PDF 1210k
It-Tlieta, 15 ta' Jannar 2008 - Strasburgu Edizzjoni riveduta
1. Ftuħ tas-seduta
 2. Dokumenti mressqa: ara l-Minuti
 3. Testi ta' ftehim imressqa mill-Kunsill: ara l-Minuti
 4. Dibattiti dwar każijiet ta' vjolazzjoni tad-drittijiet tal-bniedem, tad-demokrazija u l-istat tad-dritt (tħabbir ta' mozzjonijiet għal riżoluzzjonijiet imressqa): ara l-minuti
 5. Strateġija Kommunitarja 2007-2012 dwar is-saħħa u s-siġurta fuq il-post tax-xogħol (dibattitu)
 6. L-applikazzjoni ta' l-iskemi tas-siġurtà soċjali għall-persuni impjegati, għall-persuni li jaħdmu għal rashom u l-membri tal-familja tagħhom li jiċċaqilqu ġewwa l-Komunità (dibattitu)
 7. Kreditu għall-Konsumaturi (dibattitu)
 8. Ħin tal-votazzjonijiet
  8.1. (A6-0517/2007, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski) It-twaqqif ta' sħubijiet Ewropej fil-qafas tal-proċess ta' stabbilizzazzjoni u assoċjazzjoni (votazzjoni)
  8.2. (A6-0506/2007, Bogusław Liberadzki) Kontroll tat-trasport bit-triq ta' merkanzija perikoluża (setgħat implimentattivi mogħtija lill-Kummissjoni) (votazzjoni)
  8.3. (A6-0513/2007, Paolo Costa) It-tneħħija tad-diskriminazzjoni fir-rati u l-kundizzjonijiet tat-trasport (votazzjoni)
  8.4. (A6-0497/2007, Ulrich Stockmann) Imposti ta' l-ajruporti (votazzjoni)
  8.5. (A6-0406/2007, Johannes Blokland) Esportazzjoni u l-importazzjoni ta’ sustanzi kimiċi perikolużi (votazzjoni)
  8.6. (A6-0515/2007, Csaba Őry) L-applikazzjoni ta' l-iskemi tas-siġurtà soċjali għall-persuni impjegati, għall-persuni li jaħdmu għal rashom u l-membri tal-familja tagħhom li jiċċaqilqu ġewwa l-Komunità (votazzjoni)
  8.7. (A6-0494/2007, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis) CARS 21:qafas regolatorju dwar il-kompetizzjoni fis-settur tal-karozzi (votazzjoni)
 9. Seduta formali - Grand Mufti tas-Sirja
 10. Ħin tal-votazzjonijiet (tkomplija)
  10.1. (A6-0481/2007, Piia-Noora Kauppi) It-trattament fiscali ta' telf f'sitwazzjonijiet transkonfinali (votazzjoni)
  10.2. (A6-0518/2007, Glenis Willmott) Strateġija Kommunitarja 2007-2012 dwar is-saħħa u s-siġurta fuq il-post tax-xogħol (votazzjoni)
 11. Korrezzjonijiet u intenzjonijiet għall-vot: ara l-Minuti
 12. Aġenda
 13. Approvazzjoni tal-Minuti tas-seduta ta' qabel
 14. Qafas Plurijennali għall-Aġenzija ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea għad-Drittijiet Fundamentali għall-2007-2012 (dibattitu)
 15. Lejn strateġija ewropea dwar id-drittijiet tat-tfal (dibattitu)
 16. Sitwazzjoni allarmanti ta' l-iskart fir-reġjun tal-Campagna (dibattitu)
 17. Ħin tal-mistoqsijiet (mistoqsijiet għall-Kummissjoni)
 18. Edukazzjoni u taħriġ ta' l-adulti: Qatt m' huwa tard li titgħallem (dibattitu)
 19. Miżuri li jużaw applikazzjonijiet ta' remote-sensing żviluppati fi ħdan il-qafas tal-PAK (dibattitu)
 20. Statut tal-Membri tal-Parlament Ewropew eletti fil-Polonja (dibattitu)
 21. Spjegazzjonijiet tal-vot
 22. Aġenda tas-seduta li jmiss: ara l-Minuti
 23. Għeluq tas-seduta



1. Ftuħ tas-seduta

(Η συνεδρίαση αρχίζει στις 9.00)


2. Dokumenti mressqa: ara l-Minuti

3. Testi ta' ftehim imressqa mill-Kunsill: ara l-Minuti

4. Dibattiti dwar każijiet ta' vjolazzjoni tad-drittijiet tal-bniedem, tad-demokrazija u l-istat tad-dritt (tħabbir ta' mozzjonijiet għal riżoluzzjonijiet imressqa): ara l-minuti

5. Strateġija Kommunitarja 2007-2012 dwar is-saħħa u s-siġurta fuq il-post tax-xogħol (dibattitu)

  Πρόεδρος. – Η ημερήσια διάταξη προβλέπει τη συζήτηση της έκθεσης της Glenis Willmott, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Απασχόλησης και Κοινωνικών Υποθέσεων, σχετικά με την κοινοτική στρατηγική 2007-2012 για την υγεία και την ασφάλεια στην εργασία (2007/2146(ΙΝΙ)) (A6-0518/2007).


  Glenis Willmott, rapporteur. − Madam President, health and safety at work encompasses a vast array of issues. At a simple level, it is about reducing accidents at work and work-related illness. For the individual, it is about his or her physical integrity, dignity and well-being. For businesses, it is about reducing the costs of absenteeism, sick pay and loss of productivity. For society as a whole, the costs of poor health and safety at work have been put at an astronomical 3.8% of gross national product.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, signed last month in this very Chamber – despite the disgraceful outburst of certain UKIP and Conservative MEPs – provides in its Article 31 that everyone has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity. It also provides that every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours.

The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work estimates that every year over 140 000 people in the EU die from occupational diseases and nearly 9 000 die from work-related accidents. These figures mean that every three and a half minutes somebody in the European Union dies from a work-related cause. That means that, in the short time I have been speaking already, it is possible that somebody has died and, by the time this debate is finished, it is probable that 20 people will have died.

Some of our colleagues may contest the fundamental right to good health and safety at work, but I am sure none of them would question the right to life. A health and safety at work strategy for the EU should be strong on properly implementing and enforcing the existing regulatory framework. What we already have in place is largely very good, but it does need to be consistently enforced throughout the Union. However, this does not mean that, where existing legislation is clearly inadequate, we should not update it in order to make it work properly and provide the best levels of protection possible. It also does not mean that we should react to suggestions for legislative instruments like a vampire does to garlic, as some would do in this House.

Of course, no one would argue that the legislative route is always the best. However, there are cases when binding rules are necessary in order to ensure that a new or emerging risk is properly and consistently addressed in all Member States. The Commission communication is to be welcomed and applauded for its target to reduce work-related accidents and its strong focus on SMEs. However, we also need to focus on occupational illnesses which have a huge cost in terms of workers’ health, the cost to businesses and their productivity and to society as a whole through associated social security and health care costs.

The report reflects this and urges the Commission to ensure that occupational diseases are correctly identified and remedied, with a particular focus on occupational cancers, with a view to setting targets for their reduction. We also need detailed action plans with financial and timing commitments. Besides the targets for a 25% reduction in accidents, there appear to be few ways in which progress can be monitored and measured. Priorities for action identified in my report include a carrot-and-stick approach to enforcement of existing legislation. I would like to see the Member States reward business for good health and safety with tax rebates and a preference in calls for tenders and the introduction of a bonus-malus system in insurance policies, as well as other financial incentives. However, I would also like to see tougher sanctions for those rogue employers who neglect the health and safety of their workforce, as well as more infringement proceedings against Member States who do not adequately implement and enforce the existing health and safety legislation.

Any health and safety strategy should naturally focus on those who are most at risk. Such vulnerable groups include migrant workers, who are often exploited, as well as young and ageing workers, who need special attention, and those with disabilities. It is essential that the 1989 Framework Directive be rigorously applied to these groups and other workers who are often ignored, such as agricultural and health care workers, when drawing up and implementing their strategies. The Member States need to take full account of these groups. We need a framework directive on musculoskeletal disorders to address a problem such as lower back pain – repetitive strain injuries, effectively – and lower back disorders.

There are lots of other issues I would like to raise but we are running out of time, so I look forward to hearing other colleagues and what the Commission has to say.


  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. − Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αξιότιμα μέλη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, θα ήθελα πρωτίστως να ευχαριστήσω την κ. Willmott για την εξαιρετική έκθεση που εκπόνησε σχετικά με την κοινοτική στρατηγική για την υγεία και την ασφάλεια στην εργασία.

Η Επιτροπή δίνει μεγάλη πολιτική προτεραιότητα στην υγεία και την ασφάλεια στην εργασία και συμμερίζεται τις απόψεις σας όσον αφορά μεγάλο αριθμό των συστάσεών σας.

Πράγματι, θα ήθελα να υπογραμμίσω ότι πρέπει να είναι κοινοτική στρατηγική και όχι απλώς στρατηγική της Επιτροπής. Αυτός είναι, όντως, ο μόνος τρόπος για να επιτευχθεί ο πρωταρχικός και φιλόδοξος στόχος, που είναι μια συνεχής και αειφόρος μείωση των εργατικών ατυχημάτων και των επαγγελματικών νόσων. Συνεπώς, μια από τις πρώτιστες μέριμνές μας θα είναι η συμμετοχή όσο το δυνατόν περισσοτέρων μερών σε πολιτικό, επιχειρησιακό και υπηρεσιακό επίπεδο.

Ο στόχος της Επιτροπής στη στρατηγική επίτευξης μείωσης κατά 25% των εργατικών ατυχημάτων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, κατά τη διάρκεια της περιόδου 2007-2012, επιβάλλει, πράγματι, την ενεργό συμμετοχή και δέσμευση, όχι μόνον των δημόσιων διοικήσεων αλλά και των παραγόντων πρόληψης σε επίπεδο χώρου εργασίας των κοινωνικών εταίρων.

Είναι πολύ σημαντικό να υπογραμμισθεί η δέσμευση που ανέλαβαν τα κράτη μέλη στο ψήφισμα του Συμβουλίου της 25ης Ιουνίου του 2007. Να αναπτύξουν, δηλαδή, και να εφαρμόσουν στρατηγικές για τη δημόσια υγεία και την ασφάλεια στην εργασία, με βάση τις εθνικές συνθήκες, σε συνεργασία με τους κοινωνικούς εταίρους. Να καθορίσουν επίσης εθνικούς, μετρήσιμους στόχους για την μείωση των εργατικών ατυχημάτων και των επαγγελματικών νόσων, ιδίως στους τομείς δραστηριότητας στους οποίους τα ποσοστά είναι πάνω από τον μέσο όρο.

Η Επιτροπή είναι ιδιαίτερα ευχαριστημένη για την ανταπόκριση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου στην ανακοίνωσή της και για την υποστήριξη των γενικών προτεραιοτήτων και γραμμών δράσης που καθορίστηκαν σε αυτήν.

Σημείωσα τις ανησυχίες του Κοινοβουλίου σχετικά με την ανάγκη κατάλληλου σχεδιασμού και κατανομής των πόρων, καθώς και με την εκτίμηση και την υποβολή εκθέσεων προόδου, όσον αφορά τους στόχους της στρατηγικής.

Η Επιτροπή θα παράσχει λεπτομέρειες και το ακριβές σχέδιο των ειδικών μέτρων που θα αναληφθούν σε κοινοτικό επίπεδο στον πίνακα αποτελεσμάτων της κοινωνικής ατζέντας. Επί πλέον, θα εξασφαλίσουμε τη συμμετοχή της Συμβουλευτικής Επιτροπής για την υγεία και την ασφάλεια στην εργασία, στα πλαίσια μιας τριμερούς ανταλλαγής πληροφοριών σχετικά με το περιεχόμενο των εθνικών στρατηγικών, τους στόχους, τις αναληφθείσες δράσεις και την παρακολούθηση της επιτευχθείσας προόδου. Θα διασφαλισθεί η έγκαιρη πληροφόρηση του Κοινοβουλίου όσον αφορά τα αποτελέσματα αυτής της διαδικασίας.

Όσον αφορά το αίτημά σας για αναθεώρηση της οδηγίας 91/383 του Συμβουλίου, θα ήθελα να πληροφορήσω τα αξιότιμα μέλη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, ότι οι υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής αναλύουν επί του παρόντος την κατάσταση σε διάφορα κράτη μέλη βάσει μελέτης που εκπονήθηκε από εξωτερικό σύμβουλο. Κατά τη διάρκεια του 2008 θα καταρτισθεί σχετική έκθεση και η Επιτροπή θα αποφασίσει ποια θα είναι η περαιτέρω δράση της σε αυτόν τον τομέα, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τα συμπεράσματα της εν λόγω έκθεσης.

Όσον αφορά το αίτημα για την αναθεώρηση της οδηγίας 92/85 του Συμβουλίου, θα ήθελα επίσης να σας πληροφορήσω, ότι οι υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής, αφού συμβουλεύθηκαν τους ευρωπαϊκούς κοινωνικούς εταίρους σχετικά με πιθανές τροποποιήσεις της εν λόγω οδηγίας, διενεργούν επί του παρόντος εκτίμηση αντίκτυπου, προκειμένου να προσδιορίσουν τις συνέπειες ορισμένων τροποποιήσεων της εν λόγω οδηγίας. Εάν μετά την ολοκλήρωση της εκτίμησης αντίκτυπου η Επιτροπή αποφασίσει να υποβάλει σχετική πρόταση, είναι μάλλον βέβαιο ότι η πρόταση αυτή θα εγκριθεί από την Επιτροπή εντός του 2008.

Συμμερίζομαι την άποψή σας όσον αφορά την ανάγκη βελτίωσης, κατά τη διάρκεια της επόμενης περιόδου, της εφαρμογής της κοινοτικής νομοθεσίας για την υγεία και την ασφάλεια, ιδίως όσον αφορά τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, με έναν συνδυασμό μέτρων τα οποία παράλληλα θα τονώσουν την ευθύνη του εργοδότη και τη συμμετοχή των εργαζομένων.

Όσον αφορά την επαγγελματική υγεία, αναμένω ότι η νέα στρατηγική θα είναι ένα επί πλέον βήμα προς τη δημιουργία υγιέστερου περιβάλλοντος στην εργασία σε ολόκληρη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, όπου θα ικανοποιούνται οι ανάγκες ενός γηράσκοντος πληθυσμού εργαζομένων και θα προστατεύονται πλήρως οι πιο ευάλωτες ομάδες. Η Επιτροπή θα εντείνει τις προσπάθειές της για κατάλληλο καθορισμό δεικτών υγείας και άλλων στατιστικών μέτρων, προκειμένου να διασφαλισθεί ότι οι κίνδυνοι της επαγγελματική υγείας παρακολουθούνται σωστά.

Είμαστε βέβαιο ότι οι προτεραιότητες που ορίζονται στην κοινοτική στρατηγική 2007-2012 και εκείνες που ορίζονται στην έκθεση που θα εγκρίνετε σήμερα, ανοίγουν το δρόμο για ασφαλέστερους και υγιεινότερους χώρους εργασίας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.


  Edit Bauer, Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. − Madam President, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality stresses in its opinion that the most significant health problems presented by women and caused by their working conditions are musculoskeletal disorders and psychological problems, on the one hand. On the other hand, it stresses that the need to analyse the risks that women and men face and take appropriate measures does not mean the reintroduction of protective policies of exclusion, nor does it mean developing different jobs for women and men.

Even though the framework of Community occupational safety and health (OSH) directives is neutral in its approach to gender, it is not a sufficient reason for work-related risks to women’s health and safety to be underestimated and neglected compared to the risk to men’s health and safety, both in terms of prevention and research.

Workers, male and female, across the European Union are exposed to different risks in their workplaces: chemical, biological and physical agents, adverse ergonomic conditions, a complex mix of accident hazards and safety risks, together with various psycho-social factors. Therefore, women and men do not constitute a homogeneous group. Consequently, strategies and measures to improve OSH must be specifically adapted to particular workplaces, taking into account the fact that some factors might affect women and men differently.

