it is they that stand to benefit most. In my country, in Britain, the vast majority of businesses are small, and they provide for some 70% of employment. Only a tiny proportion of these have any interest in foreign operations. But my main objection is that it is more meddling by the European Union in taxation matters. Judging by the EU’s record of value added tax, there will be endless changes to the law. We have had eight directives on VAT so far, and it is still a mess and prone to fraud.

Businesses operate best when there are simple, well understood rules, as Mr Schmidt has just said. The EU knows how to do only one thing, and it does it to perfection. And that is to make things complicated. So, contrary to the views of other Members, a much better plan would be to encourage tax competition. Then those nations that have the lightest and simplest taxes will attract the most businesses.

  Elisa Ferreira (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, the different treatment of losses by the various Member States distorts competition in the internal market, is unfair and encourages poor fiscal practice. We therefore welcome the Commission’s initiative to propose a minimum level of harmonisation of these rules and hope that the Council will agree with this proposal. This is an area in which better regulation is essential, particularly to eliminate the associated legal uncertainty, which has resulted in repeated recourse to the Court of Justice of the European Communities and which has contributed to increased uncertainty in economic relations, thereby harming companies and SMEs.

It is absolutely essential to ensure that the various fiscal practices are compatible with the effective functioning of the internal market. The quality of the report prepared by the rapporteur, Mrs Kauppi, has enabled a broad consensus to be reached among the main political groups on its fundamental elements. However, certain non-essential aspects of the report, in its initial version, may hinder this agreement. In particular, in the Socialist Group’s opinion, this process is not compatible with the open defence of tax competition practices. These practices encourage artificial movements of companies, capital and persons. Such movements frequently result in signs of breakdown both socially and environmentally and in the productive fabric. Furthermore, in some economies, tax competition causes severe problems for the macroeconomic balance with varying consequences, particularly in terms of the level of quality and quantity of public property made available by these countries to their citizens.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament believes that, on a subject of such strategic importance, it would be highly advantageous to present to the Commission and Council a European Parliament position with a broad basis of support. In the area of this initiative, the European Union still has a long way to go, particularly in terms of creating the oft-mentioned CCCTB or Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. We must create the political conditions for this future work.

Agreement on this report is within our reach. We hope that, when it comes to the final vote, the spirit of compromise among the main political groups will enable the consensus reached on its main messages to be maintained so that there is broad final approval. Those secondary aspects that divide us politically to an extent that is not insurmountable must not be allowed to prevent this approval.

We welcome the active involvement in this process of various members of the PPE-DE Group in particular, including its rapporteur, their spirit of compromise and their spirit of openness, which have enabled a consensus to be reached on the fundamental issues of this report. Thank you, Mr President.

  Margarita Starkeviciute (ALDE). – (LT) I would like to draw your attention to something that we talk very much about, the various shortcomings of the internal market, and emphasize the fact that the development of the internal market gives us many advantages. This document is important from the aspect of giving advantages to improve the labour productivity of enterprises working in the single market. However another aspect should not be forgotten. I represent a country where the majority of enterprises belong to European multinationals; they are not national. Therefore, sometimes it is very difficult for us to control our economy in the macroeconomic sense as corporate strategies put the aims of the national economy, such as the fiscal balance, etc., into the shade. We need to find an appropriate compromise between the advantages of the development of the internal market and macroeconomic stability. I would like to draw the commissioner’s attention to the need to coordinate politics with economic issues and with Mr Almunia once again.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, as I take the floor in this debate on tax treatment of losses in cross-border disputes, I should like to highlight the following issues.

Firstly, direct taxation, such as corporate tax, does not fall within the competence of the European Commission. As a matter of principle, therefore, the Commission should not concern itself with it.

Secondly, I am surprised to see that the report contains statements disapproving of the reductions in corporate income tax rates introduced in certain Member States, notably new ones.

Thirdly, I am worried by the Commission's call for work on the introduction of a consolidated corporate tax base within the European Union to be speeded up. The nature of such a tax, its rate and setting the tax base are some of the very few instruments that still remain within the remit of the Member States and can be used to accelerate the economic development of less developed countries.

Fourthly, a study of the Commission’s proposals for a consolidated corporate tax base suggests that the aim is to ensure all Member States develop at a rate involving at most a 2% rise in GDP per annum. In such a scenario, how would the new Member States that are 20 or 30 years behind the more developed ones ever manage to catch up?

  Katerina Batzeli (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the issue of taxation and the possibility of transferring losses for cross-border business groups within the European Union cannot be tackled purely and simply on the basis of facilitating the cross-border operation of businesses. This objective is, of course, important for the smooth operation of the internal market, but when it is a matter of taxing a business, as mentioned in Mrs Kauppi’s report, which we are considering today, then it should be placed within the wider context of the debate about greater harmonisation of taxation within the European Union.

Provided that taxation competition does not exist on equal terms and there is no minimum requisite agreement on a common, unified tax base for companies so as to put in place uniform, transparent rules for measuring the tax base, the provision of opportunities such as this regarding tax relief for losses of a cross-border nature at present demands that we adopt a cautious approach. This is because it involves the serious risk of distorting the Member States’ taxation and revenue systems, as well as the very operation of the internal market and of competition between businesses.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – Mr President, with this new form of debate I could of course use this minute to ask the Commissioner what the current state of play is concerning CCCTB in the Council, because we know that some Ministers of Finance are not very happy. Could you please, Mr Commissioner, tell us how the debate is going on within the Council and what the 27 Member States are proposing today?

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I have followed the debate with great interest, and it has confirmed my conviction that the introduction of cross-border loss relief is an important factor for the deepening of the internal market.

I fully share the views of Ms Kauppi that on the surface it is about taxation, but in reality it is about the proper functioning of the internal market.

I am particularly grateful for your support with facilitating, in particular, the cross-border economic activities of the SMEs, which is very close to my heart. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Kauppi, for the very encouraging report, as well as the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs for their support. The Commission can agree with most of the conclusions.

The support of Parliament is welcome as a factor which may have a positive impact on the subsequent discussion in the Council. As suggested in the report, I can assure you that we are continuing efforts on the CCCTB and on the coordination of Member States’ direct tax systems. The CCCTB is also very close to my heart, and the reason is that I am absolutely certain that it would be of greater relative benefit to the small and medium-sized enterprises than the big multinationals.

However, I understand the concerns, and to respond to the question at the end of the debate, I want to tell you that in the Council it is on the table, but not as a concrete proposal. For the time being it is on the table as a concept, and as far as the concept is concerned, some two thirds of Member States expressed their support and less than one third expressed either doubts or opposition.

Any discussion, particularly discussion which would prejudice the current debate on the cross-border loss relief issue, would be premature because there is, for the time being, no concrete legislative proposal. In the legislative work programme of the Commission, however, there is one point which states that, in the second half of the year, we will present a concrete legislative proposal – with the necessary impact assessment – on the CCCTB. Then we can discuss whether the concerns are relevant or not.

One more point: if there is no unanimous agreement – and for the time being I believe that there will be no unanimous agreement – we can resort to enhanced cooperation as a solution. So, no single Member State would be forced to accept the CCCTB and to use it. And, even in those countries that chose the CCCTB, no companies would be forced to use it, because there would be no sense in forcing companies that are not operating in the internal market – that are not doing business in the internal market – to use this common tax base. They can stay with the domestic national base used previously.

So I share your conclusion that, in order to promote coherent development and the proper functioning of the internal market, obstacles deriving from the existence of different company tax regimes in the Member States must be tackled, preferably through common approaches and coordinated actions.

With regard to the loss offset, your report highlights several specific areas where more work needs to be done, such as addressing the particular needs of SMEs, the definition of groups and the scope for automatic information exchange.

My services will study these suggestions and comments and, where possible, bring the issues forward. The SME aspect is already an important part of the work of Vice-President Günter Verheugen. Another aspect, the definition of groups of companies, is an essential element of the work on the CCCTB.

I can also assure you that your recommendations for cross-border loss relief within companies and groups of companies will orient our work in the coming months. There are several references in your report to tax avoidance. Here it may be noted that, last December, the Commission adopted a communication on the application of anti-abuse measures in the area of direct taxation.

The Commission shares the concerns about tax avoidance expressed in your report. Member States need to be able to prevent their tax bases from being eroded because of abuse and aggressive tax planning. At the same time it is vital to ensure that there will be no undue restrictions to the Treaty freedoms. By launching this latest initiative, the Commission seeks to prompt further discussions with the other institutions on how national anti-abuse measures can meet those requirements. Your observations on tax avoidance risk will be taken into consideration.

Finally, as regards the proposed amendments to the report, the Commission would advise against amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, but it could support amendments 7 and 8, which are in line with the spirit of the communication.

  Piia-Noora Kauppi, rapporteur. − Mr President, I will be very brief. I am of course happy to note that most of the groups are going to support the report tomorrow in the vote. My group has suggested abstaining with regard to Amendments 7 and 8. I think that it is in line with the Commission’s recommendations as well that 7 and 8 will probably be adopted and that means that we have a very large majority backing the report tomorrow.

I also would like to remember a little bit the past: how difficult it was before we accepted the first company taxation directives – a Parent-Subsidiary Directive and an Interest and Royalties Directive in the 1990s – to speak about these items. But they are now there after serious discussion, and I still believe that we can have all the practical things, like anti-abusive measures, that we can improve the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and that we can improve the workings of the Transfer Pricing Forum, and such initiatives are very much needed.

But, in the end, we need a very large solution and CCCTB. At this time it is the best available option and we must take it seriously. I hope that it will be done during this European Parliament term, before the 2009 elections. Something must be done before the 2009 elections and we cannot afford to wait for Member States to come up with their ratifications and referendums. We must act now and before the time is up for this Parliament.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

16. Abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0513) by Mr Costa, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs – Transport aspects [COM(2007)0090 - C6-0086/2007 - 2007/0037A(COD)].

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mr Costa for having drawn up this report. Reducing the administrative burden resulting from EU regulations is one of the most effective ways in which we can improve the regulatory environment for Europe’s 24 million businesses. This initiative therefore makes an important contribution towards achieving our ambitious targets as part of the partnership for ‘Growth and Jobs’.

The Commission therefore welcomes Parliament’s support for a rapid adoption of this urgent procedure. This will help eliminate those unnecessary elements of the documentation required when transporting goods across national borders within the EU. The measure in question will remove those regulations which have now become obsolete and which in fact date back to the year 1960.

According to the regulations still in force carriers are required to provide a wide range of information on tariffs, price agreements and transport arrangements as soon as the goods they are transporting cross national borders within the Community. The simplified system being proposed by the Commission will significantly ease the administrative burden on some 300 000 European haulage companies and it has been estimated that it will save these operators a total of at least EUR 160 million a year: not a bad result at all.

As far as the procedure is concerned, the Commission acknowledges that the European Parliament has divided into two separate parts the so-called ‘omnibus proposal’ for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending both Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions and Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs.

I should like to state that the Commission will in future prefer the so-called ‘omnibus approach’, in other words using a single proposal to cover several measures designed to reduce any unnecessary administrative burden. There are two reasons for this: firstly, it is clear that the aim is not to alter the substance of the legislative text in question but merely – and I repeat the word ‘merely’ – to remove the unnecessary bureaucratic workload, and secondly, such an approach will speed up the rate at which measures of this kind can be discharged.

The Commission therefore hopes that both legislative bodies can now make rapid progress with the second part of the proposal, namely that which deals with the hygiene of foodstuffs.

Thank you all for your attention.

  Paolo Costa, rapporteur. − (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I could in fact repeat much of what has already been said by Commissioner Verheugen but shall avoid doing so. This is a commendable initiative: small-scale measures often conceal major results, and this is one such case.

We are obviously dealing here with rules that were enacted in a different Europe. The basic Regulation dates back to 1960, when our countries were separate, and when rules on hygiene and food could mask discrimination and obstacles to competition. That is why it was necessary to indicate which road to take and where to cross borders. Many things needed to be said, and many details spelled out, but since much of this no longer serves any purpose it is a good idea for us to divest ourselves of these rules and adapt them.

We are aware that all food hygiene legislation is a sensitive matter and therefore very time-consuming. That is the reason behind this solution, which I think makes a good deal of sense, namely to separate out the transport rules, which are easier to accept and, I hope, to implement.

The committee, which I have the honour of chairing, accepted my report unanimously. I take this as an encouraging sign that the House will do likewise tomorrow, enabling appropriate steps to be taken in the very near future.

This is a case of virtuous simplification. It is simplification which, at the same time as simplifying, adapts to current circumstances and new ways of conveying information, rendering many bureaucratic procedures unnecessary and perhaps enabling us to devote more of our attention to making sure that food is transported hygienically from one part of the Union to another.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, on behalf of the PSE. – (RO) The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions requires land, rail or waterborne freight carriers operating within the Community to provide information on their rates, applicable agreements, terms of carriage, as well as the necessary documentation.

Thus, operators are forbidden to discriminate by applying differential rates (with reference to the same product being carried in the same transportation system on the same route), but discriminations are created according to the country of destination or of origin.

This is a very important Regulation, but as it had been in force since 1960, it needed updating. The draft amendment simplifies existing legislation and ensures more stability in the conditions applicable to the transportation of goods.

According to the statistics provided by the Commission, it is true, as the Commissioner said, that the Regulation will affect or will have some bearing on the activity of some 300 thousand transport operators, and this amendment will reduce Europe-wide administrative expenditure by some €160 million/year.

The European Parliament intends to reduce by 25% the administrative burden on enterprises by the year 2012. The proposal for the amendment of the two Regulations, as put forward to the Commission, is among the measures designed to achieve that objective.

It is true, however, that the Committee on Transport was notified in the codecision procedure, which is contrary to Article 73(3) of the Treaty. Hence the proposal put forward by Mr Costa as rapporteur was adopted unanimously.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, it would be negligent of me if I were not to reiterate, on behalf of our Group, what the Commissioner said in his opening words, namely that our Chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism has truly fulfilled his remit as committee chairman in dealing with this fairly unspectacular but nevertheless important regulatory issue of air transport services, especially because he succeeded in obtaining unanimous support within the committee.

We hope that the unanimity of our vote has made his life and his work much more agreeable and I just wanted to emphasis this a second time.

IN THE CHAIR: MR SIWIEC
Vice-President

  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I congratulate the Commission – and you do not hear that very often from up here, do you? But this is a rare example of a report that is on the right road – to Damascus?

We insist on debating this proposition, for it seeks to cut regulation. It admits that small businesses are being weighed down by unnecessary legislation, some of it going back to 1960. The explanatory statement says that these unnecessary administrative burdens hamper economic activity and have a negative impact on the competitiveness of enterprises. I could not agree more; why stop here? Why only limit unnecessary paperwork from 10 employees or less? Let us go the whole hog and apply it to the whole of the foodstuffs industry! Go on, make a bonfire of another 100 000 pieces of legislation! While you are at it, scrap the Commission, Parliament and the Council. I am serious. By cutting regulatory burdens, you enable the nations of Europe to throw off the shackles that will otherwise inevitably turn us into the economic also-rans of the 21st century.

  Paolo Costa, rapporteur. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to say that we are using more words than necessary here.

It seems to me that we are fully in agreement: the amendments needed to be made and go in the right direction; it is right to separate the two sets of legislation in order to abolish discriminatory transport conditions. My only recommendation would be that I repeat tomorrow what I said in committee, in the hope of achieving the same outcome: a unanimous, or almost unanimous, vote on this proposal.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday.

17. Airport charges (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0497/2007) by Mr Stockmann, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on airport charges (COM(2006)0820 – C6-0056/2007 – 2007/0013(COD)).

  Ulrich Stockmann, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, of course it is always better when the Commissioner is present, as there are some critical points that I would like to put to him directly, but I will have to do this at a later time.

For more than 15 years we have been trying, or rather the Commission has been trying, to lay down a regulatory framework in the form of an EU directive on airport charges. Two attempts have already failed because of the conflict of interest between the airports and the airlines and between the different Member States. On this occasion, too, there was a great deal of conflict and I cannot recall a single one of the 189 amendments in committee that was generally accepted by all the parties involved.

Many airlines want to see as much cost transparency as possible from the other side, the airports, and a regulatory authority that would ultimately set the prices, along with the introduction of the ‘single till’ system. Many airports would prefer no change whatsoever to the status quo. Moreover, the negotiations were also hampered by the structural particularities that exist in various Member States.

The United Kingdom, for example, already has a rigorous regulatory authority, the CAA, while at the same time most of the airports want to be deregulated and indeed the trend is in that direction. In Sweden, Portugal, Greece, Finland and Spain many of the airports are operated in a system of airport networks with standard airport charges, which means cross-subsidisation and often results in little transparency. In Spain airport charges are even laid down by Parliament, in other words the Members of Parliament decide on the levels that will apply. In Germany this area has been controlled at federal level and not by a national authority, while in the new Member States airport charges are needed to a large extent to develop the airport infrastructure.

I mention all these different interests if only to demonstrate how complicated these negotiations have been. What we have achieved to date has therefore been primarily directed at settling these conflicts of interest, for we in the committee are of the opinion that such a regulation is needed and that every effort should be made to agree on one.

So what has been achieved so far towards settling these differences? We have reduced the field of application to airports with either five million passenger journeys or more a year or 15% of the national passenger throughput in the Member State concerned, for in the case of regional airports with less than five million passengers a year the risk of an abuse of market power is either small or absent. Secondly, we have stipulated that airports will be free to choose their preferred business model, and thirdly, we have included airport networks generally within the scope of the directive. Fourthly, we have firmed up the role of the regulatory authorities and allowed them to delegate all or part of the provisions to regional regulatory bodies. Fifthly, we have introduced stricter requirements for the intervention of the regulatory authority and, sixthly, we have again allowed airport managing bodies to pre-finance infrastructure projects via their airport charges, as had been possible in the past, though subject to certain conditions. We want to see differentiation of charges based on objective criteria and according to the level of services provided and the environmental performance, and we want to see a system for defining and concluding an overall service level agreement.

The compromises that have been negotiated were adopted by the Committee on Transport and Tourism with only one dissenting vote. That is a real achievement, considering the starting position, and on this point I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs for their close and constructive collaboration.

We now have to lay down standardised principles of transparency, non-discrimination and regulated consultation and notification when setting airport charges in Europe. This will help reduce future distortions of competition and make it more difficult for those who might seek to abuse their market power.