The opinion also stresses new risk factors such as harassment, violence and bullying by clients at the workplace, mainly in public service sectors that employ mostly women. Finally, it emphasises the need to consider the introduction of hazard, risk and prevention concepts in school curricula and the educational systems in general as an effective means of building a strong and sustained preventative safety and health culture.


  Thomas Ulmer, im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren Kollegen und Kolleginnen! Vielen Dank an Frau Willmott für die faire und gute Zusammenarbeit. Der Bericht spiegelt den hohen Stellenwert des Themas Gesundheit und Sicherheit am Arbeitsplatz in der EU-27 wider. Die wesentlichen Elemente des Schutzes werden betont und gewichtet. Die Kosten für die Sicherheit und die Unfallverhütung sind hoch, aber lassen Sie mich hier eindeutig betonen: Gesundheit ist nicht bezahlbar! Wichtig ist, dass in allen Mitgliedstaaten die Bestimmungen umgesetzt und angewandt werden, wichtig ist Hilfe zur Umsetzung und Beratung durch die Europäische Union, nicht Strafe.

Ein besonderes Augenmerk gilt aus meiner Sicht den kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen, die hier Unterstützung brauchen, um im Wettbewerb mithalten zu können. Hier fordern wir die Kommission auf, die entsprechenden Rahmenbedingungen für die kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen zu schaffen, wo sie noch nicht vorhanden sind, und dort, wo sie bereits vorhanden sind, dieselben zu verbessern. Der Schutz der Arbeitnehmer darf nicht vom Land ihres Arbeitsplatzes oder der Größe ihres Betriebes abhängen.

In der Kürze der Zeit will ich nur einige Punkte aufzählen, die von besonderer Bedeutung sind, wie der verbesserte Schutz vor Hepatitis und Aids, und die weitere aufwändige, aber planmäßige Entfernung von Asbest aus der Arbeitswelt. Das Augenmerk gilt hier für mich der Hepatitis B, und hier insbesondere Personen, die beruflich ein erhöhtes Risiko tragen, sich mit Hepatitisviren zu infizieren, also im Bereich der Medizin, der Pflege und der Ersten Hilfe.

Im Bereich der Ersten Hilfe müssen in vielen Mitgliedstaaten auch die im Katastrophenschutz, in der Rettung und bei den Feuerwehren ehrenamtlich Tätigen mit einbezogen werden, die sozusagen in einem zweiten, nicht bezahlten Beruf ihren Einsatz bringen. Insgesamt waren für mich die Stringenz des Berichtes — das Festhalten am Thema — und die Vermeidung von Beispielen, die in vielen Bereichen eine Vorverurteilung gebracht hätten, sehr wichtig.

Vielen Dank für die gute Zusammenarbeit! Die EVP-ED-Fraktion stimmt dem Bericht zu.


  Pier Antonio Panzeri, a nome del gruppo PSE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il 6 dicembre scorso un incidente ad un impianto della Thyssen Krupp a Torino ha causato la morte di sette operai: un fatto gravissimo, che dimostra quanto sia ancora non risolto il problema della sicurezza!

Ma la tragedia torinese impone un'altra riflessione da compiere qui in quest'Aula: avremmo dovuto attenderci da questa multinazionale un comportamento serio, ma così non è stato. I giornali italiani riportano ieri che in un documento riservato e redatto da un big manager della Thyssen Krupp, dopo il tragico rogo dell'acciaieria e sequestrato dalla magistratura, vengono definiti i lavoratori sopravvissuti e intervistati dopo l'incidente operai che fanno gli eroi e i divi in televisione. Non ci sono parole per descrivere questo fatto, se non considerarlo una mascalzonata.

Sarebbe davvero importante che questo Parlamento, e anche lei, signor Commissario, fuori dalle formalità, potesse e volesse esprimere il proprio sdegno nei confronti della Thyssen Krupp. Quanto è successo a Torino avviene un po' dovunque e sollecita, anche sulla base della buonissima relazione Willmott, l'impegno di una vera e propria moratoria contro gli incidenti e le morti sul lavoro.


  Elizabeth Lynne, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, this is a very good report and I wish to thank the rapporteur for her cooperation.

I am pleased that the report talks about better implementation of the current directives. I also welcome calls for better inspection. There is no point in Member States paying lip-service to implementation, as many do in the field of health and safety, and then, quite often, calling for more legislation, even if the scientific and medical evidence does not establish a risk.

One area which does require legislation – and we called for this in 2005 – is prevention of the more than one million needlestick injuries that affect healthcare workers each year across the EU. Imagine the horror of being accidentally pricked by a needle and then having a horrendous wait to see whether you have contracted a serious infection, such as HIV or hepatitis B!

The Commission must heed our call and bring forward an amendment to the 2000 Biological Agents Directive. In some areas, exchange of best practice is probably enough, which is why I am pleased that my amendments on health care-acquired infections were adopted in committee. Infections like MRSA are serious not only for hospital patients, but also for hospital workers. Rates of infection vary considerably between Member States. For example, the rate of infection in the UK is 10 times higher than in the Netherlands. We need to know why, and how we can learn from best practice. That is why, in one of my amendments adopted in committee, I called for an EU code of good practice on health care-acquired infections, and for the screening of all health care workers to be encouraged across the EU.


  Sepp Kusstatscher, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Zunächst danke auch ich der Berichterstatterin, Frau Willmott, für die ausgezeichnete Arbeit, vor allem auch für die große Kompromissbereitschaft. Mehr als 160 000 Tote und rund 300 000 Arbeitsunfähige pro Jahr in der EU aufgrund von Arbeitsunfällen und arbeitsbedingten Krankheiten – das ist zuviel! In unserer Gesellschaft, wo der Mensch oft nur als Produktionsfaktor gesehen wird, wird der humane Aspekt dieses Problems zuwenig bewertet. Den ausschließlich profitorientierten Wirtschaftstreibenden muss der Staat – also Gesetzgeber und Regierung – auch die Folgekosten dieser Ausbeutung aufrechnen. Nur so wird erreicht, dass Sicherheit und Gesundheit am Arbeitsplatz das nötige Gewicht bekommen.

Arbeitsunfälle werden in der öffentlichen Meinung eher wahrgenommen als die große Vielfalt der arbeitsbedingten Erkrankungen. Hier braucht es mehr und intensivere Anstrengungen. Nur durch genaues Hinschauen, d.h. durch Kontrollen und Analysen, sowie durch das Festlegen von präzisen Zielen zur Reduzierung von Berufskrankheiten, auch von neuen Krankheiten, beispielsweise infolge der Nanotechnologien, können Verbesserungen erreicht werden.


  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, adopting this report on health and safety at work would add yet more bureaucracy and red tape, just when I thought the Commission were intending to reduce that!

Workers losing time through illness and injury put up the cost to the enterprise concerned and hence their prices. In an EU of free movement of goods and services there is more competition, so those who do not look after their workforce lose business. People off work through illness also raise the cost of social benefits, contributing further to a rise in prices. It is therefore in a company’s best interests to keep its workforce in good health.

Good ideas always spread, so that should not be too difficult. This depends, of course, on there being a free market, but of course, if like some members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs you think this leads to the law of the jungle, then you have another serious illness to contend with. Apparently, Member States which promote a free market are psychiatric cases.


  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). – Madame le Président, avec les suicides de travailleurs chez Renault et Peugeot, en France, les milliers de cancers du poumon chez les ouvriers des métiers de l'amiante, il y a évidemment un problème de santé au travail.

Pour agir, la Commission européenne présente une communication élevée au rang de stratégie pour la santé, mais en réalité quand on la lit, on se trouve en présence d'une résolution Walt Disney, rédigée par Blanche-Neige pour ses sept nains. Et effectivement c'est très mignon. Ainsi, au paragraphe 35 de la résolution, on nous dit qu'il faut avoir des modes de vie sains au travail; au paragraphe 29, il faut faire des visites médicales; au paragraphe 54, il faut des extincteurs d'incendie; au paragraphe 49, le stress n'est pas bon pour la santé, et au considérant d), on découvre que dans le bâtiment, il y plus d'accidents mortels que dans la haute fonction publique européenne.

Heureusement d'ailleurs que le rapporteur de la commission de l'industrie nous donne des solutions, avec un psychologue et un aumônier par tranche de 500 salariés.

Mais en réalité, on ne nous dit rien sur les causes des maladies au travail. Il y en a trois. D'abord, l'idéologie de l'abaissement de nos protections aux frontières qui met nos travailleurs en concurrence déloyale avec les travailleurs esclaves d'Asie. Pour résister, c'est la course à la productivité, au prix de la santé.

Ensuite, la politique sotte de l'euro fort nous prive de compétitivité monétaire. La seule variable d'ajustement, c'est alors un supplément de course à la productivité, avec encore la santé compromise.

Enfin, la philosophie névrotique de la compétitivité, c'est la guerre économique entre l'Europe, l'Asie ou l'Amérique latine. Or, pendant la guerre, il y a des blessés et des morts, en l'occurrence des victimes de maladies et d'accidents du travail. Autrement dit, le travailleur européen est dans l'arène économique planétaire comme un taureau de combat stressé et saigné qui va jusqu'au bout de sa santé. La solution, c'est alors de sortir nos salariés de cette arène planétaire déloyale, et cela s'appelle une nouvelle technologie douanière de droits de douane déductibles.


  Romano Maria La Russa, relatore per parere della commissione per l'industria, la ricerca e l'energia. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, avrei voluto passare in rassegna i punti focali di questa strategia ed elaborare le raccomandazioni contenute nel mio parere: la necessità di garantire uguale copertura sociale a tutti i lavoratori indipendentemente dalle forme di contratto, lo snellimento delle procedure burocratiche per le medie e piccole imprese, l'esigenza di prevedere incentivi anche di carattere finanziario nella formazione sono aspetti di primaria importanza.

Ma parlare solo di ciò sarebbe tuttavia ingeneroso nei confronti di chi giustamente chiede spiegazioni e giustizia di fronte ad immani tragedie, ultima quella avvenuta pochi giorni orsono a Torino e ricordata poc'anzi anche dall'onorevole Panzeri. Nella notte del 6 e 7 dicembre un incendio divampato nello stabilimento della Thyssen Krupp ha causato la morte di sette operai: gli estintori non funzionavano. Solo in seguito si è avuta conoscenza che l'azienda era inadempiente circa le norme di sicurezza! Il Parlamento europeo e il sottoscritto non possono esimersi dal ricordare questa disgrazia.

Lungi, comunque, da me il voler emettere una totale condanna sulla condotta della multinazionale tedesca e di pensare anche lontanamente che l'azienda, pur colpevole, possa aver dolosamente e volontariamente omesso di adempiere agli obblighi sulla sicurezza per risparmiare. Non intendo sposare le tesi ideologiche di alcune parti di certi sindacati della Sinistra italiana che, alla notizia della chiusura dello stabilimento, lo scorso mese di giugno, si erano erti a paladini della sicurezza dichiarandosi responsabili e vigilanti sulla sicurezza degli impianti. Ma non è il momento ancora di procedere a giudizi soprattutto se affrettati.

Pur rispettando le competenze nazionali in materia, ritengo dunque urgente che l'Unione europea si adoperi per garantire piena applicazione delle leggi, in primo luogo rafforzando l'attività di vigilanza dell'Agenzia per la salute e la sicurezza sul luogo di lavoro, e di rafforzare il coordinamento degli interventi rispettivi a livello nazionale, migliorando il funzionamento del Comitato europeo dei responsabili dell'Ispettorato del lavoro.


  Μαρία Παναγιωτοπούλου-Κασσιώτου (PPE-DE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η υγεία και η ασφάλεια στην εργασία είναι αναμφισβήτητο ότι συμβάλλουν στη διαχείριση της ποιότητας, την οικονομική απόδοση και την ανταγωνιστικότητα, βοηθούν δε στην ανάπτυξη της οικονομίας, την επίτευξη των στόχων του προϋπολογισμού, αλλά και των προϋπολογισμών των κοινωνικών ασφαλιστικών ταμείων. Βέβαια, εκτός από όλα αυτά τα τεχνικά, είναι και ανθρωπιστικοί λόγοι που όχι μόνον επιβάλλουν, αλλά και πρέπει να οδηγήσουν κατά προτεραιότητα στην προστασία της υγείας των εργαζομένων και στην ασφάλεια των χώρων εργασίας.

Η στρατηγική 2002-2006 απέδωσε θετικά αποτελέσματα και οι προοπτικές για το 2007 και μετέπειτα είναι θετικές εάν όλοι μαζί, δηλαδή όχι μόνον ο ευρωπαϊκός σχεδιασμός αλλά και ο αντίστοιχος εθνικός, συμβάλουμε στην παρακολούθηση και το σχεδιασμό της υγείας και της ασφάλειας, κυρίως στις ευαίσθητες κατηγορίες που είναι οι νέοι, οι πλέον ηλικιωμένοι εργαζόμενοι -τους οποίους καλούμε να συμμετέχουν στην παραγωγική διαδικασία για μεγαλύτερη διάρκεια της ζωής τους- αλλά και οι γυναίκες οι οποίες κι αυτές καλούνται να συμμετέχουν στην εργασιακή ζωή. Μια εργασιακή ζωή με καινούργιες απαιτήσεις, κατακερματισμένη με πολλές διαφορετικές συμβάσεις, αυτο-απασχόληση, καθώς και μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις που δεν έχουν τη δυνατότητα των μεγάλων επιχειρήσεων να επιβάλλουν σωστές συνθήκες εργασίας και ασφάλειας. Γι’ αυτό και πρέπει να είναι φροντίδα όλων να μεταχειριστούν σωστά τους εθνικούς, αλλά και τους κοινοτικούς πόρους, όπως προτείνει η έκθεση Willmott, ώστε να επιτευχθούν τα επιθυμητά αποτελέσματα.


  Μαρία Ματσούκα (PSE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κατ’ αρχήν θα ήθελα να συγχαρώ τη συνάδελφο κ. Willmott, διότι η έκθεσή της κάλυψε σε μεγάλο βαθμό τα σοβαρά ελλείμματα της σχετικής ανακοίνωσης της Επιτροπής.

Αξιοπρεπής εργασία σημαίνει υγεία και ασφάλεια στην εργασία. Σημαίνει εκπόνηση μελετών για την πρόληψη επαγγελματικών κινδύνων, αλλά και διενέργεια προληπτικών ιατρικών εξετάσεων από πλευράς των εργοδοτών. Σημαίνει διά βίου μάθηση, επαγγελματική εκπαίδευση και κατάρτιση. Σημαίνει υγεία και ασφάλεια ως βασικά κριτήρια των εμπορικών συμφωνιών με τρίτες χώρες. Για να έχουν, ωστόσο, περιεχόμενο οι προτάσεις αυτές βασική προϋπόθεση είναι, ασφαλώς, ο διαρκής κοινωνικός διάλογος, αλλά κυρίως ότι θα πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστούν οι βασικές απειλές που επικρατούν στο πεδίο των εργασιακών σχέσεων.

Συγκεκριμένα αναφέρομαι στην επέκταση της φτώχειας των εργαζομένων, στη ραγδαία αύξηση των άτυπων μορφών απασχόλησης και στην επιμήκυνση του χρόνου εργασίας. Αν δεν υπάρξουν συνολικά ανθρωποκεντρικές πολιτικές, ικανές να ανατρέψουν τον νέο εργασιακό μεσαίωνα, τότε οι κοινωνικές συγκρούσεις είναι αναπόφευκτες.


  Αδάμος Αδάμου (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, τα μέτρα που προτείνει η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή για τη στρατηγική μέχρι το 2012, είναι στην πλειονότητά τους επιφανειακά και επικεντρώνονται στο να μη θιγεί η ανταγωνιστικότητα.