The directive will, in my opinion, make a significant contribution towards stabilising the inherent partnership that exists between airports and airlines and at the same time will strengthen Europe’s position as an air transport hub. I therefore call on Members to support the Committee on Transport and Tourism in tomorrow’s vote on the directive at first reading.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Stockmann for his considerable efforts and briefly present the proposal for a directive on airport charges.

This proposal for a directive seeks primarily to transpose into Community legislation the principles that the Member States have already approved within the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation: non-discrimination, transparency, consultation.

The framework the directive establishes on this basis will allow us to provide a structure for dialogue between carriers and airports when determining and collecting charges. For instance, the directive will require airports to consult carriers before adopting a decision on charges.

I took the same approach and consulted the air carriers and airports before drawing up this proposal, whose principles have been approved by both parties.

The directive also introduces the concept of an independent regulatory authority in each Member State. This body will play a key role as it will ensure respect for the basic principles I have just mentioned.

That is a brief outline of the goals of this proposal, for which Mr Stockmann is the rapporteur.

Before continuing to the debate, I would like to thank your rapporteur and the Committee on Transport and Tourism for their support for the Commission proposal.

Mr President, I believe that this proposal is fairly balanced, and as Mr Stockmann has just pointed out, we will undoubtedly have to be very vigilant about the way in which the directive is implemented in order to facilitate better cooperation between companies and airports.

Thank you. I will now listen with great interest to the speakers in this debate.

  Brian Simpson, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Stockmann for his report and, on behalf of the PSE Group, I would inform the Chamber that we will be supporting the line adopted by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

Our rapporteur has done a fine job in producing a more realistic and balanced position, but I still find it difficult to understand why this proposal was put forward by the Commission in this format and at this time.

Speaking now in a personal capacity: for many years within the civil aviation industry and with the Commission we have been fed a diet of deregulation and yet, in regard to airport charges, we are now being told regulation is the answer. I have to say that the irony of this is not lost on me. However, we are where we are.

I fully support the need for transparency in airport charges, with full consultation with the stakeholders. I fully support the need to ensure that airports in a dominant position do not abuse that situation and I fully support an open and transparent appeals procedure, provided that the rules of engagement and the remit of the arbitrator are clearly defined.

However, I very much doubt whether the proposition to regulate scores of airports throughout the EU is going to produce the utopia in airport charges that the airlines and the Commission want. Surely, if it is legislation to eliminate monopolistic practices that we seek, the regulation should be based on a market test relating to each individual airport, not an arbitrary figure plucked out of thin air for no apparent reason. I believe that, if you have to use a figure, you should use one that reflects the economic dominance of an airport, namely a percentage of national traffic, and address it to those airports that are dominant, not those which are not.

I am not against regulating airports that are in a dominant market position, but I think regulating the majority of airports to catch the big boys, based on an arbitrary passenger figure in a one-cap-fits-all regulation, is a flawed process.

  Arunas Degutis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) I would like to congratulate Mr Stockmann on a report in which he once again demonstrates tolerance and competence in dealing with quite controversial proposals. This future directive touches upon quite a specific area and is not usual regarding its content. We all perfectly understand that the majority of airports work under natural monopoly conditions and they inevitably get into interest conflicts and the users, i.e., the airlines, may suffer for this. Thus we all understand that regulation is essential in this area, however there is also a risk that regulation may give the opposite effect – increased costs and expenditure may result in higher prices for the services provided by airports and this may in turn impact airlines.

From the very first meetings with interested parties, the question of whether all airports should be regulated and if not then which and how many of them should be regulated rises. As a member of the Liberal Group, I am for regulation and state intervention in business which is as low as possible, all the more as I spoke to emphasize that about 25 airports in the European Community abuse monopolistic power or seek to do this. Therefore, my offer was such that regulation should encompass approximately that number. But to reach a compromise we agree with the position of the majority as well as other offers and have discussed compromises.

  Zsolt László Becsey, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to say how glad I am that a successful compromise has been reached in this new dossier where a joint decision is required. It has enjoyed the support of the various groupings at the Committee on Transport and Tourism level.

It may emerge that whether this matter has to be regulated at all and what the threshold will be [...] airports, airports below the threshold [...] lower threshold. I believe that we have made a good decision in that we have only dealt with those principles which are truly necessary for there not to be a practice of Member States deviating and therefore playing off against each other.

I am also glad that only airports that are really large or in a monopoly situation will be regulated. I also feel it is a joint success that a complaints process will only be initiated if the set threshold is exceeded. We have set realistic deadlines for this process, thus cutting short endless debates.

I personally feel it is a success that we have in the text the opportunity for prefinancing, and preventing malpractice here too. We have created a joint compromise on the range of tasks for the regulatory authority and on owner independence.

The greatest benefit will be transparency, which will offer a great deal of help in giving the public a proper breakdown of the price of an air ticket. The citizens of the Union will have their trust in the EU reinforced and at the same time the principle of subsidiarity will not be compromised as a result.

We have not resolved all the issues. I expect to see debate with the Council over a good few questions, security charges for example, or double check-in systems. In any case we now have what I feel to be a very strong position and I hope that this success will guide us in our negotiations with the Council. Thank you, Mr President, and once again I apologise for the lateness.

  Roberts Zīle, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Thank you, Mr President, Commissioner. First of all I would like to thank Mr Stockmann for the compromise he has achieved in this difficult area. In my view, the aviation market is actually the transport sector which calls for European regulation, since it is here that the national markets of the Member States play the greatest role. For that reason, it is very difficult to establish a non-discriminatory attitude towards EU aviation companies among the main owners of infrastructure in aviation, namely, airports. I am pleased that the Committee on Transport and Tourism is creating a compromise whereby discounts on charges may be applicable regardless of the quality or the quantity of services, and also to new routes. Also, with regard to the directive’s scope and relevance, it seems that the directive is touching the aviation business in one of its sore points. The wish of many to reduce the number of airports covered by the directive is proof of this. Thank you.

  Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there was another reason why the debate on airport charges and on their common regulation took such an extremely long time. An additional factor was the endless series of interventions in the course of the debate in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. This dossier was the subject of extreme lobbying, in other words there were lots of monetary interests tied up with it, and we as Members of this House have to ask one or two questions. What is behind all this? Why is this happening? Why such a hard fight, why such tough arguing? The answer can always be found by asking: who benefits from intransparency? The old question of who gains, or as the Latin puts it cui bono, helps provide an answer here.

Intransparency always benefits those who have market power, those who can dictate the conditions. Only in very few cases is this beneficial or even fair to the consumer. There is unfair competition whenever there is a lack of transparency, when there is concealed patronage and when there are hidden subsidies. This is why I considered it very important that we should produce a common regulation.

For me the downside is that we were not able to regulate a much larger number of airports. I would also have liked to include the smaller installations within the scope of the directive, for these are often in unfair competition with the larger airports because they massively promote the low-budget carriers.

Just one final point: I believe that it is very important to introduce an amendment that will link airport charges to emission performance. This is an opportunity for us to lessen the environmental impact of the air transport industry and at the same time to reduce the noise nuisance for the more seriously affected residents.

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, airports have much more influence on our economy, our spatial planning, our traffic on the ground and our environment than we could have foreseen in the past. Large airports with an important role as international transfer hubs, or as entry points to major conurbations have developed into shopping centres, business locations for offices and distribution companies, hubs for public transport on the ground and tollgates to the surrounding area.

They are either an important policy instrument in the hands of the authorities or they have been sold to an international company that seeks only profit and expansion. They also make profits outside the aviation sector, engage in international competition and find themselves involved in conflicts of interest with airlines, passengers, other users and local residents. Airports can be misused, because they can force every party that is dependent on them, from airline to passenger, to contribute disproportionately to their profit.

These expensive airports also lead to the development of smaller competing airports nearby, with lower charges, poorer facilities, taking up even more space and resulting in even more areas suffering nuisance. If the European Union regulates the income of airports, this should not be in order to safeguard the profits of these companies or to limit airlines’ costs, and nor should it be in order to strengthen aviation by offering passengers the lowest possible fares.

The aim must be to protect the environment as much as possible from the unremitting expansion of aviation and to promote safety in the best possible way. It should also be about transparency, so that flows of funds and unwarranted differences in rates of charges can no longer be covered up as business secrets.

An outcome is now taking shape in which airports with between 1 and 5 million passengers per year will not be covered by these rules. It would not surprise me if this resulted in more investment in smaller airports in densely populated areas. On other aspects too, such as the complaints procedure, the stringency of standards and the level of profits, the text will be moderated in comparison with the original Commission proposal. I anticipate that this will lead to the persistence of abuses and within a few years the demand for stricter rules will increase.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, this report on preventing the abuse by airports of their competitive position can count on my endorsement. I am especially satisfied with it on three points. The first is the adjustment of the field of application. Not all airports are able to abuse their position. The concentration on larger airports is sensible, therefore, and so I disagree with some of the previous speakers.

Secondly, I am happy with the opportunity for differentiation of charges in the report. In view of the harmful environmental effects caused by aviation at and around airports, the instrument of differentiation could encourage the use of cleaner and quieter aircraft. I also share the view that we should guard against putting an excessive administrative burden upon airports. For the sake of transparency, they should disclose certain information, but having said that we need to keep a sharp eye on costs and confidentiality.