Μπορεί ο στόχος για μείωση κατά 25% των ατυχημάτων μέχρι τη λήξη της στρατηγικής να φαίνεται εντυπωσιακός, όμως στην πραγματικότητα είναι εντελώς ανεπαρκής. Στόχος θα έπρεπε να ήταν να δημιουργηθούν οι βάσεις και να ενισχυθούν οι θεσμικές κρατικές παρεμβάσεις, ώστε ο τραγικός απολογισμός των χιλιάδων νεκρών ετησίως και άλλων τόσων με σοβαρά προβλήματα υγείας εξ αιτίας της ποιότητας της εργασίας να πλησιάσει την εξάλειψη. Αντίθετα, η εισηγήτρια εστιάζεται στην εκμετάλλευση την οποίαν υφίστανται οι εργαζόμενοι, όπως όσοι εργάζονται σε επισφαλείς θέσεις εργασίας, οι γυναίκες, οι προσωρινοί εργάτες, οι μετανάστες, οι ηλικιωμένοι και προτείνει σκλήρυνση των μέτρων κατά των εργοδοτών, καθώς και διασφαλισμένη εποπτεία.

Από τις πιο σημαντικές συνεισφορές της έκθεσης, είναι ίσως η διαπίστωση ότι η μόνιμη εργασία είναι προϋπόθεση για την καταπολέμηση των ατυχημάτων και των εργατικών ασθενειών.

Επί πλέον, εκτός των ατυχημάτων, περισσότερη προσοχή πρέπει να δοθεί και στις αιτίες που κρύβονται κάτω από την ανάπτυξη διανοητικών ασθενειών, τον εθισμό και τους ψυχολογικούς κινδύνους στον εργασιακό χώρο.

Χρειάζεται, λοιπόν, μια πολύπλευρη αντιμετώπιση όλων των παραγόντων που επηρεάζουν την υγεία και την ασφάλεια στο χώρο εργασίας.


  Jiří Maštálka, za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Vážené kolegyně, vážení kolegové, musím říci, že když jsem si přečetl strategii Společenství pro bezpečnost a ochranu zdraví při práci na období 2007–2012, kterou v únoru minulého roku předložila Evropská komise, byl jsem v mnoha směrech zklamán. Přestože si Komise v této strategii stanovila poměrně ambiciózní cíl snížit počet pracovních úrazů o 25 %, obsahuje jen velmi málo konkrétních iniciativ a doporučení, jak tohoto cíle dosáhnout. Navíc opět se zaměřuje hlavně na pracovní úrazy, což je samozřejmě pouze část zdravotních problémů souvisejících s prací. Nemoci z povolání jsou jaksi stranou, což podle mého názoru je krokem zpátky.

Na druhou stranu chci a musím poděkovat a pogratulovat kolegyni Willmott k její zprávě o této strategii. Zpráva na rozdíl od dokumentu Komise obsahuje mnoho konkrétních návrhů a doporučení, jak dosáhnout lepších výsledků v oblasti bezpečnosti a ochrany zdraví při práci. Jsem rád, že zpravodajka zdůrazňuje i nutnost správně určit a vyčíslit rakovinu jako nemoc z povolání pro stanovení cílů ke snížení tohoto závažného onemocnění. Do této doby pouze 5 % případů onemocnění rakovinou, které bylo způsobeno výkonem pracovní činnosti, bylo označeno jako nemoc z povolání.

Velmi jsem přivítal, že do zprávy byl zahrnut i můj pozměňovací návrh, který jsem předložil ve Výboru pro zaměstnanost, o nutnosti zajištění bezplatného přístupu k technickým normám široké veřejnosti. Toto je problém, se kterým se zaměstnanci mnoha členských zemí stále potýkají a je třeba ho napravit.


  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Madam President, if we are going to reduce workplace accidents, we need to know how they happen. We cannot study all accidents and all near misses but, let me tell you, a 19-year-old Irish lad died on a construction site because his lighter Japanese bulldozer had heavy European shovels. His death was registered as a construction death and the Irish Health and Safety Authority never looked any further. So how can we save the next person that drives a tractor with mismatched equipment? Because we do not know.

We cannot investigate everything, but we can look at all fatal and debilitating accidents, especially those in the most dangerous sectors like agriculture, fishing, construction and transport. We need to break it down to make practical measures. Also, aside from risk jobs, we have very vulnerable sections of the workforce – elderly, disabled and workers who do not speak the language of their present workplace.


  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, inizio partecipando al cordoglio per la tragedia del lavoro che ha colpito gli operai dello stabilimento torinese e vi sottopongo l'incontestabile fatto che in Italia troppo spesso si muore per incidenti sul lavoro perché troppo poco si fa in termini di prevenzione e rispetto delle norme.

La responsabilità di questo è equamente ripartita tra impresa, sindacati ed enti di controllo: c'è chi fa impresa anche ricorrendo al lavoro nero, soprattutto di extracomunitari, o chi fa impresa come la Thyssen Krupp, con arroganza veteroindustriale; c'è chi dovrebbe difendere gli interessi dei lavoratori e spesso è assente, se non connivente, invece che vigile e pronto a segnalare agli enti preposti le lacune nel sistema di sicurezza; c'è, infine, l'ispettorato del lavoro e gli altri uffici preposti ai controlli e alla vigilanza che di propria iniziativa spesso non brillano.

Nell'Unione è necessario promuovere la sicurezza sul luogo di lavoro e la relazione Willmott in questo soddisfa assai più della proposta della Commissione. Ritengo che non si debba limitare, quando parliamo di lavoro e di industria, il discorso alla semplice garanzia della libera concorrenza e della competitività.


  Iles Braghetto (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nei luoghi di lavoro si muore ancora. Là dove con forza e creatività si dovrebbe manifestare la capacità dell'uomo di manipolare la materia, sviluppare la conoscenza e trovare sostegno per la propria vita, si manifestano troppo spesso episodi di morte e di attentato alla vita ed alla salute della persona.

Per questo la rabbia e lo sconcerto, che hanno colpito l'opinione pubblica italiana per i 7 operai morti tra le fiamme alla Thyssen Krupp di Torino nel dicembre scorso, non possono non interrogarci su cosa non ha funzionato in quella fabbrica per evitare tale disastro; di quali inadempienze siamo responsabili in tutti i luoghi in cui l'uomo lavora.

L'impianto normativo per sostenere una corretta politica di prevenzione, per definire gli obblighi delle imprese, per affrontare le nuove malattie professionali è oggi in fase avanzata in Europa. Ma sono carenti i controlli, le ispezioni per far rispettare le leggi, il personale ed i mezzi finanziari. Manca ancora una cultura che valuti l'importanza di rigorosi servizi di prevenzione, che ritenga la prevenzione un processo continuo e non un obbligo una tantum, che attui un dialogo continuo tra le parti per un effettivo sviluppo di elevati standard di sicurezza, che sappia cogliere l'emergere di nuove malattie professionali di carattere psicosociale.

Penso anche e concludo, che vada ripreso, il tema oggetto del Libro verde sulla responsabilità sociale delle imprese, quale elemento coagulante ed innovativo, rispetto all'impegno per la riduzione degli infortuni e delle malattie professionali.


  Richard Falbr (PSE). – V úvodu bych chtěl poděkovat kolegyni Willmottové za velmi pečlivě připravenou zprávu. Konstatuje se, že cílem Komise je snížení počtu pracovních úrazů o 25 %. Nevěřím, že se to podaří. Je tu nedostatečný počet inspektorů práce a mají k dispozici nedostatečné nástroje ke zjednání nápravy. Dochází neustále ke snižování vlivu odborů, které se již nezúčastňují v mnoha zemích vyšetřování příčin pracovních úrazů a odstraňovaní následků. Za další je tu existující džungle, kterou je zaměstnávání zaměstnanců agenturami, a pak je tu tlak o neustálé prohlubování tzv. flexibility v čerpání pracovní doby, což vede k tomu, že zaměstnanci pracují mnoho hodin a zvyšuje se riziko úrazu.


  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Projekt rezolucji podkreśla odpowiedzialność społeczną przedsiębiorstw za bezpieczeństwo i higienę pracy zwracając uwagę na aspekt uczciwej konkurencji. Uwzględnia szczególną wagę dialogu między partnerami społecznymi, a w szczególności roli związków zawodowych w poprawie bezpieczeństwa w środowisku pracy.

Zwraca uwagę na potrzebę szczególnego potraktowania małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw w strategii na rzecz poprawy BHP i potrzebę stałego szkolenia pracowników. Większość wypadków to te z udziałem osób rozpoczynających pracę, jeszcze bez doświadczenia, a także osób, które mają zbyt mało czasu na wypoczynek po pracy.

Zawiera istotne uwagi dotyczące rehabilitacji i integracji w środowisku pracy osób po wypadku powracających do pracy, a także wymaganie niedyskryminowania w dostępie do zatrudnienia osób z chorobą nowotworową. Gratuluję sprawozdawcy.


  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE-DE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Od lat toczymy w tej izbie debatę na temat europejskiej strategii dotyczącej rynku pracy. Wśród nas jest wiele opinii, w którym kierunku te działania powinny zmierzać. Są tacy, którym bliska jest idea głębokiej harmonizacji prawa pracy, inni z kolei bronią stanowiska, że naturalne zróżnicowanie europejskich rynków pracy jest korzystne dla unijnej gospodarki.

Jak państwo wiedzą, moje poglądy w tej sprawie bliższe są temu drugiemu stanowisku, z jednym zasadniczym wyjątkiem. Tym wyjątkiem są regulacje dotyczące bezpieczeństwa i higieny w miejscu pracy. Uważam bowiem, że właśnie w tym obszarze aktywność instytucji wspólnotowych jest zarówno uzasadniona, jak i potrzebna.

Po ostatnich rozszerzeniach Wspólnoty obserwujemy jeszcze większe zróżnicowanie warunków wykonywania pracy. Zróżnicowanie to ma charakter zarówno terytorialny, jak i środowiskowy, bowiem niezależnie od kraju więcej wypadków przy pracy i chorób zawodowych zdarza się takim grupom, jak migranci, młodzi pracownicy czy osoby pracujące w starszym wieku. Nie chcę przez to powiedzieć, że są to grupy celowo i świadomie dyskryminowane. Jest to raczej konsekwencja niedostatecznego wyszkolenia i braku doświadczenia. Tym bardziej jednak należy zadbać o odpowiednie warunki bezpieczeństwa i higieny dla tych właśnie pracowników.

Chciałbym również podkreślić, że niezależnie od kraju członkowskiego większy problem z dotrzymaniem najwyższych standardów bezpieczeństwa w miejscu pracy obserwujemy w takich sektorach, jak budownictwo, rolnictwo i transport. Jest to zrozumiałe ze względu na specyfikę wykonywanej tam pracy, ale też jest faktem, że w tych branżach działają przede wszystkim małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa, których możliwości finansowe, organizacyjne, prawne nie ułatwiają dostosowania się do wysokich wymogów bhp. Właśnie tym przedsiębiorstwom należy się zarówno ze strony Unii Europejskiej, instytucji unijnych, jak i rządów państw członkowskich wsparcie, i to w trybie pilnym. Nie jest tu metodą wyłącznie karanie i zwiększanie nadzoru. Instrumentom tym, oczywiście koniecznym, towarzyszyć winny inwestycje w edukację zarówno pracowników, jak i pracodawców oraz finansowe wsparcie dla lepszego i bezpieczniejszego wyposażenia stanowiska pracy.


  Gabriela Creţu (PSE). – Salutăm bunele intenţii ale Comisiei, eficienţa poate fi însă îndoielnică.

Pentru a maximiza impactul politicilor şi proteja lucrătorii, sunt necesare statistici corecte privind bolile profesionale. Datele existente sunt parţiale, subevaluează fenomenele sau ignoră realitatea. Principalele afectate de această deficienţă sunt femeile. Întâi, pentru că lucrează mai mult în economia informală sau în „economia gri”.

Efectele condiţiilor de muncă asupra sănătăţii nu sunt înregistrate deloc în acest sector. Cadrul legal existent conservă o abordare care pune accent pe accidente şi riscurile din ramurile zise „grele”, masculine, ale economiei.

Solicităm Comisiei o mai atentă luare în considerare a diferenţelor specifice dintre angajaţi şi angajate, evaluarea disponibilităţii datelor segregate pe genuri şi a celor ce urmăresc efectele pe termen lung şi consecinţele psihice ale activităţii.

Pentru a proba relevanţa solicitării, vă invităm într-o fabrică din industria textilă. Auzul şi văzul pot fi puternic afectate,iar bolile circulatorii sunt foarte frecvente. Statisticile ignoră situaţia. Este industria zisă „uşoară”, unde lucrează mai ales femei, iar salariile sunt mici şi pentru că n-ar exista riscuri. Astfel, actualele statistici conservă inegalităţile istorice dintre bărbaţi şi femei, incluzând decalajul salarial.


  Harald Ettl (PSE). – Frau Präsidentin! Eine Gemeinschaftsstrategie für Gesundheit und Sicherheit am Arbeitsplatz ist absolut notwendig. Während der technische Arbeitnehmerschutz deutlich steigende Erfolge zeigt, birgt die rasante Veränderung der Arbeitswelt neue Gefahren in sich. Die Probleme und Gefahren neuer chemischer Stoffe in der Arbeitswelt sind evident.

Vor allem aber – und das entspricht dem Zeitgeist in der heutigen Arbeitswelt – bringt der steigende Leistungsdruck nicht nur physische, sondern auch psychische Probleme mit sich. Unsichere Arbeitsverhältnisse und Existenzängste führen zu psychosozialen Problemen. Neue zusätzliche Aggressionspotentiale verstärken sich, zusätzliche Stressoren führen zu psychischer Gewalt und Mobbing ist an der Tagesordnung.

Besonders KMU sind für derartige Zeiterscheinungen anfällig, wenn nicht dagegengehalten, informiert, kontrolliert und ausgebildet wird. Deswegen ist diese Entschließung von größerer Bedeutung, als ihr wahrscheinlich zugebilligt wird. Ich gratuliere der Berichterstatterin.


  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin! Gesundheit am Arbeitsplatz muss Priorität haben. Auch im Parlament in Brüssel und Straßburg ist noch einiger Handlungsbedarf gegeben. Wenn ich alleine die Umgebungstemperatur in diesem Saal betrachte, kann man schon fast von Gesundheitsgefährdung sprechen. Ich glaube aber, dass es auch eine Vorbildwirkung gibt.

Ich war vor wenigen Monaten in einem Hotel in Griechenland eingesperrt, wo rundherum ein Waldbrand gelodert hat. Und ich muss sagen, dieses Hotel – das war ein typisches KMU – hatte sich vorbildlichst auf diese Situation vorbereitet. Wären dort nicht alle Sicherheitsvorkehrungen perfekt gestaltet gewesen, gut organisiert und auch dementsprechend vorbereitet, hätten dort wahrscheinlich viele Menschen nicht überleben können. Deshalb glaube ich, dass gerade dieses Lernen – wie der Kollege Ettl gesagt hat, dieses Ausbilden und Vorbereiten auf Krisenfälle – eine ganz besondere Bedeutung hat. Hier wären auch Anreizsysteme sinnvoll, dass z.B. die Versicherungen jenen Betrieben, die ausgebildete Mitarbeiter haben, auch dementsprechend günstigere Prämien einräumen und dass man auch von der Sozialversicherung entsprechende Schulungsmaßnahmen anbietet.


  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – Ako poslanec a lekár vítam plán Komisie znížiť pracovné úrazy v rámci Európskej únie v priemere o 25 % a uvedomujem si potrebu implementácie účinnejších opatrení vo všetkých členských štátoch, medzi ktorými jestvujú až priepastné rozdiely.

Okrem odvetví, ako je obrábanie kovov, stavebníctvo, práca s elektrinou či lesníctvo, chcem poukázať aj na veľkú rizikovosť práce lekárov a zdravotníckych pracovníkov, ktorí sú pri výkone svojho povolania vystavení obrovskému riziku infekcie a ochoreniu na AIDS, tuberkulózu, hepatitídu a mnohé ďalšie infekcie. Som zároveň znepokojený, že zníženie počtu pracovných úrazov a hlavne chorôb z povolania sa netýkalo napr. migrujúcich pracovníkov, pracovníkov s neistými zmluvami, pracovníkov s nízkou kvalifikáciou, žien v určitých podnikoch, ako sú malé a stredné podniky.

Chcel by som vyzdvihnúť opatrenia niektorých štátov, ktoré úspešne implementujú komplexnú rehabilitáciu po úraze ako podmienku úspešnosti znovuzačlenenia do pracovného procesu.


  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – În calitate de raportor în cadrul Comisiei ITRE pentru acest document, am solicitat promovarea activă a participării la sindicatele europene şi am solicitat Comisiei să propună un cadru legal, care să încurajeze partenerii sociali să poarte negocieri transfrontaliere.

Comisia Europeană şi statele membre ar putea finanţa formarea reprezentanţilor lucrătorilor, care să apere şi să promoveze drepturile acestora privind siguranţa şi sănătatea la locul de muncă.

De asemenea, am solicitat tuturor statelor membre să semneze şi să ratifice Convenţia Naţiunilor Unite privind protecţia drepturilor lucrătorilor migranţi şi a membrilor familiilor acestora şi să coordoneze îmbunătăţirea accesului la instruire, în special pentru lucrătorii pe fracţiune de normă şi lucrătorii contractuali, pentru a facilita găsirea unui loc de muncă mai stabil.

Consider că statele membre ar trebui să implementeze măsurile necesare pentru ca munca în condiţii grele sau periculoase să se regăsească în drepturile de protecţie socială de care beneficiază persoana, atât pe perioada de activitate, cât şi pe perioada de pensie.


  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE). – Adoptarea unei strategii europene privind sănătatea şi siguranţa muncii este o iniţiativă binevenită a Comisiei Europene. Consider însă necesară analiza unor aspecte suplimentare. Trebuie să avem în vedere, aşa cum bine spunea şi unul dintre colegii mei care au vorbit anterior, că există o situaţie specială în privinţa imigranţilor de pe piaţa europeană a muncii.

Un studiu recent al Comisiei Europene arată că emigranţii sunt expuşi unor riscuri mult mai mari în ceea ce priveşte sănătatea şi siguranţa la locul de muncă. Acest lucru se datorează atât preponderenţei muncii la negru, cât şi altor factori precum: necunoaşterea drepturilor sociale şi de pensie între statele membre ale Uniunii şi, bineînţeles, probleme în utilizarea transfrontalieră a asigurărilor de sănătate.

Acestea sunt chestiuni care ţin de competenţa europeană, iar Comisia ar trebui să urmărească atent implementarea normelor Uniunii, astfel încât situaţia precară a imigranţilor să fie îmbunătăţită.

Mai mult, fondurile europene pot fi folosite pentru pregătirea unui număr suplimentar de inspectori de protecţie a muncii care pot identifica nereguli privind sănătatea şi, bineînţeles, siguranţa angajaţilor.


  Stephen Hughes (PSE). – Madam President, I would like to speak about needlestick injuries, because I was responsible for the 2006 report on this issue. I wonder whether the Commissioner would agree with me that, where a risk is identified that needs to be tackled at European level, then there is a need for the Commission to ask expeditiously.

If he does agree, I wonder whether he can explain why it took a full year for the Commission to manage and assess the first round of consultation with the social partners on needlestick injuries, even though there were only 10 responses in that consultation.

I wonder whether he can also assure us that work on this issue will proceed faster in the year ahead. One million workers a year are affected by needlestick injuries. That means around one and half million will have been affected since the report was completed by Parliament. Could the Commission please act a little faster in future?


  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. − Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ευχαριστώ όλους τους ομιλητές για τις πολύ θετικές παρεμβάσεις τους.

Πράγματι, κάθε ατύχημα, κάθε τραυματισμός, κάθε θάνατος στην εργασία, όπως αυτοί που συνέβησαν τον περασμένο Δεκέμβριο στο Τορίνο της Ιταλίας, μας υπενθυμίζει ότι χρειάζεται να γίνουν περισσότερα για την προστασία των εργαζομένων γυναικών και ανδρών της Ευρώπης. Μας υπενθυμίζει ότι πρέπει να γίνουν περισσότερα, ώστε να επιτευχθεί ο απώτατος στόχος μας: να καταστεί δηλαδή η Ευρώπη ένας ασφαλέστερος τόπος εργασίας.

Η νέα στρατηγική αποσκοπεί ακριβώς στην μείωση της σημερινής απαράδεκτης κατάστασης εργατικών ατυχημάτων και επαγγελματικών νόσων.

Θα ήθελα να τονίσω ότι λαμβανομένων υπόψη των διαθέσιμων ανθρωπίνων πόρων, κρίνεται ότι η τρέχουσα διάθεση προσωπικού θα επιτρέψει στις υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής να πραγματοποιήσουν δεόντως τα καθήκοντά τους σε αυτόν τον τομέα. Στο πλαίσιο της συνολικής εξέλιξης των ανθρώπινων πόρων που διατίθενται στον τομέα της απασχόλησης και των κοινωνικών υποθέσεων, η Επιτροπή θα αξιολογεί συνεχώς το φόρτο εργασίας στους διάφορους ειδικούς τομείς και θα διαθέτει προσωπικό ανάλογα.

Θα ήθελα επίσης να αναφέρω στο θέμα της μόλυνσης από βελόνες, ότι ετοιμάζουμε σχετική πρόταση τροποποίησης της οδηγίας την οποίαν θα υποβάλουμε εντός του 2008.

Θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω και πάλι το Σώμα γι’ αυτή τη συζήτηση και για την έγκριση της έκθεσης της κ. Willmott.

Για άλλη μια φορά καταδεικνύεται η ισχυρή πολιτική στήριξη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου στην αρχή ότι η εργασιακή υγεία και ασφάλεια παραμένει υψηλή προτεραιότητα στην πολιτική ατζέντα και αυτό προς όφελος της οικονομίας, αλλά και ως εχέγγυο ότι οι εργαζόμενοι επιστρέφουν από την εργασία στα αγαπημένα τους πρόσωπα υγιείς και σε καλή κατάσταση.


  Glenis Willmott, rapporteur. − Madam President, I should like to thank my colleagues for their comments and to make just a couple of points.

Firstly, on the issue of cancers, it is necessary to revise the Carcinogens Directive to reflect technical progress and changes in scientific knowledge in the world of work. It is important that we have effective binding limits for carcinogens, mutagens and substances toxic for reproduction. Limit values should be based on scientific evidence, and I would urge the EU Scientific Committee to examine crystalline silica as a matter of priority. I would urge colleagues not to delete reference to this and oppose Amendment 6.

Secondly, the report calls for nanotechnologies to be monitored and potential risks to health assessed, and I would urge colleagues to oppose Amendment 5, which seeks to delete this. I fully recognise the potential benefits of nanotechnologies. Nevertheless, the rapid growth of such technologies is outstripping our understanding of the potential occupational health risks: workers can be exposed to nanoparticles through inhalation, dermal contact and ingestion, and we cannot bury our heads in the sand and refuse to carry out research and assess whether there are any risks.

Thirdly, I would just like to reiterate the call for the Commission to bring forward a legislative amendment to the Directive on risks from biological agents at work in order to address the problem of needlestick injuries. This needs to be done as a matter of urgency.

As I mentioned earlier, health and safety is a fundamental right included in the Charter. We need a strong EU strategy to ensure that this fundamental right is upheld and that workers throughout the EU are adequately protected. Each single accident and each work-related illness constitutes a breach of a worker’s fundamental rights.

We all know there is a strong economic case, as well as good business reasons, for good health and safety in the workplace but, more importantly, the strongest argument has to be the cost to human health and the lives that can be saved. One life every three and a half minutes – who can argue with that?



  Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί σήμερα, Τρίτη 15 Ιανουαρίου 2008, στις 12 το μεσημέρι.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 142)


  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Mes premiers mots seront pour féliciter la Commission européenne pour sa stratégie communautaire 2007-2012 en matière de santé et de sécurité au travail et pour le travail accompli par notre commission parlementaire. Près de 500 000 personnes par an décèdent ou sont victimes d’une invalidité permanente pour des raisons liées au travail et il faut se réjouir de l’objectif de la Commission européenne de réduire de 25%, en moyenne, les accidents du travail dans l'Union. Je soutiens l’idée d’une meilleure action de l’Agence européenne pour la santé et la sécurité au travail basée à Bilbao (Espagne). Dans ce dossier, et plus généralement dans la construction de l’Europe sociale, je regrette que ni le rapport ni, d’ailleurs, la communication de la Commission européenne, ne mettent en exergue qu’il est essentiel de soutenir les partenaires sociaux, lesquels, il faut sans cesse le rappeler, disposent, dans le cadre des traités actuels, avec les articles 137 et suivants du traité instituant la Communauté européenne (TCE), - et cela a été confirmé par le traité de Lisbonne en cours de ratification - d’instruments juridiques permettant la construction d’un droit social européen.


6. L-applikazzjoni ta' l-iskemi tas-siġurtà soċjali għall-persuni impjegati, għall-persuni li jaħdmu għal rashom u l-membri tal-familja tagħhom li jiċċaqilqu ġewwa l-Komunità (dibattitu)

  Πρόεδρος. – Η ημερήσια διάταξη προβλέπει τη συζήτηση της έκθεσης του Csaba Öry, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Απασχόλησης και Κοινωνικών Υποθέσεων, σχετικά με την εφαρμογή των συστημάτων κοινωνικής ασφαλίσεως στους μισθωτούς, στους μη μισθωτούς και στα μέλη των οικογενειών τους που διακινούνται εντός της Κοινότητας (COM(2007)0159 – C6-0104/2007 – 2007/0054(COD)) (A6-0515/2007).


  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. − Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αξιότιμα μέλη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, το κείμενο που σας υποβλήθηκε σήμερα είναι ο τελευταίος κανονισμός που τροποποιεί τον κανονισμό 1408/71. Πρόκειται για το γνωστό κανονισμό συντονισμού των συστημάτων κοινωνικής ασφάλισης. Ο κανονισμός αυτός αποτέλεσε, για διάστημα μεγαλύτερο των 30 ετών, τη βάση για το συντονισμό μεταξύ των εθνικών συστημάτων κοινωνικής ασφάλισης. Τα τελευταία χρόνια έχει ξεκινήσει μια προσπάθεια εκσυγχρονισμού και απλούστευσης του εν λόγω κανονισμού και του κανονισμού εφαρμογής του. Ήδη το Κοινοβούλιο ενέκρινε το νέο κανονισμό 883/2004, τα δε υπόλοιπα κείμενα που απαιτούνται για την εφαρμογή του, είναι ήδη υπό διαπραγμάτευση. Πρόκειται για τον κανονισμό εφαρμογής και για το κείμενο των παραρτημάτων. Εν αναμονή της θέσεως σε ισχύ των νέων αυτών νομοθετικών κειμένων, είναι απαραίτητο να επικαιροποιηθεί η ισχύς του κανονισμού 1408/71. Γι’ αυτό το λόγο σας υποβάλλεται σήμερα η νέα αυτή τεχνική επικαιροποίηση. Δεν αφορά παρά μόνον το κείμενο των παραρτημάτων του κανονισμού και αποσκοπεί στο να ληφθούν υπόψη οι αλλαγές που πραγματοποιήθηκαν στις εθνικές νομοθεσίες.

Είναι σημαντικό να εγκριθεί το εν λόγω κείμενο χωρίς καθυστέρηση προκειμένου να επικαιροποιηθεί ο κανονισμός 1408/71 και να υπάρξει ασφάλεια δικαίου και τήρηση των δικαιωμάτων των πολιτών.

Θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω ιδιαίτερα τον εισηγητή κ. Őry για τη συνεργασία μεταξύ των δύο οργάνων μας. Όπως το διετύπωσε σαφώς στην έκθεσή του, η ψήφιση της εν λόγω πράξης σε πρώτη ανάγνωση, θα επιτρέψει την ταχεία υιοθέτησή της. Σε αυτό το πνεύμα συντάχθηκαν οι τροπολογίες οι οποίες περιλαμβάνουν τις τεχνικές αλλαγές που πραγματοποιήθηκαν στο Συμβούλιο. Αντίθετα, δεν συμπεριέλαβε στο παρόν στάδιο τις συζητήσεις που θα μπορούσαν καλύτερα να πραγματοποιηθούν στο πλαίσιο της εξέτασης του κανονισμού εφαρμογής, όπου εισηγήτρια είναι η κ. Lambert, ή του κειμένου των παραρτημάτων, ιδίως του παραρτήματος 11, εισηγήτρια του οποίου είναι η κ. Bozkurt.

Κάποιοι θα ήθελαν να αδράξουν την ευκαιρία αυτής της έκθεσης για να προσεγγίσουν ευρύτερα θέματα, όπως για παράδειγμα διασυνοριακές υπηρεσίες υγείας. Μολονότι το ενδιαφέρον για τα θέματα αυτά είναι προφανές, θεωρώ ότι δεν ενδείκνυται να εξετασθούν στο πλαίσιο της παρούσας τεχνικής επικαιροποίησης. Η περιορισμένη, αλλά πραγματιστική προσέγγιση της τεχνικής επικαιροποίησης κατοχυρώνει καλύτερα τα δικαιώματα των πολιτών. Θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω ιδιαίτερα τον κ. Őry γι’ αυτό.

Η Επιτροπή είναι υπέρ των τροπολογιών 1 έως 6, 9 και 11, οι οποίες ευθυγραμμίζουν το αρχικό κείμενο με εκείνο που αποτέλεσε αντικείμενο γενικού προσανατολισμού στο Συμβούλιο, καθώς και υπέρ των τροπολογιών 7 και 8, οι οποίες ρυθμίζουν μια συγκεκριμένη δυσκολία που ενέκυψε πρόσφατα σε ένα κράτος μέλος, τις Κάτω Χώρες, μετά την έναρξη ισχύος της μεταρρύθμισης σχετικά με την ασφαλιστική κάλυψη ασθένειας. Αντίθετα, η Επιτροπή δεν είναι υπέρ της τροπολογίας 10. Η ανακριβής σύνταξη της τροπολογίας αυτής δεν επιτρέπει τη σωστή αντιμετώπιση των συγκεκριμένων καταστάσεων που επιδιώκει να ρυθμίσει. Η τροπολογία θέτει υπό αμφισβήτηση τους κανόνες προτεραιότητας στον τομέα των οικογενειακών παροχών. Μια τέτοια τροπολογία θα είχε νομικές και οικονομικές συνέπειες πολύ πέραν από το αναφερόμενο κράτος μέλος.

Σας ευχαριστώ για την προσοχή σας και συγχαίρω και πάλι τον εισηγητή για τη συνεισφορά του και για την πολύ καλή συνεργασία του.


  Csaba Őry, előadó. − Tisztelt elnök asszony, tisztelt biztos úr! Engedjék meg, hogy mielőtt a módosító indítványok körül kialakult kisebb vitákra is kitérnék, néhány szóval méltassam ezt az előttünk fekvő jogszabályt, illetve ennek jelentőségét.

Való igaz, ahogy biztos úr is mondta, ez egy nagyon régi jogszabály, 1971-ben született és azóta hagyományosan kiemelkedő szerepet tölt be az Unión belüli szabad munkavállalás alapvető jogához illeszkedő járulékos szabályozási eszközként. Tény és való, hogy a munkaerő szabad áramlásának alapszerződésben rögzített joga önmagában igen keveset érne, ha a társadalombiztosítási rendszerekhez a más tagállamokban elhelyezkedő polgárok nem férhetnének hozzá, illetve ha a jogok hordozhatóságát nem tudnánk biztosítani.

Az Unión belüli mozgás kapcsán a jelentős kockázatokat viselő munkavállalóknak a társadalombiztosítás és a szociális alapjogok tekintetében hátrányt nem lehet szenvedniük. A szabad munkaerő-áramlás csak ekkor töltheti be az uniós munkaerőpiacok közötti fontos kiegyenlítő szerepet, melyre az Unió gazdaságának szüksége van.