Finally, I would like to say something about Amendment 19. While I warmly welcome an independent regulatory authority, I think that the wording of Amendment 19 could lead to problems in some countries, because the establishment of procedures and their supervision is assigned to one and the same organisation. I hope that the discussions with the Council will offer the opportunity to resolve this issue satisfactorily.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work and I look forward to the continuation of the debate on this report.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, the Commission talks much about promoting competitiveness in industry and about cutting red tape, but its walk in these issues is often one that takes Europe in quite the opposite direction, and so it seems to me with its stance on air travel.

Having championed increased costs for air travellers through green taxes, we now have a proposed directive on airport charges which will inevitably drive up costs for the flying public. Regional airports are my particular concern. They have been a catalyst for progress in many regional economies: they have opened up markets; they have made the inaccessible accessible; they have been indispensable in economic transformation. And now, true to form, the Commission wishes, effectively, to stifle them with the heavy hand of bureaucracy, burying innovation under a mountain of reporting requirements for which the traveller will ultimately pay.

I say this to the Commission: if the genuine reason for this directive is to tackle the abuse of dominant position in the market, then why does it include regional airports at all, when they are not the problem? In my own constituency of Northern Ireland, its airports are key to its development, yet last week, when President Barroso was providing sound bites of support for Northern Ireland – and on the very day that we open a new route between Belfast and Heathrow – we have this Commission proposal which will hike costs and discourage expansion. For those reasons, and without apology, I will vote against this proposal.

  Antonio De Blasio, Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee of Regional Development. − (HU) Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. First, my apologies for the delay and thank you for allowing me the floor.

The creation of a transparent system for airport charges is of paramount importance since there is currently no standardised regulation governing this. The Commission’s Framework Directive has provided for a method of levying airport charges but gives Member States enough room for movement too. Airports and air traffic are of particular importance to the European Union since they are a link with the regions, create jobs and attract businesses. They make a significant contribution to social and economic cohesion in the EU.

With privatisation and the arrival of commercial players, the previous balance in airport charges has been thrown a little out of kilter. The airlines complain that the major airports behave as a monopoly. This problem is cured by the draft Directive which promotes proper market competition since the proposal states that the charging systems and the airports setting them cannot discriminate between the different airlines. With certain exceptions the charges must reflect the real costs of services or infrastructure.

Objective and clear criteria must be established for any charge differentiation or increase, so that users of airline and airport services pay clearly identified prices – the same charge for identical services.

The consultation mechanism we are introducing is also important. If the airlines are not satisfied with the charges levied on their behalf they can have recourse to an independent regulatory authority.

Finally, I feel it is very important to put on record the need for the Commission of the European Union to prepare a report on the success of the Directive for the European Council and the European Parliament within 4 years of its inception. This report would assess results and show whether the objectives of the regulation have been achieved. Thank you.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, there have been some wonderful arguments, at least in abstract and general terms, over whether we should have deregulation or over-regulation. However, when it comes to the individual case it is always possible that either of these solutions will prove to be the most practical. On the subject of airport charges the Commission was, in my view, quite right to put forward a proposal for a directive, even though in the case of the Costa report we were also right to praise the efforts being made to reduce the administrative burden.

Airports are important economic players and there are positive as well as potentially negative consequences associated with the key economic role they play. In its proposal the Commission has put forward an interesting concept, though perhaps it is somewhat too finely woven. We in the Committee on Transport and Tourism have made a few changes, and I hope, and indeed believe, that these are for the better.

Our rapporteur, Mr Stockmann, held a series of lengthy talks with all the stakeholders, and especially with the various groups in this House, before producing some excellent compromises that we were for the most part able to support.

I would just like to focus on three aspects. Firstly, we wanted to ensure that the directive would prevent individual airports from abusing their dominant market position. Secondly, we need Community-wide provisions in order to establish a smooth-functioning, non-discriminatory, transparent and comprehensive procedure for calculating these charges. Thirdly, it is logical to set up an independent regulatory authority in each Member State in order to ensure that the provisions are implemented.

I am assuming that our proposals will be adopted tomorrow in plenary by a large majority and would like to congratulate the rapporteur, in particular, on his excellent work.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Stockmann for his excellent report and good cooperation. I think that when we reach the end of the legislative process we will have taken an important new step toward achieving a situation where the most important European airports are finally observing the same rules when it comes to levying all kinds of charges for services related to landing, take-off, airport lighting, parking of aircraft and the processing of passengers and freight.

The field of application was one of the major sticking points. I think that the compromise is excellent: 5 million passengers, 15% of the flights in a Member State. Account should also be taken of the fact that in our compromise we have made provision for Member States to be given the opportunity, if necessary following an enquiry, to require other airports in the same Member State to comply with these regulations too.

I think that there are four important elements. The first is that transparency is the constant theme right through the legislation and the imposition of relevant objectives and transparent criteria for determining the level of airport charges is essential.

The second is that variation in the level of airport charges will continue to be possible, and I also have in mind, for instance, variation based on environmental performance, based on noise nuisance. This would make a steering policy possible.

The third important element is that a clear and compulsory procedure is worked out for consultations between the airport managing body and users and that a good complaints procedure is established. The final element is that clear agreements are to be made on pre-financing of significant investments in the airports and how these can be costed.

To sum up, I think that we can come up with a good end result if the Council has the will to do so. I realise that there will be a few problems on the way. I am also thinking about the approved amendments on financing security measures, which were mainly intended as a means of exerting pressure to find a solution for another issue, as you know. Meanwhile that is over and done with, and so I think that we in Parliament should be more flexible in the remainder of the procedure.

  Eugenijus Gentvilas (ALDE). – (LT) The directive proposed by the European Commission ensures cooperation between the institutions controlling airports and the users and this will not allow large airports to ignore the interests of clients and take a monopolistic position in the market. That is why I want to favour this report as a member of the Committee on Regional Development. Air transport has to meet the economic and social needs of regional communities and it is important to emphasize that 90 percent of European Union citizens live not in the capital cities. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure success in the functioning of regional airports as this will help to increase the attractiveness of the regions.

The presented document reduces the risk of a monopolistic position by the largest airports and this will help to soften the environmental, infrastructural and transport problems facing large airports and the cities located near them. Namely this will enable a more rapid pace of development at regional airports and ensure the social and economic development of regions in various countries. The distribution of freight and passenger flows is a very important base for effective regional development. Therefore, I encourage support for Mr Stockmann’s report once again.

  Adam Bielan (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, one of the European Union's responsibilities is to ensure that the Community market develops in accordance with the principles of fair competition.

The directive on airport charges aims to prevent potential abuses by airports enjoying a dominant position on the Union's market or in particular countries. It was proposed because not all countries apply transparent procedures when calculating airport charges. The new provisions are to apply to 67 large airports. I think we would do well to remember that the development of airports, especially smaller ones, plays an important part in promoting regional development in Europe. It makes a significant contribution to evening out economic differences between individual regions of the Union. This is especially true in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

My country, Poland, is one of the leaders in air transport. The Polish air transport market grew by 13% last year and is amongst those enjoying the most dynamic growth in the world. Air traffic growth calls for substantial investments, however. That is why it is essential to allow smaller airports to include in their airport charges part of the cost of long-term infrastructure development projects. This would be of great assistance in financing their development.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, in this one-minute speech I would like to highlight the amendments we tabled in order to ensure that this directive takes explicit account of the constraints suffered by regions that are permanently at a geographical and natural disadvantage, such as the outermost regions, particularly in accordance with Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty.

We believe that the directive must explicitly recognise the importance of airports to the social and economic development of these regions and to territorial cohesion. Adequate exceptions must therefore be included in the directive, hence the proposal that, for airports situated in these regions, the rules laid down in the directive will not apply where they will not guarantee compliance with the universal public service obligations. We hope that this proposal can count on your support.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I think it is useful, from time to time, to remind the Commission that Ireland is an island and that we have a complete dependence on airports to be part of Europe and part of the rest of the world. The important issue for me is regional airports and that they get full support.

In many cases I keep hearing the argument that helping small airports will increase the carbon footprint but I do not think that is true. When all flights go out of Dublin, it just means that all the people who live near Cork Airport, as I do, or Shannon Airport or Waterford or Kerry, have to drive to Dublin or take a second flight – a shuttle to Dublin – and then go on. Whereas often these flights could reasonably, with support for regional airports, go from a regional area directly to where they need to go.

My other point concerns disabled passengers. It was not long ago that, when you got the breakdown of charges for airports in Ireland, it would have a wheelchair charge. Many disabled persons contacted me and asked that this be removed because they felt that other passengers would feel that they were paying extra because of people in wheelchairs. It is very important that we realise that one out of every ten persons in Europe will have a disability, possibly even more than that – up to 17% sometimes – and that there should not be specific charges.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE). – (PT) More and more journeys are being made in Europe and to Europe, but it is becoming increasingly expensive to travel in and to our continent. The factors giving rise to this higher cost, such as the increased price of oil, security costs and the reduction of CO2 emissions, are persistent factors that are very clearly here to stay.

In this context, our goal must be to encourage a truly competitive airport market, which is only viable where there is transparency and predictability. These are, I believe, the main virtues of this proposal for a directive in its version currently being debated, to which Mr Stockmann has significantly contributed. One of its particular virtues is the set of general rules for determining and levying airport charges, which lay down common principles to prevent any abuse of a dominant position. As these rules apply to around 70% of airports, this very correctly avoids imposing legislation on smaller or regional airports where this risk does not exist.

In addition, as regards situations such as those that exist in Portugal or Finland, for example, where air traffic is managed by associations or networks of airports, provision is made for harmonised charges for all, provided that they are compatible with competition rules. The following points must also be highlighted: the establishment of a duty for airport operators and users to exchange information, transparency requirements and the method of calculating airport charges. The creation of an independent national regulatory authority that will intervene only in the event of definitive disagreement over a decision on airport charges will also contribute to the proper functioning of the market.

Finally, I must conclude, Mr President, by saying that the definition of strict and transparent criteria for using charges to pre-finance new airport infrastructure projects simultaneously protects the public interest in the development of airports and new airport infrastructures and also the rights of passengers, in other words consumers, whose interests must, after all, be the main focus of our attention.

  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his patience in listening to and noting the various requirements that reflect the existing diversity of the airport systems in Europe. I would also like to congratulate the Commission on being sensitive to the fact that that diversity cannot, however, imply systems that are far from transparent, which can be discriminatory or provide for limited participation on the part of the various stakeholders and users.

Following the rapporteur’s in-depth dialogue and arbitration, I believe that the current text offers us a very useful instrument to ensure that the three main stakeholders – national authorities, airports and airlines – resolve their differences, in short for the benefit of the workers and passengers. It will enable them to provide a high-quality service that is in keeping with the requirements of the new passengers and with the new requirements surrounding accessibility, greater security, less environmental impact, especially as regards noise, and less conflict and legal uncertainty through better consultation.

Perhaps it might have been better to make the application criterion simpler, stipulating only a percentage, which might have given a more representative result. In any event, I am pleased that the text recognises the operational capacity of the airport networks, which have proved to be a very useful system for countries such as my own, where serious seasonal problems affect the airlines.

In addition, I would also like to add to this the proposal to accept parliamentary or judicial methods of ensuring the current rates.

  Samuli Pohjamo (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Stockmann, for having prepared the debate on this issue so thoroughly. I nevertheless wish to focus attention on something else, from the point of view of someone who lives in a sparsely populated country of long distances between population centres.

Airports in Finland form a coherent network, where standard pricing applies in the main. This arrangement has guaranteed reasonable operational costs, even at airports with little traffic located in remote districts. Air connections to these areas are vital.

Amendments 9 and 16 take account of the existence of an airport network, but small airports are treated unfairly. I hope Parliament will take into consideration the different conditions that exist in the Member States and shape the directive in a way which enables maintenance, development and funding of a national airport network on a uniform basis.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to begin by saying that I appreciate the work undertaken by Mr Stockmann, the rapporteur, and by the Commission.

The competitiveness of the European economy calls for a transparent and rational approach to airport charges. The latter are a significant component of the carriers' operational costs. This issue concerns not only airport owners but also airlines and therefore passengers too. Airports of national or continental importance are affected along with regional ones.

The question of the size limit arises. Is the proposed amended criterion of 5 million passenger movements or 15% of passenger movements in a particular country appropriate? In no circumstances should these provisions impact negatively on passengers. The services provided by airports must comply with the criteria for safety and punctuality of arrivals, departures and transfers. We are all aware that at the moment our airports differ considerably as regards punctuality culture. In some of them the passenger is treated as a nuisance. Improvements and better passenger service would be most welcome.

  Jim Higgins (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am very pleased at the outcome of the negotiations that have been ongoing for a number of months, and I am glad to see that a common-sense approach has been taken by Parliament.

The original European Commission proposal that this directive would apply to all airports with passenger numbers greater than one million per annum was extremely worrying, particularly from an Irish viewpoint, because, if this approach had been adopted, then the directive would have applied to both Shannon and Cork airports, and possibly, in due course, to Ireland West Airport as it seeks to continue its expansion operations. What I have been arguing is that airports under the five million passenger per annum threshold are subject to much stronger market forces than larger airports, and to subject them to the terms of this directive would put an unnecessary stranglehold on regional airports.

Given the position adopted by Parliament today, we can now expect larger airports to be more transparent with their pricing policies and financing of infrastructural developments. We will also see a strong independent regulation in all Member States to ensure that airports and airport users do not abuse their dominant market power.

I am particularly glad that, while appeals are being dealt with that airport users cannot delay plans adopted by the airport, I myself think that the six-month notice of price changes, while biased against the airline, will ensure adequate time for agreement and negotiation, if necessary, by both parties. The fact that the airport user cannot delay airport plans will allow airports to begin infrastructure plans without delay and thus save them – and ultimately air passengers – money, as they will most likely be the beneficiaries of added cost projections.

I would like to thank my colleagues in Parliament who supported my amendments to the original proposal, and who supported my view during the negotiations, which will mean that regional airports – the smaller airports – will continue to be free, at least for the foreseeable future, from more red tape and costs of bureaucracy. Again I join with everybody: congratulations to Mr Stockmann, the rapporteur, on a job well done.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must thank and congratulate Mr Stockmann for his openness and capacity to achieve compromise between the various interests involved in the preparation of this high-quality report, particularly with regard to the outermost regions. I support the broad lines of the Commission’s proposal and I am committed to this report because it guarantees non-discrimination in airport charges, except where this is compatible with, and necessary under, the Treaty, specifically with regard to forecasts for the outermost regions. A compulsory procedure for consultation between airport management bodies and users must exist. Any differentiation in charges must be transparent and based on clear criteria, taking into account the principle of territorial cohesion.

According to our proposal, future remodelling will be possible for objective and transparent reasons of public interest, particularly in relation to universal access. Member States must ensure, and I quote, ‘that airports levy the same charge for the same service. The airport managing body may grant airport user concessions on charges based on the quality of a service used, provided that the concession in question is available to all users of the airport under publicised, transparent and objective conditions. It may grant a concession to users which open new routes … in accordance with EC competition law ...

The President cut off the speaker

  Alojz Peterle (PPE-DE). – (SL) As an MP, a traveller and a pilot, I am pleased that with this directive the Union is for the first time regulating the sphere of airport fees, which I find useful for several reasons. Firstly I think it is crucial that it is allowing us to determine common principles for the levying of airport fees, which will lead to greater clarity and less discrimination.

The second emphasis I see is the initiation of dialogue between airport authorities and airline companies, which should mean that greater attention will be paid to passengers, whether in terms of their safety or the quality of service. It seems to me important that with this directive we have shown our favourable attitude towards the development needs of airports, i.e. the possibility of higher taxes, but under the condition that there is a dialogue with the users giving them clear information and ring-fencing the taxes exclusively for developmental purposes.

Finally, I would like to give strong support to the establishment of independent regulatory bodies in the hope that, in accordance with the principles of proportionality, it does not lead to excessive bureaucratisation. I am especially thinking of those Member States that have one large airport and one largely state-owned national airline. Although in such cases we do not need extensive regulatory bodies, it is urgently necessary to provide a structural separation of that function from activities relating to ownership or supervision.

Allow me also a remark about terminology: In my opinion it is more appropriate in English to use the term "independent regulatory authority" than "independent supervisory authority", because the latter could be understood as some kind of inspection body, which is not intended by this directive. For the second reading I propose that the possibility of exception, or opt-out, be introduced under certain conditions for those airports operating in special circumstances. My congratulations to the rapporteur and those cooperating with him.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Stockmann, on his significant improvements to the Commission’s proposal.

All the airports falling within the scope of this Directive will be subject to the same rules of transparency and will provide information regarding the calculation and use of airport charges.

According to Recital 1, the main task of airports is to ensure the handling of aircraft, from landing to take-off, and of passengers and cargo. Given the wide range of activities taking place in an airport, it is necessary to clearly define the responsibilities of each entity and in particular the manner of funding of these activities.

However, we should pay particular attention to the possibility of actually enforcing this Directive in all Member States.

Continued dialogue between airports and transport operators is indispensable. One of our amendments asks for airport charges introduced to cover security costs to be used exclusively for implementing security measures.

Member States should also use Structural Funds in order to develop the infrastructure of their regional airports.

According to Eurostat data on five new Member States, air passenger traffic increased by 25% in 2006 in relation to 2005.

Over the same period Romania has seen the most significant increase (35%).

  President. − Mr Stockmann, as rapporteur, you will have the opportunity to speak at the end of the debate. Do you wish to speak now or wait until the end?

  Ulrich Stockmann, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, even though ‘catch the eye’ is not really intended for rapporteurs, I would just like to direct one or two questions to the Commissioner because he did not hear my presentation of a short while ago. I will be brief, when I get the next opportunity.

  President. − All right, that is clear, but we have to finish our list. We shall therefore move on to the next speaker and then continue with the ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I believe the essence of this debate can be summed up with the question: how do you measure market dominance?

This directive is the Commission’s attempt to bring a large number of Community airports under regulation, and it has seen fit to do this because it believes there could be an imbalance in the relationship between airports and their users, the airlines. In some cases they are right; the more sizeable airports in the EU, like London Heathrow and Paris Charles de Gaulle, should be regulated so they are not in a position to abuse their market dominance. But I believe the smaller regional airports of the EU should only be regulated when they are found to be operating anti-competitively.

So, back to the question: how do you measure market dominance? A system that captures every Community airport with passenger numbers of five million per annum and above is arbitrary but certainly better than one million. And, where an airport accounts annually for more than 15% of the passenger movements in the Member State, that is better too – but still arbitrary.