Viszont azt is látnunk kell, azt is rögzítenünk kell, hogy az 1408-as rendelet, melyről most beszélünk, csak akkor töltheti be a funkcióját, hogyha ezt folyamatosan összhangba hozzuk a nemzeti jogszabályokkal. Hiszen a szociálpolitika, a foglalkoztatás, a munkaerő-áramlás kérdései alapvetően nemzeti kompetenciákba tartoznak, nemzeti kompetenciákat érintenek. Ezért szükség volt és szükség van arra, hogy évről évre folyamatosan korrigáljuk, folyamatosan kiegészítsük a jogszabályt.

Kulcsfontosságú szabályról van szó, hisz látszólag csak különböző szövegeket egyeztetünk, valójában ez embereket, emberi sorsokat, emberek mindennapi problémáit érinti. Nekünk jogalkotóknak tehát akkor is ez a feladatunk, ha tudjuk, hogy ez már egy igen rövid ideig hatályban lévő szöveg, hisz ahogy biztos úr is említette, megvan már, megszületett már az új rendelet, az új direktíva.

Addig is, amíg ennek meg nem alkotjuk a végrehajtási rendeletét, addig is a jogbiztonság érdeke azt kívánja, hogy folyamatosan aktualizáljuk, igazítsuk a szöveget a nemzeti jogszabályokban történt változásokhoz. Jó példa erre mindjárt az első módosító indítvány, ahol a magyar jogban, a Polgári Törvénykönyvben módosították a „közeli hozzátartozó” fogalmát, és most lehetőség nyílott arra, hogy ehhez igazítsuk az európai szöveget is.

De hasonlóképpen szó volt itt a Hollandiát érintő módosító indítványokról, ahol ugyancsak nagyon kézzelfogható emberi sorsokról van szó, olyan katonákról, akik külföldön szolgálatot teljesítenek, a családjaikat érintő különféle szociális ellátási jogosultságok tekintetében bizonytalanság uralkodik. Ez nyilvánvalóan elfogadhatatlan, ezt ki kell egészíteni.

Erre a problémára egyébként a bizottsági munka folyamán megoldást találtunk, elfogadva a Tanács szóbeli indítványát, azt beépítettük a szövegbe. Tehát itt nincs probléma, mint ahogy azt gondolom, hogy az említett 10-es módosító indítványra is végül is megnyugtató megoldás született, hisz a holland kormány vállalta, hogy pontosító jellegű körlevélben tájékoztatja az érintett polgárokat, így ennek a módosító indítványnak az elfogadására most nincs szükség a Parlamentben.

De szükség volt arra az együttműködésre, amelyet egyébként megköszönnék minden résztvevőnek, mind a módosításokat benyújtó képviselőknek, mind a Tanács, mind a Bizottság munkatársainak. Köszönöm szépen a szót, elnök úr!




  Ria Oomen-Ruijten, namens de PPE-DE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, mobiliteit op de arbeidsmarkt is van het allergrootste belang. Collega Őry heeft dat net al gezegd. De coördinatieverordening, die wij vandaag bespreken, brengt in feite elk jaar de aanpassingen van de wetgevingen van de nationale lidstaten in lijn.

De lidstaten zouden eigenlijk - want dan zouden zich veel probleem niet voordoen - iedere wetgeving of iedere wijziging van sociale of fiscale wetgeving moeten testen om na te gaan of deze ook Europa-proof is. Als het resultaat dan duidelijk zou zijn, dan zou men later niet tot aanpassingen hoeven te komen.

Voorzitter, met collega Őry heb ik een aantal amendementen ingediend, en ik vind eigenlijk dat iedere collega in zijn eigen lidstaat moet kijken, als de jaarlijkse aanpassing eraan komt, of al datgene wat men voordraagt in het administratieve overleg wel is afgestemd op de werkelijkheid van Europa.

Voorzitter, we hebben twee of drie amendementen voorgesteld. De eerste twee, 7 en 8, hebben betrekking op de ziektekostenverzekering van gezinsleden van militairen die in België of Duitsland wonen. De Nederlandse militairen vallen niet onder de zorgverzekeringswet, waardoor ook de gezinsleden zich niet konden verzekeren en zij zich dus moesten aansluiten bij een alsmaar duurder wordend fonds. De Nederlandse regering heeft een brief aan de Kamer geschreven, waarin ze het Europees Parlement vraagt de amendementen aan te nemen, omdat dat de snelste oplossing is.

Het derde amendement - amendement nr. 10 - betreft de Nederlandse wet op de kinderopvang. Een gezin dat woonde in Nederland en werkte aan de andere kant van de grens had geen recht op kinderopvangvergoeding. Dat is nu via een wetswijziging ook geregeld.

Dat betekent dus dat we voor heel veel mensen, dankzij ons volharden, een aantal dingen hebben bereikt. Ik dank ook alle collega's die zich niet hebben laten afschrikken door alle argumenten van de tweede lezing, maar ons gevolgd hebben, waardoor we heel wat hebben kunnen bereiken.


  Joel Hasse Ferreira, em nome do Grupo PSE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caros Colegas, em primeiro lugar queria saudar o relator, o nosso colega Csaba Őry, pelo equilibrado relatório que produziu. Em segundo lugar, queria sublinhar a importância da coordenação e do aperfeiçoamento dos diferentes sistemas de segurança social vigentes na União Europeia, adaptando necessariamente esses sistemas onde tal se revele necessário. E é perfeitamente claro que um conjunto de alterações que julgamos indispensáveis foram apresentadas de maneira a permitir uma discussão fundamentada e, para além disso, inseriram-se num processo que facilitou ou facilitaria a aprovação em primeira leitura do relatório Csaba Őry.

É claro, caros Colegas, que as questões ligadas à segurança social na Europa ultrapassam em muito os problemas que se pretendem resolver com este relatório e as práticas de regulação que lhe estão associadas. Mas do que se trata aqui é ter em conta as modificações da legislação da segurança social em Estados como a Irlanda, a Hungria, a Polónia, a Holanda e a Áustria, com os objectivos de adequada modernização e adaptação.

Caros Colegas, como sabemos, em paralelo está a avançar a discussão sobre a implementação do novo sistema de regulação, nomeadamente a negociação dos respectivos regulamentos de aplicação, e também neste caso saudamos a posição do relator, compreendemos e partilhamos a opinião de apoiar apenas um reduzido número de indispensáveis emendas, como exprimimos em comissão. Essas alterações vão, pois, no sentido de garantir a necessária certeza jurídica para que a nova regulação possa entrar em vigor da forma mais adequada possível. Soube, entretanto, da retirada da emenda referida por Csaba Őry, pelas razões que explicou.

A terminar, caros Colegas, Senhor Presidente, Comissário Dimas, o mais importante é contribuir também no domínio da segurança social para a adequada aplicação do princípio da mobilidade dos trabalhadores no interior da União Europeia, reafirmado na Cimeira de Lisboa e durante 2006, o Ano Europeu da Mobilidade. Sem essa mobilidade do trabalho e sem uma adequada coordenação do sistema de segurança social, os trabalhadores europeus estarão limitados nas suas possibilidades de circulação nos mercados de trabalho. É isso que não queremos, por isso apoiamos este relatório.


  Ona Juknevičienė, ALDE frakcijos vardu. – Visuotinė žmogaus teisių deklaracija garantuoja piliečiams laisvę judėti ir pasirinkti gyvenamąją vietą. Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartija užtikrina laisvę pasirinkti profesiją ir teisę dirbti. Tačiau žinome, kad Bendrijos praktikoje tebelieka daug kliūčių, kad jos piliečiai pilnai pasinaudotų šiomis teisėmis. Nuo 1971 – ųjų metų mūsų diskutuojamas reglamentas laikomas pagrindu, pagal kurį piliečiams, judantiems iš vienos valstybės narės į kitą, užtikrinama socialinė apsauga. Reglamentas taikomas, kaip jau minėta, daugiau negu 30 metų ir jo nuostatos keičiamos gana dažnai atsižvelgiant į nacionalinių įstatymų pasikeitimą. Tačiau šis reglamentas nustato bendruosius principus, kurių turi laikytis visos nacionalinės valdžios, socialinės apsaugos institucijos ir netgi teismai, taikydami savo įstatymus. Taip užtikrinama, kad taikant skirtingus nacionalinės teisės aktus nenukentėtų žmonės, kurie naudojasi savo teise persikelti į kitas Bendrijos šalis.

Socialinės apsaugos sistemos įvairiose šalyse labai skiriasi, o reglamentas, nors nuolat kinta, nesiekia tų sistemų suvienodinti, tačiau – apibendrinti. Todėl džiaugiuosi, kad tokiu būdu galima apsaugoti labiausiai pažeidžiamus Bendrijos asmenis, tokius, kaip moteris, pensininkus, neįgaliuosius, jų šeimas. Manau, kad šis dokumentas padeda suvienyti ne tik Bendrijos valstybes, bet ir žmones. Todėl nuoširdžiai kviečiu, mieli kolegos, balsuoti už jį.


  Wiesław Stefan Kuc, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Panie Przewodniczący! Możliwości swobodnego przemieszczania się, pracownia, mieszkania w obrębie Unii są jednymi z podstawowych zdobyczy naszych obywateli. Dlatego ich zabezpieczenie socjalne stanowi jeden z najważniejszych problemów, szczególnie teraz, gdy w ostatnich latach nastąpiło niespotykane w skali Europy zjawisko emigracji, zresztą bardzo wspierane przez wszystkie instytucje unijne.

Rozumiem, że mając na uwadze wprowadzenie zmienionego rozporządzenia w sprawie systemów zabezpieczenia społecznego - obecnie obowiązuje z 1971 r.- staramy się tylko niezbędnie zmodyfikować i dostosować do wprowadzonych w niektórych państwach zmian.

Uważam jednak, że nie wykorzystaliśmy nadarzającej się okazji i nie skorygowaliśmy rozporządzenia zgodnie z kierunkiem proponowanym w nowym. Choć od przyjęcia projektu nowego rozporządzenia minęły już prawie cztery lata, to dotychczas ono nie obowiązuje, a stare ma już ponad 37 lat. Może lepiej poprawić gruntownie to, co już istnieje niż liczyć na nowe, bo czas ucieka, a ludzie z niecierpliwością czekają.


  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for his work on this. I know that this often seems like a very technical piece of work, but these rapid annual updates are important because they offer transparency for citizens about their entitlements. It also means that certain individuals can be covered more quickly.

I would also like to stress – as others have done – that this is a coordination, not a harmonisation. Often that means that certain things which seem very reasonable are not necessarily acceptable within the coordination’s very limited scope. I think we also need to be clear that this coordination is not intended to undermine national systems and open them up to market forces – as I think we are beginning to see, particularly in the health sphere at the moment.

As others have mentioned, the implementing regulation for the update is in progress, but we already know that certain issues are not going to be covered. I think we need to find a solution for these outside the scope of this coordination, and I would urge the Commission to look at this: for example, when tax revenue is increasingly being used to underpin social security systems and people working abroad find that they are paying tax to contribute to a social security system to which they no longer have access.

I would also urge – as Parliament did some time ago – that national practice come into line with the spirit of the regulation so that we do not find, as is happening in France at the moment, that certain individuals are now no longer able to access systems to which they have been paying because of changes in national regulations.


  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – Vážený pane komisaři, není pochyb, že je potřeba schválit technické ty změny, které jsou navrženy v přílohách tohoto nařízení. Dáme tím do souladu nařízení s novější terminologií v některých zemích. Chci však znovu upozornit, že evropská legislativa nadále po několik let zůstává v rozporu s výroky Evropského soudního dvora, pokud jde o upřesnění pravidel pro nároky pacientů na proplácení nákladů na zdravotní péči v zahraničí. Rozpor se zejména týká nemocniční péče v souvislosti se všemi rozsudky – zdůrazňuji všemi – nejen s těmi, kde Rada našla již konsensus. Je skutečností, že pacienti sice dosáhnou na svá práva, pokud se obrátí na Evropský soudní dvůr, ale tento právní stav je nepřijatelný.

Připomínám opět zde, že byla promarněna možnost upravit příslušným způsobem nároky pojištěnců při přípravě nového zjednodušeného nařízení Rady 883 v roce 2004. Byla promarněna i možnost upravit principy stanovené Evropským soudním dvorem ve směrnici o službách o dva roky později. A dnes se sešel další rok s rokem a my děláme jen technické, nikoli koncepční změny. Nové prováděcí nařízení to snad vyřeší, ale zdá se, že ne vše, protože se Rada neshodla ve všem. Situaci může navíc komplikovat to, že DG SANCO nyní předkládá návrh nové směrnice o mobilitě pacientů. Protože ji čeká kontroverzní jednání, mimo jiné i kvůli sporu o subsidiaritu, můžeme se také dočkat dalšího odkladu pro zakotvení práv občanů na úhradu nemocniční péče. Spor je o její výši a podmíněnost autorizace pojišťovnou v zemi původu.

Z hlediska právní jistoty, dostupnosti a srozumitelnosti práva občanům považuji tuto situaci za velmi nežádoucí. Některé státy to řeší tak, že o nárocích daných rozsudky Evropským soudním dvorem své občany neinformují. Jsem přesvědčena, že je potřeba co nejrychleji tento problém řešit v novele prováděcího 883 z roku 2004 a nespoléhat se na to, že soulad s rozsudky zajistí bez dalšího odkladu chystaná kontroverzní nová směrnice o mobilitě z dílny DG SANCO.


  Emine Bozkurt (PSE). – Voorzitter, ik dank de heer Őry voor zijn uitstekende werk. Ik wil graag in de korte tijd die ik kan spreken één ding onderstrepen. Niet alles wat schort aan de coördinatie van socialezekerheidssystemen is te wijten aan regelgeving. Veel van de problemen die zich voordoen, komen voort uit de implementatie van die regels, iets waarvoor de lidstaten zelf verantwoordelijk zijn.

Bij het werk aan het verslag-Őry zijn een aantal van deze praktische problemen boven water gekomen. Dat is precies waar het om gaat bij coördinatie; niet alleen de regelgeving moet in orde zijn, ook de praktische toepassing ervan moet hierop aansluiten. Daarom ben ik blij dat de Raadsvoorzitters van tijd tot tijd met het Parlement overleggen, onder meer over de bijlagen XI en VI bij Verordening 883, waarvoor ikzelf rapporteur ben.

Het is wel van het grootste belang dat het werk van de Raad aan deze verordening en de bijlagen binnen dit mandaat van het Parlement wordt afgerond. Ik wens de komende Raadsvoorzitters daarbij veel succes.


  Janusz Wojciechowski (UEN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Popieram sprawozdanie pana Őry. Dobrze, ze Unia koordynuje systemy ubezpieczeń społecznych, bo w rozszerzonej Unii miliony ludzi pracują poza granicami własnych ojczyzn. Najliczniejsi są moi rodacy, Polacy, których ponad 2 miliony pracują dziś w różnych państwach członkowskich.

Z jednej strony cieszy ta możliwość przemieszczania się pracowników, z drugiej martwią nas coraz częściej zdarzające się przypadki złego traktowania pracowników zagranicznych. W kilku krajach ujawniono przypadki przestępczego traktowania polskich robotników, zmuszania ich do niewolniczej pracy. Polscy pracownicy stają się ofiarami napaści na tle narodowościowym. Zdarzało się to między innymi w Wielkiej Brytanii, a ostatnio w Niemczech – polskie media opisały przypadki brutalnych napaści na Polaków w niemieckim miasteczku Löknitz w Meklemburgii.

To są groźne zdarzenia i oczekujemy od wszystkich państw członkowskich, że będą w większym stopniu chronić pracowników cudzoziemskich przed wyzyskiem i prześladowaniami.


  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – Az európai határok leomlásával és az életforma változásával több millió európai polgár van, aki az egyik országban született, egy vagy több másik országban is dolgozott és nyugdíjas éveit megint más országban szeretné letölteni. Társadalombiztosítási járulékait másutt fizeti be, mint ahol a járulékokat később igénybe veszi.