Newcastle Airport in the UK, for example, with 5.2 million passengers, still has to compete with other airports all over the north of England to attract business. Why add burdensome and costly red tape to the smaller regional airports that do actually compete with each other and need to grow? That is why I want the possibility for national regulators to opt out their airports from this regulation.

The secondary aims of this directive are, however, very good. Common rules on provision of mutual information, transparency and the collection of charges is something which I applaud. But surely, in this case, the Commission should not regulate further than that for regulation’s sake.

  Ulrich Stockmann, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to ask the Commissioner about those points on which our position in the committee differed significantly from the Commission proposal: firstly, on reducing the scope of the directive to 5 million passenger movements; secondly, on the inclusion of airport networks, which is a completely new point; thirdly, on firming up the responsibilities of the regulatory authorities and allowing them to delegate duties to regional bodies; fourthly, on pre-financing, which the Commission had not included, even though it is allowed under the ICAO. Finally, I have one more question: what is your position on the differentiation of charges according to environmental criteria? These are the questions that I would still like to see answered.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, in the interests of not repeating anything that has been said, I fully support the need for more transparency in airport charges. As charges at airports are not part of the operational costs of airlines but are part of the operational, development and maintenance costs of airports, I would like to know the Commission’s view on the compulsory need for airlines to refund airport charges if a passenger has to cancel a flight.

At the very least they should get full credit, if not an actual refund of any airport charges on a cancelled flight. I do not think it is acceptable for airlines to pocket airport charges if flights are cancelled. Some of them are doing that at the moment, others will refund after taking a hefty administration charge out of it, which makes it unworthy to pursue the actual refund itself.

That is a small point but a very irritating point for passengers in the EU, and I think we should say something now and tie that in to what we are talking about here.

IN THE CHAIR: LUISA MORGANTINI
Vice-President

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) Since we have the duty to ensure transparency, correct information for users and passengers, and quality of air transport services and since, during the first 11 months of 2006, 211 new regional routes were created – thus generating 1 800 new flights a week – I would like to ask the Commission what measures are being taken to inform passengers of airport charges, as passengers unfortunately do not know their rights when flights are cancelled or delayed.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would once again like to thank your rapporteur, Mr Stockmann, who has prolonged our dialogue. We – and I, personally – engaged in dialogue with the airports and the airlines. Thank you, Mr Stockmann, for having listened to both sides because it is not easy to establish, to some extent, the rules for good dialogue that allow balanced solutions to be achieved and that ensure that airports in dominant positions cannot abuse that position.

I will now respond to your questions, Mr Stockmann. As far as the number of passengers is concerned, we feel that 5 million is acceptable. It is essential to take the networks into account and I accept that. However, I am very reluctant to support the delegation of duties to regional authorities. This could be dangerous and I do not see how it would be of any benefit. We need an impartial authority that will ensure that the airports concerned are subject to the same conditions regarding dialogue and the determination of charges. I support the differentiation of charges according to environmental criteria. However – and I am going to come back to this – there is no reason to envisage any pre-financing of infrastructures. When looking at how to manage an airport successfully and the charges to be collected, it is obviously necessary to anticipate future infrastructure requirements. There is no need for pre-financing.

In addition to those answers, I would now like to respond to some of the comments made. Firstly, I would like to say to Mr Simpson that the directive has managed to stay away from regulation and bureaucracy. What we want to see is respect for the basic principles. The Member States have already accepted these principles within the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We do not want to introduce regulation for the sake of it. I honestly believe that we can genuinely say that we have found the best framework for ensuring good dialogue between the airlines and the airports, and, in my view, it is as part of this dialogue that progress will be made in the area of transparency. Mr Allister said that the directive was going to make regional airports more expensive. Quite the opposite is true, however! On the contrary, through transparent accounts, through this obligatory consultation, through non-discrimination among carriers, we will in fact ensure, particularly in certain regional airports, that there is complete transparency and that it is easier for the consumers, the passengers to travel by air, without any nasty surprises.

As I said, and I am responding here to Mrs Lichtenberger, the directive allows the Member States to establish charges or taxes on the basis of noise pollution or other environmental aspects. However, since this directive is trying to stay away from over-regulation, we do not need to define every one of those taxes. In response to Mr El Khadraoui, I would say that it will certainly be possible to adjust the charges on an environmental basis. The Council proposed this and I intend to support it.

Some of you have asked me about the problems concerning flight cancellations. To be honest, the text does not deal with that issue, so it is difficult for me to respond. There has been a great deal of progress on passengers’ rights, and that must continue. I would ask you, Madam, to contact me in writing so that I can provide a more precise response to your question, which, I admit, is quite legitimate, like that of Mrs Ţicău, who also spoke.

Mr President, I would now like to outline briefly the Commission’s position on the amendments. A number of the amendments tabled by your rapporteur strengthen the Commission’s goal of improving the relationship between airports and airlines. Mr Stockmann, the Commission can take over 21 of the amendments that contribute to that objective. I would mention, in particular, the amendment on the definition of a charge, Amendment 12, and the amendments on airport networks, Amendments 14 and 16, with a few changes to the wording. The Commission had initially proposed that the directive should apply to airports whose annual traffic is over 1 million passenger movements. The Commission accepts the new limit proposed in the first part of Amendment 7 since it seems to be supported by the majority of both Parliament and Council. However, 27 of the amendments tabled by your rapporteur cannot be taken over as they stand and would need to be discussed in more detail. These include, in particular, the amendments on security charges: Amendments 13, 21, 22, 23, 24. This issue was the subject of long and heated debates. A compromise was reached during conciliation and it seems, Mr Stockmann, that these amendments are therefore no longer necessary at this stage. In addition, the directive cannot apply solely to cases of infringement of competition law. As such, the Commission cannot accept the amendments concerning situations where airports have a dominant position in relation to their users. The scope of the directive is broader than that. We therefore feel that Amendment 7 in part, Amendment 16 in part, Amendment 19 and Amendment 20 are unnecessary. Nor can the Commission accept the amendments on the pre-financing of airport infrastructures. The collection of a tax before an infrastructure is operational is contrary to the principles on which the directive is based.

However, this does not take anything away, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from Mr Stockmann’s excellent work, which, in my opinion, has considerably improved this draft directive. I have commented on a number of amendments, but I must once again thank Mr Stockmann and the Committee on Transport for the quality of their work and for helping us to move forward with this important text, which will enable us to structure the dialogue between airports and airlines. We want to prevent the users from being victims of this lack of dialogue and we want to prevent a situation whereby, due to a lack of transparency, a number of practices can be implemented without any real possibility of approving them. Those are the comments I wanted to make. I would like to thank Parliament for its commitment to this proposal. I think that it should provide our airports and airlines with the means of establishing permanent dialogue that will benefit all of the parties concerned.

Commission's position on amendments by Parliament

Stockmann report (A6-0497/2007)

Amendments acceptable: 8, 10, 11, 12

Amendments acceptable in principle: 3, 21, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, 40, 44, 45

Amendments acceptable with redrafting: 14, 15

Amendments partly acceptable: 7 (1st part), 16, 17, 18, 22, 35 (1st part)

Amendments rejected: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48

  Ulrich Stockmann, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank everyone for their comments and suggestions. We still have a certain distance to go together and there will be some hard bargaining when the Council presents its common position.

In recent weeks it has become apparent that the Council is coming over to our way of thinking on several points, including the scope of the directive, the subject of airport networks and the rejection of ‘opt-outs’ by national states. However, there are also some new points that have not yet even been discussed, such as setting national upper limits on charges. There therefore needs to be further internal discussion on these matters. It will first of all be important to reach as much common agreement as possible on these points tomorrow so that we have a strong negotiating mandate when presented with the Council’s position.

I would like to thank you, Commissioner, for the detailed position that you have presented. I would just like to conclude by explaining why infrastructure pre-financing is so important for this Parliament: for one thing, it is possible under the ICAO; secondly, we naturally do not want to see a sudden escalation of charges when the new infrastructure comes on the market; and finally, of course, there is a large backlog demand, not just in Eastern Europe but in other new Member States too. However, I know that this is a contentious issue and we will have to wait and see what progress can be made here.

Thank you again and I look forward to further discussions with you and with my fellow Members here. May I also thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation.

(Applause)

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE), in writing. − (RO) The initiative of clarifying the regulations concerning airport charges and the development of transparent, non-discriminatory procedures for the calculation of these charges is welcome, because it prevents any abuse on the part of market-dominant airports.

Transparency and the uninterrupted exchange of information between air transport service providers and clients are thus ensured for both individual airports and airport networks. Moreover, Member States may apply the provisions of this Directive to other airports within their territory, thus encouraging competition and implicitly reducing airport charges, for the benefit of end-users.

Due to the existence of common standards, passengers will get the same services for the same prices, and cost-effectiveness will be the only criterion used by airports in the management of their equipment and services. The appropriate enforcement of these procedures will be ensured by the establishment of an independent national regulatory authority in each Member State.

It is my firm belief that European citizens will benefit first and foremost from this regulation. Other benefits will include: further investment in the aviation sector, improved passenger safety, security and trust, which in turn will lead to a significant long-term contribution to the development of air transport in the European Union.