A versenyfeltételek egyenlősége is megkívánja a társadalombiztosítási szolgáltatások harmonizálását. Hosszabb távon ezért elkerülhetetlen az egységes európai társadalombiztosítási rendszer megalkotása, beleértve a nyugdíjrendszert, a betegségbiztosítást és a szociális ellátást.

A Magyar Szocialista Párt munkacsoportja javasolja, hogy ez az elképzelés beleépüljön az Európai Szocialisták Pártja távlatos programjába. A harmonizáció természetesen időt vesz igénybe, jogvitákat is hoz, de biztos vagyok benne, hogy a jövő Európájában az egységes társadalombiztosításé a jövő.


  Петя Ставрева (PPE-DE). – Уважаеми г-н Председател, скъпи колеги, хармонизирането на социалното законодателство и координацията между страните-членки на Европейския съюз по отношение на схемите за социално осигуряване е от ключово значение за обединена Европа, където свободата на движение е една от основните ни ценности.

Необходимо е всеки, който има желание да работи в страните на Европейския съюз, да познава добре правата и задълженията си, както е необходимо и държавите-членки да защитават социалните права на своите граждани и да им осигуряват максимално благоприятни условия за работа и живот. Социалноосигурителният статус на гражданите, работещи в страните от Европейския съюз, има пряко отражение върху благосъстоянието на Общността и върху икономическите й резултати.

В България, като една от новите страни-членки на Европейския съюз, темата за социалното осигуряване е от изключителна актуалност. Смятам, че хармонизацията на схемите за социално осигуряване на европейско ниво ще осигури по-ясни и опростени правила за европейските граждани. Подкрепям доклада на г-н Őry и ви призовавам да гласувате в негова подкрепа.


  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. − Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το ενδιαφέρον του παρόντος κειμένου είναι ότι θα εγκριθεί ταχέως προκειμένου να ενισχυθεί η ασφάλεια δικαίου για τους πολίτες.

Γνωρίζουμε ότι οι κανονισμοί εκσυγχρονισμού και απλούστευσης είναι υπό έγκριση, επομένως η παρούσα πρόταση θα έχανε πολύ από το ενδιαφέρον της εάν καθυστερούσαμε.

Για την ανάγκη ενσωμάτωσης των πρόσφατων αποφάσεων του Δικαστηρίου των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων στη νομοθεσία μας, θα ήθελα να πω ότι το θέμα αυτό είναι τεχνικό και πρέπει να συζητηθεί στα πλαίσια της συζήτησης επί του εφαρμοστέου κανονισμού.

Η Επιτροπή έχει ήδη λάβει υπόψη, σε σημαντικό βαθμό, την πρόσφατη νομολογία του Δικαστηρίου στην πρότασή της για τη διασυνοριακή υγειονομική περίθαλψη που θα συζητηθεί σύντομα στο Κολλέγιο των Επιτρόπων.

Η ευνοϊκή ψήφος του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου για το παρόν κείμενο, θα επιτρέψει στην Επιτροπή να επικεντρώσει στο εξής τις προσπάθειές της στον εκσυγχρονισμό και την απλούστευση των κειμένων. Έχουμε ακόμη μεγάλο έργο μπροστά μας πριν αρχίσουν να εφαρμόζονται τα νέα κείμενα. Η προσπάθεια αυτή θα διευκολύνει μακροπρόθεσμα τα δικαιώματα των πολιτών που μετακινούνται στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και έτσι θα καταστεί πιο συγκεκριμένος ο θεμελιώδης αυτός στόχος της ευρωπαϊκής οικοδόμησης.

Επιτρέψτε μου να εκφράσω και πάλι τις ευχαριστίες μου στον εισηγητή για την εξαιρετική εργασία την οποίαν έκανε.


  Csaba Őry, előadó. − Köszönöm a szót, elnök úr! Végezetül talán érdemes összefoglalni egy, a vita hátterében meghúzódó kérdést – többen is említették, Jean Lambert és Bozkurt képviselőasszony is.

Tulajdonképpen miközben ezt a jelentést készítettem, sosem a tartalmi kérdésekről vitatkoztunk, ezekben mindig egyetértettünk. Amin vitatkoztunk az az, hogy hol húzódik az európai jogalkotásnak a kompetenciája és hol húzódik a nemzeti jogalkotásnak a kompetenciája. Szeretném önöket biztosítani arról, hogy ebben az esetben ezt az igen kényes egyensúlyt sikerült megtalálnunk.

Tehát valamennyi módosító indítványról beszéltünk a Bizottsággal is, beszéltünk a Tanács képviselőivel is. Ott, ahol végül vita alakult ki, ott, ha többszöri menetben is, de megtaláltuk a megoldást. Tehát legyen ez egy szerencsés vagy jó példa arra, hogy időnként még együtt is tudunk működni, ha erre szükség van. Hogy nekünk szükségünk van erre, az a mi számunkra evidencia, de hogy az európai polgároknak is szüksége van rá, azt gondolom, hogy ezt sem kellene kétségbe vonni.

Én a magam részéről a jelentés kapcsán nem törekedtem arra, hogy mélyreható változásokat javasoljak a szövegben, éppen azért, mert várunk a Bozkurt-jelentésre és Jean Lamber jelentésére, amelyek a 2003-as rendelethez kapcsolódnak. Tehát azt gondolom, hogy a jogszabály most hatályban marad – talán egy kicsit javítottunk rajta–, egyébként a vitát pedig majd folytatjuk a végrehajtási rendelet megalkotása kapcsán, és azt gondolom, hogy ez így van rendben.

Köszönöm még egyszer mind a Tanácsnak, mind a Bizottságnak, mind a képviselőtársaimnak az együttműködést.


  Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà oggi alle 11.30.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 142)


  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE), în scris. – Regulamentul pe care îl amendăm (1408/71) joacă un rol foarte important în realizarea uneia din cele patru libertăţi fundamentale ale Uniunii Europene, şi anume libertatea de mişcare. Libera circulaţie a muncii pe întreg teritoriul Uniunii Europene nu trebuie îngrădită nici direct, prin restricţionarea categoriilor de profesii la care au acces cetăţenii altor state membre, dar nici indirect, prin erodarea drepturilor sociale de care se bucură angajaţii străini.

De aceea, regulamentul propus de Comisie, completat cu amendamentele Parlamentului, va determina cu precizie situaţiile în care cetăţenii continuă să se bucure de beneficiile speciale acordate de statul de cetăţenie, cazurile în care aceste beneficii pot fi exportate, sau dacă se aplică alte scheme sociale care să nu defavorizeze cetăţeanul străin. În plus, prin lărgirea categoriilor de contracte de muncă utilizate în Europa, este nevoie de o înţelegere comună a ceea ce presupune statutul de independent sau cel de persoană fizică autorizată.

Nu în ultimul rând, consider că prezentul raport contribuie la garantarea drepturilor sociale ale cetăţenilor care îşi desfăşoară activitatea într-un alt stat membru al UE. Înlăturarea chestiunilor problematice privind recunoaşterea drepturilor sociale va conduce la mai multă mobilitate în Uniunea Europeană şi la un grad mai mare al ocupării forţei de muncă.


7. Kreditu għall-Konsumaturi (dibattitu)

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la raccomandazione per la seconda lettura dell'on. Kurt Lechner, a nome della commissione per il mercato interno e la protezione dei consumatori, relativa alla posizione comune del Consiglio in vista dell'adozione di una direttiva del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio in materia di credito ai consumatori e che abroga la direttiva 87/102/CEE (09948/2/2007 - C6-0315/2007 - 2002/0222 (COD)) (A6-0504/2007).


  Kurt Lechner, Berichterstatter. − Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Frau Kommissarin Kuneva! Einen Kredit aufzunehmen ist etwas anderes, als eine Ware zu kaufen. Die rechtliche Komplexität ist sehr viel größer, die gewachsenen nationalen Finanzierungskulturen und Rechtstraditionen spielen eine viel größere Rolle, und damit ist auch das Vertrauen der Bürger in diesem Umfeld oft entscheidend. Vor diesem Hintergrund stößt eine Angleichung des Rechts in diesem Bereich an Grenzen und sollte nur behutsam und schrittweise erfolgen.

Der Verbraucher als der schwächere Vertragsteil muss sicherlich rechtlich geschützt werden, aber gleichwohl müssen in diesem Zusammenhang auch die Grundsätze der Vertragsfreiheit und der Eigenverantwortung des mündigen Bürgers Maßstäbe sein – und nicht Dirigismus und Bevormundung. Den nationalen Gesetzgebern müssen Spielräume bleiben, gerade damit sie flexibel den Schutz der Verbraucher vor Ort gewährleisten und auf neue problematische Entwicklungen im Verbraucherschutz schnell eingehen können. Eine Ansammlung von Vorschriften ergibt noch keinen Verbraucherschutz! Folgenabschätzungen wären unabdingbar gewesen, gerade im Interesse der Verbraucher, wo doch Hunderte Millionen von Menschen betroffen sind. Eine Gesetzgebung soll sich an typischen Fallkonstellationen und nicht an den Ausnahmen orientieren.

Unter diesen Gesichtspunkten ist zunächst dem Europäischen Parlament insgesamt zu danken, dass der völlig unannehmbare erste Vorschlag der Kommission abgelehnt und in der ersten Lesung wesentlich und entscheidend verändert wurde. Ich will zweitens den neuen Ansatz der Kommission im geänderten Vorschlag aus dem Jahre 2005 ausdrücklich begrüßen, nämlich nur einzelne Grundelemente abschließend zu harmonisieren.

Kritisieren muss ich jedoch den Gemeinsamen Standpunkt des Rates. Statt den Blick auf eine vertretbare praktikable europäische Lösung zu richten, haben die Vertreter der Staaten jeweils ihre Sonderregelungen eingebracht, verteidigt und im Kompromiss aneinandergereiht. Die Folge ist eine Überbürokratisierung der Vorschriften. Der Verbraucher hat davon keinen Nutzen! Mit einer Überflutung von Informationen ist ihm nicht geholfen. Es entstehen erhebliche zusätzliche Kosten, die insbesondere bei kleinen Krediten zu Buche schlagen.

Ziel meiner Arbeit war es deshalb von Anfang an, eine Straffung zu versuchen und mehr Spielräume für den nationalen Gesetzgeber zu eröffnen. Ich will unter diesem Gesichtspunkt auch den Kollegen Dank sagen, weil alle Abstimmungen im Binnenmarktausschuss in dieselbe Richtung gegangen sind und wohl auch alle Entscheidungen, wie sie sich abzeichnen, in diese Richtung gehen.

Ich will nur zwei wesentliche Punkte erwähnen, nämlich die erheblichen Verbesserungen und Kürzungen beim Überziehungskredit und die sich abzeichnende Regelung zum Artikel 16, also der Entschädigung bei einer vorzeitigen Rückzahlung. Trotz dieser Verbesserungen bleibt aber die sich abzeichnende Mehrheit aus meiner Sicht auf halbem Wege stehen, wohl auch unter dem Eindruck der fehlenden Zustimmung im Rat und mit Blick auf das Ziel, das Gesetzgebungsvorhaben zu einem Abschluss zu bringen. Ich halte allerdings zusätzliche Verbesserungen für unabdingbar, um zu einer positiven Gesamtwürdigung zu kommen.

Ich will zwei Punkte erwähnen, die mir noch wichtig sind, und auch hier noch einmal um Zustimmung werben. Erstens sollte die Mindestgrenze, ab der die Richtlinie gilt, auf 500 Euro angehoben werden. Natürlich weiß ich, dass in Europa die Wertverhältnisse unterschiedlich sind. Aber es geht ja nicht darum, dass die Richtlinie erst ab 500 Euro gilt, sondern dass der nationale Gesetzgeber die Möglichkeit behalten soll, schon ab dem ersten Euro anzusetzen, und nicht zwingend erst ab 500 Euro.

Zweitens sollte der Verbraucher die Möglichkeit haben, auf die vorgesehenen Erläuterungen bei den Vorvertragsinformationen zu verzichten, auch unter dem Gesichtspunkt des Binnenmarkteffekts. Denn ich bin der Meinung, dass es ausreichen müsste, wenn der Verbraucher vorab einen Vertragstext erhält, und damit die vorvertraglichen Informationen erfüllt sind, wie es übrigens die Kommission in ihrem eigenen Vorschlag vorgesehen hatte. Damit würde die Papierflut eingegrenzt.

Ich befürchte, dass anderenfalls die gute Vorstellung, die mit dieser Richtlinie verbunden ist, dem Verbraucher in Europa den Binnenmarkt zu öffnen, mehr Produktvielfalt, mehr Möglichkeiten zu geben, nicht erreicht werden wird.


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the vote in this House on Wednesday on the Consumer Credit Directive is a very important moment for Europe’s 500 million consumers.

It will directly affect many people’s lives, and it is about two critically important issues. The first is about consumers being able to make better-informed choices when they take out credit loans: to pay for a family wedding, a washing machine or a new car – the things of life.

Second, it is about consumers getting more choice and a more competitive market. It is also a very important vote for businesses, creating a single, simple framework of rules so banks and other creditors can do business more easily across borders.

We need to seize this opportunity to move forward. It is clear that the status quo is not working. The figures speak for themselves. In Europe the average consumer credit interest rate varies from around 6% in Finland, the cheapest Member State, to over 12% in Portugal. In Italy, credit rates are about 9.4%, in Ireland about 6.8%.

Europe’s consumer credit market is fragmented, broken down into 27 ‘mini markets’. And, in a European credit market worth EUR 800 billion, direct cross-border financial services make up only a tiny fraction – 1% – of all distance credit transactions.

Clearly, the internal market is not functioning. Clearly, competition at EU level is not functioning. The result is that consumers are being denied choice and more competitive offers, and competitive businesses are being denied opportunities to access new markets.

The Consumer Credit Directive is necessary to start to break open the potential of the internal market and boost competition and choice. There are two main aims of the Consumer Credit Directive: to provide standards – comparable information – to consumers to make informed choices, and to give businesses a single set of standards to sell competitive credit offers across borders.

The Consumer Credit Directive focuses on transparency and consumer rights. I will highlight just a few of the important common elements it puts in place. Concerning advertising for credit loans: if there is a figure in an advertisement on credit, it will be mandatory to provide the same standard list of essential information all over the European Union.

Most importantly, for the first time, the annual percentage rate of charges will be calculated in the same way across the European Union. This is a very significant step forward, so that consumers can see the real cost of credit using one single figure.

Concerning pre-contractual information: information given to consumers for credit offers will be presented in the same standard credit information form across the EU, and it will give all the key facts and figures – from interest rates to information on charges and linked insurances. This will allow consumers to make a direct comparison between different offers presented in a standard, comparable way.

The Directive also sets out two essential rights for consumers. Once they have concluded the credit contract, consumers will be able to withdraw from the credit without having to give any reason and without any charge. This right, a new feature in almost half of the Member States, will apply to all consumer credits in the European Union.

In addition, the Consumer Credit Directive confirms the consumer’s right to switch, and this must be a very stable policy line – not only in this area. The right to switch with the right to repay early at any time: this is a critically important issue for the Commission, to ensure fair compensation to banks and at the same time to safeguard the consumer’s right to make a free choice and to proceed to a more competitive offer on the market. This is essential if competition is to thrive.

I fully recognise that harmonising legislation in this very sensitive area is not an easy task, but I am convinced that markets are made by people and should be made to work for people, and I believe that we in Europe are in the business of putting people at the centre of the market, giving people the power to chose, giving businesses the power to compete, and getting the European market to work for consumers.

I want to emphasise that, in the modern world, it is not about pitching consumers against business, but building healthy markets where consumers can choose and businesses can compete.

I believe that the amendments put forward by the PSE and the ALDE Groups – with which the Council has agreed – constitute a fair and reasonable compromise.

In my opinion, this is the best option in the interests of both consumers and financial services providers. I believe that the vote for this compromise package is a vote in favour of competitive markets, clear information and more informed consumer choice.

It is a modest beginning in the consumer dimension of financial services, where much needs to be done. So I look to the Members of this House: you are the ones to speak directly, on behalf of European citizens; you have fought, for so many years, for the things that really matter to people in their daily lives.

The task is to vote to support an agreement today on credit rules that will provide real added value to Europe’s citizens in that space where they lead their lives and to send a clear signal of Europe’s willingness to roll up our sleeves and work in an area that greatly concerns our citizens and businesses, large and small, today.


  Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I wish to begin by acknowledging the huge amount of work done by the rapporteur for our group, Mr Lechner, and also to pay tribute to both the Commission and the Council for the work we have done together on what has been a difficult and sometimes controversial proposal, which, as the Commissioner has said, has gone on over a number of years.

At its core – and here I agree completely with the Commissioner – is an extremely important proposal for Europe’s consumers in the internal market. Consumer credit is a really important mechanism for bringing consumers into the market place. We want a thriving and innovative market; we want companies actively offering a wide range of products and services tailored to the need of consumers to buy specific articles, products or services.

But, above all, we want a well-regulated market in which consumers feel confident in accessing that market and knowing that they will have the information but also the safeguards of being able to see clear contract terms. It is quite clear in financial services that good regulation encourages market activity, and that is what we have been seeking throughout this process. However, the problem we have had with this Directive is the fact that the consumer credit market across the European Union is at very different stages of development: many countries, like my own, already have well-developed regulation. The original idea of a maximum harmonisation would have meant that consumers in those countries would have been disadvantaged, and it has been trying to get that balance right that has occupied us.

I just want to correct one impression that I think Ms Kuneva gave, perhaps unintentionally: the package of compromise amendments on the table is supported with one exception only by this group. We have tabled the same amendments; it is a consensual position across Parliament. I think there is one aspect that we are still arguing about, but I am sure we will get there and then we will have a good and important package. However, the important thing is that we keep monitoring the evolution of this market, ensure that it develops in a responsible way and deal with some of the problems that might arise from the evolution and development of that market. I am confident that this House will rise to its responsibilities and we will come up with a good package tomorrow.


  Arlene McCarthy, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and previously the Committee on Legal Affairs, have always recognised the potential benefits, to both businesses and consumers, of developing an internal market and consumer credit. I was present during the gestation of this legislation and hope to be there tomorrow for the final delivery, as it were, of the new consumer credit baby!

The last five years of discussion and debate have demonstrated fundamental differences between the Commission and Parliament, and more specifically between the Member States, on the best way to achieve this, and I firmly believe there are lessons to be learned from that. All proposals – even a modified Commission proposal – have to undergo a rigorous impact assessment to enable all parties and stakeholders to evaluate the merits of the proposals and to engender consumer confidence and business confidence.

It is regrettable that neither the Commission nor the Council was prepared to do this at the time. However, our job today is to address the new text, which is a vast improvement on the original proposal. It focuses on the essential elements and components for starting to open the market and for protecting the consumer. Its benefits include enabling consumers to compare offers of credit, obliging lenders to assess the credit-worthiness of the consumer – which will be important in the fight against debt across the EU – and obliging lenders to provide explanations and, as a result of our amendments, all creditors will now be responsible for providing comprehensive and standard information in a simplified format.

I welcome the 14-day withdrawal right and the right to early repayment, which are good elements for engendering consumer confidence and encouraging them to look beyond their home market for credit offers. This is not just about opening the market, and the fact that we now have free movement of labour and people across 27 EU Member States gives this law new significance. For example, a Polish plumber working in France or Germany and borrowing from a credit institution there can now obviously compare the different offers on APR in the knowledge that he has the standard information enabling him to take the right decision.

Finally, I welcome the fact that the Commission, by exempting credit unions from this law, is not strangling small Community providers with red tape. I also welcome the Member State flexibility there is now. This has, for example, enabled a high level of protection to be maintained for consumers in the UK, which will now retain the right to joint and several liability for credit cards. There is therefore enough flexibility in this proposal to make it work, and I would urge Members to lend it their support.

As chair of the Committee, I think that our work does not finish here ...

(The President cut off the speaker)


  Diana Wallis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, this is normally the time of year we all wish one another a ‘Happy New Year’. However, in the UK, and globally, the news this new year has been dominated by worries over the economy, and particularly over consumer credit. It is not just a question of normal post-Christmas depression; we all know that it goes much deeper than that. Credit is going to be a difficult issue for the foreseeable future, for both lenders and borrowers alike.

As legislators confronted with that global backdrop, we need to do something. We need to stimulate the EU’s market in financial services, while on the other hand ensuring that our consumers make sensible and informed choices, and that all the information and the comparators are available to them in order to do so. Many of us in this House, and particularly in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Affairs, have spent the last couple of years sitting on an enquiry by Parliament into the demise of the British insurer, Equitable Life. We know what the consequences are for consumers, in the context of financial services, if we get the cross-border regulatory regime wrong. In this instance we need such a regime and we need to get it right, particularly in view of the global circumstances we are facing.

This directive can help. It can help Europe’s market in financial services at a difficult time, and it can empower and assist our consumers in obtaining credit and doing so competitively. My group has signed up to and put forward, with the PSE, a package that we hope will be agreed. It seems to us that, at the end of the day, we are faced with an argument that is almost about one word, in one article, after seven years of negotiating and drafting. It would be a pretty poor affair for this House and for Europe’s institutions if we cannot overcome that and deliver this directive, which will, hopefully, bring to the European market all the benefits we have heard outlined.


  Eoin Ryan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – I support the need to update EU legislation in this area. The last time we had a directive on this was in 1987, and certainly the consumer credit market has changed dramatically since then.

This EU Directive on Consumer Credit Loans seeks to introduce a greater level of competition into the EUR 800 billion consumer credit market. It will bring legal certainty to consumers, which is absolutely vital if people are to shop around and look for the best product which suits their needs. It will also help business to compete. When you look at the differences in consumer credit rates around Europe – from 6% in some countries up to 12% in others – it surely is time that the consumer got a better choice.

These new rules will make the market more transparent for consumers and business competitors alike. The main effect of this Directive will be to provide comparable and standard information to consumers across the EU who take out loans. For credit offers, the information given to consumers, whether it is interest rates, numbers and frequency of payments, must be set out in a new EU-wide European credit information form.

So I very much welcome this. I think that it is vital for consumers that they have confidence and that there is legal certainty in this area, but I believe that this will bring greater competition in this area and will, at the end of the day – as has already been pointed out – give more choice to consumers, and that the consumers will benefit greatly from this Directive.


  Heide Rühle, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Leider müssen wir morgen eine Richtlinie verabschieden, die unserem eigenen Anspruch auf better regulation nicht entspricht. Es gibt keine Auswirkungsstudie, obwohl es sich um einen ganz neuen Vorschlag handelt, trotz der inzwischen erfolgten Erweiterung der EU um 12 neue Mitgliedstaaten, trotz großer Differenzen im Bereich der Finanzkultur, im Bereich der Regulierungen, im Bereich der sozialen Differenzen innerhalb der Mitgliedstaaten.

Hier wäre statt einer vollständigen Harmonisierung dringend mehr Spielraum für die Mitgliedstaaten nötig gewesen. Die Mitgliedstaaten können heute ganz anders, viel schneller auf die unterschiedlichen Modelle reagieren, die ständig und täglich neu auf dem Markt erscheinen. Die Mitgliedstaaten sind auch besser gerüstet, auf die Finanzkrise zu reagieren. Die Zeiträume, in denen sie regulieren können, sind kürzer als die Zeiträume der Europäischen Union.

Deshalb hätte es Sinn gemacht, sich hier auf eine Minimalharmonisierung zu beschränken, statt den Versuch zu machen, eine Maximalharmonisierung zu erreichen. Das ist der Punkt, den wir an dieser Verbraucherrichtlinie kritisieren. Wir kritisieren außerdem auch, dass inzwischen wegen der Mitgliedstaaten zahlreiche Ausnahmeregeln geschaffen worden sind, die einfach gemacht werden mussten, um die Mitgliedstaaten ins Boot zu bekommen. Leider hat es die Stringenz des Textes überhaupt nicht verbessert.

Es gibt allerdings eine Ausnahmeregelung, für die wir auch noch plädieren würden, nämlich die Frage der Renovierungskredite. Angesichts der großen Herausforderungen des Klimawandels wäre es dringend nötig, grundpfandlich rechtlich abgesicherte Renovierungskredite aus diesem Vorschlag herauszunehmen, die nichts mit Verbraucherkrediten zu tun haben, sondern eher wie Hypothekarkredite zu bewerten sind.


  Eva-Britt Svensson, för GUE/NGL-gruppen. – Herr talman! När man reglerar hur ett avtal mellan två olika parter ska utformas, måste man självklart ta hänsyn till om parterna är likvärdiga eller om ena parten redan från början har ett övertag. Om ena parten har ett övertag, måste man i avtalsregleringen ta hänsyn till det och hitta ett regelverk som stärker den svagare parten.

När det gäller konsumentkrediterna, som vi diskuterar nu, så är det den som behöver krediten som är i underläge. Tyvärr tar inte vare sig föredraganden eller kompromissförslaget tillräcklig hänsyn till detta ansvar, till konsumenternas rätt och skydd. Det är särskilt allvarligt, eftersom det är de med de svagaste ekonomiska resurserna som överhuvudtaget efterfrågar krediter vid inköp.

Jag vill också säga att trots att vi har ett beslut om att vi ska tillämpa gender mainstreaming i allt vårt arbete här i parlamentet, så har det inte gjorts någon genusanalys av detta direktiv, och trots att vi vet att särskilt många kvinnor med de lägsta lönerna är de som ofta fastnar i skuldfällorna. Jag hävdar att det måste finnas ett tak för ersättningsnivån vid förtidsbetalning av lånen. Jag hävdar också att tre dagars ångerrätt är alldeles för kort tid. Dessutom vill jag ha en minimiharmonisering, inte en maximiharmonisering.


  Godfrey Bloom, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I wonder if I might perhaps offer a few words of wisdom here. I have spent most of my life in merchant banking, albeit not retail banking, and I have to say I do not regard it as the business of politicians to come between a consumer, or a lender, and a borrower. I would not dream of trying to regulate on this subject, with all my experience. I look down the list of people who actually serve on this committee and in this Parliament and I do not see a great deal of experience there, so it is a question of the blind leading the blind. I think that this place, which has not managed to audit its own books for nearly 11 years, commenting on this is slightly absurd.

The fact that you can actually have rules for Bucharest, London and Paris and consumers in those places is absolutely ludicrous. Perhaps I could warn people like the UK Government that bailing out banks to the tune of 50% of their entire reserves is fundamentally wrong.

So, if I may, let me give one tip to the consumer: ‘never a lender or a borrower be’, and to governments, let me say: ‘a fool and his money are soon parted’!


  Andreas Schwab (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal gilt mein Dank dem Berichterstatter und natürlich auch der Kommissarin, die in dieser schwierigen Materie eine sehr konstruktive Rolle gespielt hat.

Frau Kollegin Wallis hat vorher angesprochen, dass dieses Dossier im Europäischen Parlament und in den europäischen Institutionen seit über sieben Jahren „herumgeistert“ — wie ich gerne sagen will. Und diese sieben Jahre waren nach meinem Dafürhalten keine sieben Jahre der Transparenz bei der Rechtsetzung, es waren keine sieben Jahre von better regulation, sondern es war ein Wirrwarr, den zu überblicken auch heute nur wenige Kollegen im Stande sind.

Ich glaube, dass wir damit weder dem europäischen Verbraucher noch dem europäischen Bürger, der sich dieses Gezerre hinter den Kulissen zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten hat ansehen müssen, einen großen Gefallen tun. Aber wenn das, was nun dabei am Schluss herauskommt, dazu führt, dass der Verbraucher, der z. B. einen Pkw kaufen möchte, mehr Transparenz bei der Entscheidung für einen Ratenkredit, für einen Privatkredit bekommt, dann glaube ich, dass das nützlich ist.

Es wurde hier angesprochen: Es ist ein Markt von 800 Millionen Euro, die Varianz der Kreditzinsen bewegt sich um die 6 %. Da liegt natürlich sehr viel Musik drin, und es bleibt zu hoffen, dass der Verbraucher von diesem Spielraum auch profitieren kann. Ich habe daran berechtigte Zweifel! Denn wenn der Verbraucher eine Digitalkamera für 220 Euro erwirbt und dann ein zehnseitiges Kreditformular schriftlich auszufüllen hat, wird er kaum in der Lage sein, die Risiken, die in einem Kredit über 220 Euro liegen, zu übersehen.

Es wird also aus meiner Sicht dazu führen, dass vieles, das in diesem Dossier gut gemeint ist, dem normalen, schutzwürdigen Verbraucher am Schluss nicht hilft, sondern ihn in Schwierigkeiten stürzt, so dass er von einem Ratenkredit sogar eher Abstand nimmt, weil er Angst hat, diese umfangreiche Schriftsetzung auszufüllen. Ich bleibe dabei und hoffe, dass die Varianz der Kreditzinsen für den Verbraucher transparenter wird und dass damit ein Vorteil entsteht, wenngleich das Verfahren aus meiner Sicht inakzeptabel war.


  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Ich denke, wir müssen hier zu einem Abschluss kommen, damit die Verbraucher und die Banken wissen, was in Zukunft für sie gelten und was nicht für sie gelten wird.

Ich denke, dass der Kompromiss, den wir letzte Woche erarbeitet haben und dem auch die Liberalen zugestimmt haben, durchaus ein vernünftiger Kompromiss ist, in dem wir eine vertretbare, verbraucherfreundliche, gemeinsame Lösung gefunden haben. Das ist das Wichtige!

Herr Schwab, mit Verlaub, erstens: Zehn Seiten sind das nicht. Und zweitens: Ich finde, es ist sehr gut, dass wir ein gemeinsames Formular haben, in dem für die Verbraucher klar und transparent stehen muss, wie hoch der Gesamtkreditbetrag ist, wie lange die Laufzeit ist, wie das geltende Rücktrittsrecht aussieht und wie hoch der effektive Jahreszins ist, der dann z. B. auf einer gemeinsamen, gleichen Grundlage in allen Mitgliedstaaten berechnet wird. Das ist Transparenz, und diese Transparenz ist es, die wir brauchen und die mit dem Vorschlag im Änderungsantrag 46 morgen zur Abstimmung kommen wird. Ich hoffe sehr, dass es uns gelingt, diese Transparenz auch wirklich durchzusetzen.

Ich denke, mit Verlaub, der Berichterstatter hat viel gearbeitet, das ist richtig, aber meine Fraktion kann nicht akzeptieren, dass wir als Parlament in eine Situation hineinmanövriert werden, in der es plötzlich so aussieht, dass der Rat verbraucherfreundlicher ist als das Europäische Parlament. Für meine Fraktion ist das eine Situation, die schlicht und einfach inakzeptabel ist, und deswegen müssen wir dafür sorgen, dass es eine gute Balance gibt zwischen dem Recht der Banken, natürlich auch Geschäfte zu machen – das ist in der Marktwirtschaft eine normale Sache –, und dem Schutz der Verbraucher, damit sie auch die Informationen erhalten, die sie brauchen, um vernünftig zu entscheiden, welchen Kredit sie annehmen und welchen sie nicht annehmen. Das ist der richtige Weg, und das ist das, was wir morgen annehmen sollten.


  Toine Manders (ALDE). – Voorzitter, vooraleerst wil ik mijn collega en vriend Kurt Lechner bedanken voor zijn opstelling en zijn constructieve samenwerking. Ook de commissaris en de Raad, want de trialoog was lang! Wij hebben helaas geen compromis kunnen bereiken, maar we zaten er een millimeter vandaan; ik ben dus blij dat wij nu woensdagmorgen gaan stemmen over datzelfde compromis en ik ga ervan uit dat we dat gaan halen.