18. Export and import of dangerous chemicals (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0406/2007) by Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (COM(2006)0745 - C6-0439/2006 - 2006/0246(COD).

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to thank and congratulate the European Parliament and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, the shadow rapporteurs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as well as Mrs Mann and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for their excellent reports and the views expressed at first reading.

For the last 30 years the European Union’s policies and legislation on the protection of public health and the environment have made significant progress in reducing the risks posed by chemical substances, not only in the European Union, but also worldwide. The European Union has constantly been an important partner in international conventions, including the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade. Regulation 304/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals implements the Rotterdam Convention within the Community. On many points the regulation does not stop at the provisions of the Rotterdam Convention, but goes further by offering a higher level of protection for countries that import chemicals.

On 10 January 2006 the Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted a judgment annulling Regulation 304/2003 on the grounds that it should have had a dual legal basis, namely Articles 133 and 175(1) of the Treaty. In response, the aim of this proposal is to adopt a new regulation with the aforementioned dual legal basis. At the same time, the Commission, on the basis of its report on experience to date in implementing the relevant procedures, has put forward certain technical amendments to the provisions of the regulation. This report was submitted to the European Parliament and the Council at the same time as this proposal. The Commission’s main proposals for amendments to the regulation are as follows:

Firstly, certain exceptions are being proposed to the central requirement for explicit consent in countries of import prior to export. These exceptions are implemented only in cases in which, despite reasonable efforts on the part of the Commission and of the national authority designated by the country of export, there is no response to the request, and provided that certain conditions are met. These exceptions are intended to create a certain degree of flexibility, while at the same time maintaining a high level of protection – one which is, indeed, higher than that provided by the Rotterdam Convention.

Secondly, an exception is proposed to the requirement of explicit consent in cases where chemicals are exported to OECD countries, if certain conditions are fulfilled.

Thirdly, the rules relating to the period of validity of explicit consent are clarified. In addition, explicit consents are reviewed at regular intervals, as well as in cases where alternative evidence is accepted.

Fourthly, procedures and means to allow access by the customs authorities to information are laid down, since in most Member States these authorities play a principal role in ensuring compliance with the regulation, especially as regards controlling exports.

Madam President, I should like to express my satisfaction with the efforts we have all made to reach agreement on this regulation at first reading. The European Commission is able to accept the compromise package of amendments in order to reach agreement at first reading.

  Johannes Blokland, rapporteur. – (NL) Madam President, as rapporteur for the import and export of chemicals, I am pleased to be able to report here that we have achieved a good result at first reading. I would therefore like to thank everyone who collaborated on this. I am thinking particularly of the secretariat of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the shadow rapporteurs and their staff, who were outstanding in the support they gave me. I greatly appreciated the good cooperation with the Council, especially with the Portuguese Presidency, and the European Commission.

It was a technically complex proposal, and the discussion sometimes became quite heated on the question of what exactly was best for the environment. The most important thing that we have achieved, in my view, is that through this new regulation the trade in dangerous chemicals will be dealt with in an ethically responsible manner.

We especially wanted to operate from the principle that will be familiar to you as the golden rule: 'Do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself’. Although this is an ancient principle, which we find in the Bible, as well as in other religions, this aspect led to the usual discussions.

The original Commission proposal did actually contain very liberal arrangements for allowing the export of dangerous chemicals with tacit consent. This was proposed, while for developing countries especially it is important that there is complete transparency about what is being imported. After all, we are talking about substances that are banned in the European Union or severely restricted. I believe that we have got a good result in the agreement reached. It means that the protection and awareness-raising of developing countries is guaranteed when it comes to dangerous substances.

Madam President, this new regulation properly implements the global Rotterdam Convention, which was adopted in 1998 but has only officially been in force since 2004. I can therefore wholeheartedly recommend that everyone vote tomorrow in favour of the agreement reached with the Council.

Finally, Madam President, I would also like to make a case for the Council and the Commission to do as much as they can to extend the list of substances in the Rotterdam Convention. There are about 40 substances on the list of the Convention at the moment. There are certainly 200 substances that have been nominated to be assessed and possibly added to that list. To protect developing countries especially, we need to set to work energetically on the other substances.

  Erika Mann, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (DE) Madam President, I should like to extend my warmest thanks most especially to the rapporteur and the Commission, and of course to the Council too. We have presented a very good report here. We in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy have given a high priority to producing a practical regulation that will control the international import and export of hazardous chemicals in a reasonable and logical way and that is sufficiently coherent that the importing countries can understand what we in the European Union are trying to achieve. That essentially was the main problem, namely that we had put in some nice things and we had put in some dangerous things but no-one could understand what it actually all meant, all the stuff that we then added in the supplement to the international list.

The proposal before us is a good regulation and I hope that it will be understood at international level, so that it can also be properly applied. Things that are not understood will of course not make much sense. This can be just as dangerous; if something is not understood then it will not work no matter what.

The Committee on Industry is satisfied and I should particularly like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, for having negotiated with such persistence and common sense that we ultimately achieved a good compromise. I would just request that we do not try to add further to the list immediately but that we test out what is there so that we then actually have a piece of legislation that works.

  Frieda Brepoels, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the regulation before us, as you know, concerns a highly technical issue. That is why there was no provision for a debate originally, but now that we have the opportunity to express our point of view after all, I would like to say something briefly on behalf of the PPE-DE Group.

I am also very pleased that, after a number of informal consultations with the Council and the Commission, we have reached an agreement at first reading. This was only possible in fact thanks to the efforts and openness of our rapporteur, who was willing to listen to all parties. Naturally I also thank the Commission and the Council for their contributions.

Now the present regulation on the import and export of certain dangerous chemicals, in addition to the dual legal basis – Article 133 and Article 175(1) – and a number of technical changes, does indeed focus, as the rapporteur has also already mentioned, on the amended procedure for explicit consent, which is dealt with in Article 13. The informal discussions mainly concentrated on that issue.

I am convinced that greater flexibility is appropriate in some cases, not only to safeguard the export interests of European countries, but also to guarantee the highest level of protection of the environment and public health for all parties concerned. That way certain dangerous chemicals may still be exported without explicit agreement or consent, but under very strict conditions.

I think that the wording in the agreement ensures that the safe export of substances is guaranteed and even strengthened. This last point was indeed achieved by scrapping part of the Commission’s original text. As the PPE-DE’s shadow rapporteur, I am also confident that, together with the Council and the Commission, we have reached a good, balanced and practicable compromise. I hope that my fellow Members will approve everything tomorrow.

  Gyula Hegyi, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Madam President, first of all I would like to welcome the report and of course I welcome the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention, which is an important international convention on the ban of several dangerous chemicals.

The topic is not unknown to me. I worked as the shadow rapporteur of the PSE Group on the restriction of several chemicals, including the ban of PFOS and the export ban on mercury, and now I and my colleagues are working on the restriction of ammonium nitrate and other substances. We had good cooperation on these issues with my colleague Mr Blokland.

We have to understand that a European-level ban is sometimes not enough. For instance, DDT and lindane have been banned in the EU for many years but their presence can still be detected in the blood of our citizens. Following the European ban on certain chemicals, it frequently happens that several multinational companies produce and sell the banned chemicals in non-EU countries, especially in the Third World. Then the banned chemicals easily return in imported products and they are also present as environmental pollutants in oceans, seas, rivers and air. The export ban on mercury, fully supported by this House, showed us the right reaction. The same treatment is needed for other dangerous chemicals as well.

I underline the importance of the international chemical conventions – the Rotterdam Convention, the Stockholm Convention and the SAICM – as only these instruments can lead to an international solution to the problems caused by chemicals.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I also wish to congratulate Mr Blokland for an excellent report and for the admirably skilful way with which he has handled all the procedural issues concerned with this important report. Additionally, I wish to thank him for the respect and attention he has shown to all shadow rapporteurs. The Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals, enriched with the compromise joint amendments by almost all the parliamentary groups, will present a set of adequate and much-needed rules which will most likely provide protection of public health and of the environment at a high level. The serious problems caused by unscrupulous international merchants of toxic substances are well known and feared, and it is very much hoped that the implementation of the Commission’s proposal will assist in helping developing nations to counter the serious hazards to the well-being of their citizens and to our environment.

Apart from the substance of this piece of legislation, it is also noteworthy that it demonstrates to some extent the usefulness of the Court of Justice decision concerning action of the Commission against the Council and the European Parliament. At the same time, it raises questions as to why such actions had to be taken in the first place, and why the three core institutions of the EU could not find ways of agreeing amicably and without the need to resort to court deliberations. Such action inevitably brought about delay, was expensive and may have caused a certain amount of avoidable interinstitutional animosity. Nonetheless, it has happened, and it must now be put behind us – although it must perhaps guide all of us to perhaps take wiser decisions in the future and avoid court actions as much as possible.

  Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Madam Chairman, let me thank Johannes Blokland for the excellent cooperation we have had throughout the process. It is ten years since the Rotterdam Convention was signed, and it was said then that prior written approval should be sought for the export of dangerous chemicals. After all we are not dealing with just any chemicals; the list of chemicals contains the most hazardous chemicals used by man on earth today. So it has taken ten years. One reason for that is the stubborn attitude of the old Commission which insisted that it was just a commercial matter. I thank Stavros Dimas for ensuring that we now have an appropriate legal basis and can take things forward.

Nor was it always easy to negotiate with the Council. I was shocked when the Presidency thought that lethal chemicals, which are in practice banned in the EU, could be exported to other countries over long periods without prior consent. The reason for this was that the Council did not want European industry to be at a competitive disadvantage. The real competitive disadvantage to our industry, however, would arise if it were forced to jeopardise health, the environment and international law in order to survive. It is absurd to claim that we have to breach international conventions just because others do not comply with rules and standards. You might as well say that the EU should export illegal drugs because, if it does not, the Mafia will.

I am glad that we were able to agree in the end and finally plug the loophole for non-approved exports. We now have legislation which does not just cover Convention chemicals but also contains requirements for other chemicals which are strictly controlled in the EU. These must now be assessed against health and environmental criteria by the appropriate authorities prior to export. It is good that the period for exemptions has been shortened from 36 to 12 months. It is also good that chemicals contained in products are covered. Finally we have legislation which is acceptable and improves on the Commission’s proposal but could have been even better if public health and the environment had taken precedence over corporate interests; that is after all the only sustainable economic model.

  Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, I too would like to thank Mr Blokland. I am pleased that the European Parliament has changed tack and has closed this massive loophole. We know that there are more than 1.5 million cases of poisoning and nearly 30 000 deaths a year in the developing world. It would have been appalling if the Commission’s proposal had come into force, as this would have meant that dangerous chemicals could be exported without the authorisation of the importing countries provided that no response had been received within 90 days.

It would also have been a very questionable interpretation of the health and environment legislation if we had continued exporting when on the one hand we are laying down a new safety landmark by way of the latest pesticide certification, while on the other we are doing the very opposite with our exports. The EU should not just be ensuring a high level of protection on its own doorstep but should also be advocating the same for the rest of the world, and this paradoxical softening of the export rules would have done nothing for the EU’s credibility.

What is more, we need greater transparency when it comes to the export of chemicals and pesticides. There needs to be a better system for disclosing the quantities of products being exported by the EU Member States. After all, we are talking about the movement of goods that are subject to restrictions and prohibitions and we in the Member States need maximum transparency in this area. We therefore require more information on the quantities involved and on the particular Member States the materials are coming from.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, as we are new to this procedure – and, having looked around, everybody else present has spoken – does that mean I can have five minutes myself? I assume I can have at least two, which was the time taken off our side to allow the ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure. It is a matter we need to clarify.

I stand to support colleagues on this important regulation, which is on its second trip through the committees and these houses, because of a Court of Justice ruling 12 months ago that it should have been a dual legal base originally.

The main point I want to speak on under the ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure is my general concern about legal bases and the trouble we have been running into here, not just with this piece of legislation but also with others. A lot of time is spent, at committee level as well as plenary, in debating amendments in relation to single versus dual legal bases and different views.

I think it is time that this Parliament took stock of exactly the procedures we arrive at – different legal bases – because, often, dual legal bases are proposed to us or are proposed at Council coming back to us before a common position is reached for what I would call sloppy legislating reasons, because the larger the EU gets – 27 Member States now and growing, and I welcome that – the harder it is to be tidy in our legislation. We really must look at what we are doing in this area. So it is interesting that the reverse is true here. In fact, the Court of Justice has said that we need a dual legal base in this particular area rather than the single legal base, which normally makes life much easier – if we can keep to a single legal base – because very often dual legal bases have been lawyers’ charters.

I wonder whether the Commissioner could indicate what exactly the challenge to the Court of Justice was in relation to the single legal base, who took it, and if he could give us more information on why the Court of Justice itself determined, if you like, on a dual legal base. They have given us time to go through the procedure again and have maintained the effects of the regulation until we readopt it, as it were, and I very much welcome the fact that it looks like we are going to have a first reading agreement because of all the cooperation all round. The Commissioner’s views on that and on the whole saga of the legal base that has us here a second time would be very welcome.

  President. − I allowed you the extra time, as I did others, since the five minutes were obviously not excessive given that there are not many Members present, but only this once.

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Madam President, I would like to thank all the speakers for their positive comments.

I fully acknowledge and share Parliament’s desire to achieve a high level of protection for human health and the environment, particularly in those countries that do not have the requisite infrastructure or capacity to correctly handle hazardous chemicals.

I also fully agree with the view that the European Community should play a leading role in establishing a legal framework for the Community so as to ensure a high level of protection. On many points, the regulation does not restrict itself to the provisions of the Rotterdam Convention, but lays down implementing conditions that offer a high level of protection for all the countries of the world, not just for members of the Convention.

I am convinced that this example will encourage other countries to follow suit and to join the Convention. The Commission will make every possible effort to support the Rotterdam Convention to enable these goals to be achieved.

In response to the concerns voiced on arsenic and mercury, the Commission would like to stress that, pursuant to Article 22(3) of Regulation 304/2003, if metallic arsenic is banned or subjected to a rigorous restriction within the Community, then a proposal will be submitted for the application of the relevant annex. Furthermore, the Commission stresses that work is in progress in the Council and in Parliament concerning the proposal to ban exports of mercury to countries outside the Community, a ban which, as long as it is in force, goes beyond the requirement for consent imposed by the Rotterdam Convention and the Community regulation, which implements it.

Once again I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their efforts and their excellent work, in particular Mr Blokland. The Commission is particularly satisfied with the result of negotiations and considers all the proposed compromise amendments to be acceptable.

As for the dual legal basis, it would, in fact, have been much easier and simpler had we had a single legal basis, but we well know the problem that arises so often: here we have, if I remember rightly, Article 133 with Article 175, while in most other cases we have Article 95 with Article 175. Certainly, in proposing a legal basis, we always rely on the opinion of our Legal Service. Here, as I have already said, we have dealt with trade and the environment, and this was the reason for the European Court of Justice’s decision on the dual legal basis.

  Johannes Blokland, rapporteur. – (NL) Madam President, Mrs Doyle and Mr Matsakis raised the problem of the legal basis and Commissioner Dimas, who I also want to thank warmly for his reply, also touched on this.

The problem, when I was rapporteur, was indeed that the President of the Council came to see me and said: ‘We in the Council are unanimous in having serious problems with “trade” as the legal basis; we want to take advice from our Legal Service and make it “environment”’.

Parliament consulted its own Legal Service, and our Legal Service was absolutely confident that the legal basis should not be ‘trade’ and that it had to be ‘environment’. On that basis we came to this conclusion then, almost unanimously, at least in the Council.

It would actually have been better if we had not taken this problem to the Court of Justice, but had opened up negotiations with the Commissioner, with the President of the Council and with Parliament in order to find a political solution to this problem. What happened then? Yes, fortunately the regulation has come into force. It worked: the Council treated the matter as urgent, Parliament treated the matter as urgent. However, there was a great deal of discussion, and in the end that led to everyone being in the wrong: the Commission, the Council and Parliament.

The Court of Justice pronounced a kind of judgment of Solomon and said: dual legal basis, while the Council and Parliament had been assuming that you could not have that, that it was impossible. In a situation like that you end up in the position that we are all in the wrong, that it has cost years of delay, though fortunately not at the expense of the developing countries, as the work carried on anyway.

In any event, we spent quite some time on this. I think that we should act together to prevent these problems in future. When Commissioner Dimas had his preliminary interview with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, we also raised this problem with him.

We also raised the problem in the three hearings with Commissioner Verheugen and with the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso. We had the positive impression at the time that it was not so much a decision of the Commission to go to the Court of Justice but a decision of the Legal Service. I think that from now on it should be left not to the lawyers but to the politicians to resolve this problem.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The proposal for a Regulation concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals is an improvement in the use of chemicals, in that the health of the population and the environment are protected more effectively. The regulation aims to encourage the joint accountability of exporters and importers and to support them in their cooperation effort so as to ensure control over the international circulation of hazardous chemicals. The new regulation amends the definition of the exporter so as to include persons who export such dangerous chemicals from the EU but are not resident in the EU, thus ensuring an effective control and supervision of the flow of hazardous chemicals.

The Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure, whereby certain chemicals require explicit authorisation by the importing country, also helps trading countries to obtain more accurate information concerning the hazardous chemicals prohibited on environmental and public health grounds which may transit importing countries. Nevertheless, the PIC procedure is no substitute for effective and sustained border controls, and Member States should cooperate to ensure the effective management of the movement of these hazardous materials on their territory.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE), in writing. – (DE) The new regulation on the import of certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides now includes a number of sensible technical amendments. In the past, international trade in this area was forever being halted because of administrative obstacles. This was mainly due to the fact that the importing country had to give its ‘explicit consent’ before the goods could be shipped out. There is no doubt that this consent is absolutely essential when dealing with potentially hazardous substances and for this reason it is a requirement that should be retained.

The principle of subsidiarity is, after all, one of the pillars of the Union and it is important that the Member States themselves should in future still be able to determine which potentially hazardous substances are allowed to cross their borders.

However, from the point of view of free trade we need to retain a certain amount of flexibility in this area. Having more room for manoeuvre also makes it easier to prevent those countries whose import surveillance systems have not yet been sufficiently developed from being taken advantage of by exporters whose operations are not effectively monitored. The current compromise takes these considerations into account and not only ensures that potentially dangerous chemicals are traded in a responsible way but also provides the room for manoeuvre that is needed so that the international exchange of goods can continue to run smoothly.

19. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

20. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at

9.50 p.m.)