Waarom? We spreken er inderdaad al zeven jaar over. Als wij als politiek naar de markt en onze burgers, naar de consumenten, maar ook naar de sector en de industrie toe, geloofwaardig willen lijken, dan is het belangrijk dat wij uiteindelijk een beslissing nemen. Een compromis is altijd geven en nemen en natuurlijk zijn er aspecten die kunnen verbeteren, maar dat geldt voor alle partijen. Een compromis is nu eenmaal water bij de wijn doen en dan heb je een resultaat en daar moet je tevreden mee zijn.

Ik denk, Voorzitter, dat het plan wat er nu ligt in het belang is van de consument, maar óók in het belang van de financiële sector. Daar moeten wij aan werken, dat is in het belang van Europa en van de interne markt.


  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Przede wszystkim gratuluję panu posłowi sprawozdawcy bardzo dobrej pracy, wymagającej z pewnością dużo cierpliwości, ale i przynoszącej z pewnością dużo satysfakcji. Sprawozdanie to bez wątpienia może zasługiwać na miano jednego z najbardziej kontrowersyjnych i trudnych do wypracowania kompromisów projektów. Celem jego jest bowiem zbliżenie ze sobą poszczególnych przepisów występujących w różnych krajach unijnych, które tak naprawdę są zupełnie inne, a ich stanowienie znajduje się głównie w gestii państw członkowskich.

Harmonizacja w tym sektorze jest po prostu niemożliwa. Możemy starać się jedynie wprowadzać częściową zbieżność wymogów, a i to - jak było widać w ostatnich miesiącach - sprawia wyraźny kłopot. Zgadzam się z podejściem pana sprawozdawcy, że w tak trudnym sprawozdaniu należy jak najwięcej wolnej ręki zostawić państwom członkowskim. Jest to wydaje się jedyne sensowne rozwiązanie, aby tak trudne i ciężkie sprawozdanie zostało zaakceptowane przez wszystkie zaangażowane strony.

Wydaje się, że w obecnej wersji tekst został uproszczony. Widać jednak w całej nad nim pracy brak analizy wpływów, która z pewnością poprawiłaby jego jakość. Projekt ten w ogólnej mojej ocenie wydaje się satysfakcjonujący. Oczywiście jest to wersja daleka od ideału, ale dostosowana do obecnej sytuacji w państwach członkowskich. Projekt ten znosi obciążenia finansowe i administracyjne dla konsumentów i wprowadza moim zdaniem ważne zapisy chroniące ich i ułatwiające zawieranie kredytów. Jedną z takich bardzo trafnych propozycji jest wprowadzenie jednolitego formularza przedumowy, który zdecydowanie ułatwia konsumentom porównywanie ofert.


  Mia De Vits (PSE). – Voorzitter, collega's, wat mij betreft kan ik het enthousiasme in verband met deze tekst niet delen. Er zijn belangrijke stappen vooruit gezet, maar deze tekst beantwoordt niet aan het doel, namelijk een geharmoniseerd kader creëren; dit geharmoniseerd kader is niet gerealiseerd op een aantal voor ons essentiële punten.

Ik verklaar mij nader. Er zijn twee punten die, voor wat onze delegatie betreft, moeilijk en zeer moeilijk blijven liggen. Het precontractueel informatiepakket wordt versterkt en geharmoniseerd. Dat is goed. Maar het wordt uitgehold door de verschillende formules die men toelaat voor het jaarlijks kostenpercentage voor de kredietopening. Men moet mij eens uitleggen hoe de consument op een objectieve wijze deze verschillende formules gaat kunnen vergelijken.

Ten tweede dreigt voor wat mijn land - België - betreft een afzwakking voor de consument in die zin dat de databank geconsulteerd moet worden, maar dat er geen sancties aan gekoppeld worden voor de banken. Dit dreigt de mensen nog meer in de schulden te brengen. Ook voor de banken zelf vind ik het een gemiste kans. Het blijft een versnipperde regelgeving.


  Wolf Klinz (ALDE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich begrüße den gut gemeinten Versuch der Kommission, auch für den Verbraucherkredit einen funktionierenden Binnenmarkt mit verstärkten Verbraucherrechten zu etablieren. Allerdings müssen die Arbeitsergebnisse auch das halten, was dem Verbraucher versprochen wird: größere Angebotsvielfalt, bessere Konditionen durch zunehmenden Wettbewerb und weniger Bürokratie. Daran gemessen ist das Resultat der Richtlinie zum Verbraucherkredit in weiten Teilen unbefriedigend.

Erstens sind die vorgeschriebenen Standardinformationen mit rund acht Seiten zu umfangreich. Ich bezweifle, dass der Kunde sie tatsächlich zur eingehenden Information nutzt. De facto ist das ein spürbares Mehr an Bürokratie, für das am Ende des Tages der Verbraucher zahlen muss.

Zweitens hat man bei der vorzeitigen Rückzahlung eines Kredits die Chance ungenutzt gelassen, den Verbraucher an einem außerordentlichen Ertrag partizipieren zu lassen, den der Kreditgeber dann hat, wenn sich die Zinssituation seit der Kreditvergabe zu seinen Gunsten verändert hat.

Drittens bedeutet der gefundene Kompromiss praktisch das Aus für den in Deutschland üblichen und viel genutzten Überziehungskredit. Die Bürger werden das sehr bedauern und einmal mehr auf den bürokratischen Moloch Brüssel schimpfen. Weniger wäre mehr gewesen!


  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – Chcela by som poďakovať spravodajcovi Kurtovi Lechnerovi za jeho náročnú prácu, ktorú odviedol pri spracovaní tejto správy. Podarilo sa mu zjednodušiť príliš komplikovaný a byrokratický návrh Rady novými pozmeňujúci návrhmi.

Využijem prítomnosť pani komisárky Kunevy na tejto pre európskych spotrebiteľov dôležitej rozprave. Aj pri tejto príležitosti by som chcela opäť upozorniť na nezastupiteľnú úlohu spotrebiteľských organizácií, ktoré musia dostať im zaslúžený priestor v každom členskom štáte Únie, ale aj adekvátnu podporu zo strany Komisie. Aby sa zlepšila kvalita ochrany spotrebiteľa, musia sa jednotlivé spotrebiteľské organizácie finančne posilniť, aby mohli vzdelávať spotrebiteľov a poskytovať nezávislé poradenstvo aj vo veci spotrebiteľských úverov, hlavne pre najviac zraniteľné skupiny spotrebiteľov.

Pani komisárka, napriek tomu, že robíte pre spotrebiteľské organizácie veľa povzbudzujúcich krokov a Vaším príchodom dostala politika ochrany spotrebiteľa zelenú, prosím Vás o pomoc aj v roku 2008.


  Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – Aš norėčiau pasveikinti šitos direktyvos atsiradimą – tai veiksmas teigiama linkme, tačiau atkreipti dėmesį į 16 straipsnį, ypač komisarės dėmesį. Mano šalyje vartotojas nemoka jokios kompensacijos, jeigu jis anksčiau grąžina paskolą. Dabar įvedus šį straipsnį iš tiesų vartotojas turėtų mokėti daugiau. Man sunku patikėti, kad tai reiškia vartotojų apsaugą. Be abejo, sakoma, kad straipsnyje yra pakankamai teisinių saugiklių, kad vartotojui nereikėtų to mokėti, bet kai eina kalba apie teisinius saugiklius, tai čia jau yra teisininkų žaidimai, o ne reali ekonomika. Realioje ekonomikoje, jeigu vartotojus galės apmokestinti, tai juos ir apmokestins. Dėl to aš prašau vis dėlto atkreipti dėmesį į geresnį 16 straipsnio suderinimą, atsižvelgiant į tai, kad daugelyje šalių šito mokesčio iš viso nėra.


  Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I think we have managed to get quite a good result in the recent negotiations. What we have not managed to improve is simplicity. I think that now there is far too much information for an ordinary consumer in Europe. Whenever the Council members and Member States request more derogations from the standard information, it makes this whole directive more complex.

I think that standard information really should be standard. It should be an EU level playing field. Every time that we in Parliament or Member States in the Council say that we should have different adaptive rules by the Member States we make this issue more complex.

I totally agree with the Commission’s objective. Probably the compromise negotiations are headed in the right direction, but something should be done about the simplicity issue before this directive gets into the books and reaches consumers.


  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE-DE). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, je voudrais juste faire quelques remarques.

Je crois qu'il est bon, pour l'image de notre Parlement, de montrer aux consommateurs européens que nous avons en charge la protection de leurs intérêts. Et si le rapport de M. Lechner relève d'un très gros travail, dont il faut le féliciter, je crois qu'il appartient maintenant de trouver dans cette phase finale le compromis qui permettra de souligner l'importance que les consommateurs revêtent pour nos parlements. Ce serait le comble que ce soit le Conseil qui apparaisse comme le meilleur protecteur des consommateurs.

Il faut que nous trouvions ce compromis sur les quelques mots qui nous séparent, de manière à éviter une conciliation qui serait préjudiciable, me semble-t-il, à tout le monde. Il convient également d'éviter les régressions et, de même qu'en Lituanie, en France, les consommateurs ne paient pas d'indemnités en cas de remboursement anticipé. Nous ne pouvons pas proposer aux consommateurs des régressions par rapport au droit national actuel.


  Presidente. − Se non vi sono altri interventi, ricordo comunque ai colleghi che la procedura "catch the eye" può essere utilizzata anche per intervenire di nuovo, se si ritenesse di non aver terminato il proprio intervento la prima volta.


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Lechner, and to all Honourable Members for raising a lot of important and wise remarks.

Let me just comment on a few of them. We believe that the threshold is set up very carefully. Our common aim is not to deprive vulnerable consumers of protection by directive. That is why we set up a threshold which equally embedded the interests of the new countries and which does not exclude most average credits in the EU-12.

It is also, we believe, a big advantage to have a standard info-sheet, which many of you have pointed out as one of the main positive steps in the directive. This will be one of the biggest advantages and we will not deprive the consumers if we substitute it for the contract copy, because consumers cannot easily compare copies of the contract. They often have difficulties understanding the contract copies – and this is borne out by Eurobarometer research.

As to full harmonisation – actually I would like to stress that this is ‘targeted’ full harmonisation. The reason why it is better than minimum harmonisation, as some of you proposed to discuss even today, is that we think that it is necessary to lower market-entry barriers for financial services providers, and this is one of the main reasons why this proposal for a directive is going ahead. Through this, we need to increase consumer confidence. That is why targeted full harmonisation is the best way to do it.

The Commission would like to reassure Mr Harbour especially that it will monitor the market. My services have launched a study to collect indicators and data on the present market. A few years later we will use the same indicators and collect the same data. This will allow us to decide on the follow-up.

To conclude, I can only repeat that in my view, going through the conciliation procedure would not help us reach a better compromise than the one you have on the table today. Consequently, I very much hope that Parliament will be able to adopt this text at second reading tomorrow.


  Kurt Lechner, Berichterstatter. − Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist in der Aussprache deutlich geworden, dass wir alle ein gemeinsames Ziel haben. Insbesondere kann ich dem, was die Kommissarin eingangs gesagt hat, uneingeschränkt zustimmen. Die Frage ist nur, ob die Ziele mit dem Text, der jetzt auf dem Tisch liegt auch erreicht werden. Ich denke, da sind unterschiedliche Meinungen berechtigt.

Der einheitliche Effektivzins ist sicherlich uneingeschränkt ein Fortschritt, ebenso das gemeinsame einheitliche Widerrufsrecht. Aber lassen Sie mich noch einmal betonen: Was dem Schutz der Verbraucher dient, ergibt sich aus einer Gesamtbetrachtung – auch das hat die Frau Kommissarin zu Recht gesagt –, und nicht aus einer Addition aller Vorschriften, die es irgendwo in Europa gibt. Mehr Rechtsvorschriften bedeuten nicht mehr Verbraucherschutz.

Zum Thema Zinsdifferenzen in Europa will ich darauf hinweisen, dass ich es für gut gehalten hätte, wenn man einmal eine Untersuchung vorgelegt hätte, inwieweit diese Zinsdifferenzen möglicherweise auf unterschiedliche Rechtsvorschriften in den betreffenden Ländern und auf Kompliziertheiten zurückzuführen sind, und ob möglicherweise dort, wo es einfachere rechtliche Regelungen gibt, auch die Zinsen niedriger sind. Ich weiß es nicht, aber es wäre schon richtig gewesen. Auch der Wettbewerb und die allgemeine Aufklärung der Verbraucher dienen dem Verbraucherschutz, Überkompliziertheit dient dem Verbraucherschutz nicht.

Eine kurze Bemerkung zum Trilog: Ich war schon der Ansicht, dass wir unsere Meinungsverschiedenheiten hier im Parlament austragen sollten. An mir soll eine Einigung nicht scheitern. Ich bin jedoch nicht dafür, nachdem wir immer für Transparenz – gerade auch im Ministerrat und sonstwo – plädieren, dass das hinter verschlossenen Türen in einem informellen Gremium geschieht, sondern dass zunächst jedes Parlament seine Meinung äußert, dass Anträge vorgelegt werden und dass man dann zu einem Ergebnis kommt.

Ich will noch einmal wiederholen: Der Text ist im Verlauf der über sechsjährigen Beratungen erheblich verbessert worden. Dies will ich ausdrücklich betonen! Und das Parlament trägt hieran einen entscheidenden Anteil. Ein bisschen sehe ich das auch als Erfolg meiner eigenen Arbeit an. Aber der Text ist meines Erachtens eben nicht gut genug. Gleichwohl, er wird in Kraft treten. Ich stehe nicht an, den Kollegen, der Kommission, auch dem Rat, der eigentlich immer sehr offen und eingehend informiert hat, für die Arbeit zu danken, die insgesamt durchaus erfreulich und angenehm war.


  Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 16 gennaio 2008, alle 12.00.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 142)


  Lasse Lehtinen (PSE), in writing. – Parliament’s vote on this very important dossier means are now one step closer to fully implementing the four freedoms. This directive will bring more rights and transparency to consumers when taking a consumer credit. Comparing credit conditions across borders and choosing the best offer will now become much easier than before. After five years of preparations, the directive will apply to all unsecured loans between EUR 200 and EUR 75 000. I want to point out that it is important to set the lower threshold at EUR 200, since loans do not often exceed EUR 500, especially in the new Member States.

The consumer will benefit not least from all contractual information, a common method for the calculation of the annual percentage rate and a 14 day withdrawal period.

Balanced laws like this help us to achieve the approval of the citizens for the European Union.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. – An EU directive on consumer credit has been talked about for some time, so today’s debate on the directive is to be welcomed. There is great hope that the directive will lead to consumers looking beyond their own national boundaries for loans – allowing them to shop around for the cheapest loan available.

It should, when implemented and taken up by EU citizens, lead to people availing of cheaper credit.

But this is the key to its success: firstly knowledge among EU citizens of the possibility of availing of loans across borders, and secondly a willingness of citizens to take up this option.

At present, it is clear that there is a reluctance among citizens to shop around within their own Member State for best value in loans, just as there is still some resistance among consumers to change banking institutions, though that may be changing slowly.

The success or otherwise of this directive depends on its effective implementation by Member States. Only time will tell if it lives up to our expectations and provides greater choice to consumers, greater availability of consumer loans and most importantly lower costs on such loans.


  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE), in writing. – Consumer credits are an essential pillar of the internal market.

First of all, I think this directive is a first step and a good example of how the EU delivers concrete results, even in such a controversial issue.

Second, in my opinion in the longer term further harmonisation is needed once we have gathered experience on the working of this directive so as to make it easier for consumers to shop across borders and to give full legal certainty to businesses on their obligations when offering these credits in other Member States.

Third, I want to thank all the people involved for their perseverance in this process, which has lasted for years.


(La seduta è sospesa fino alle votazioni alle 11.15 e ripresa alle 11.30)




8. Ħin tal-votazzjonijiet

  El Presidente. − Pasamos ahora al turno de votaciones.

(Para los resultados y otros detalles de la votación: véase el Acta)

* * *


  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, on a point of order, under Rule 160 of the Rules of Procedure, our group has requested that we have roll-call votes today on everything, and I know that has excited some interest in the Chamber.

Just by way of explanation, not just this group but many MEPs from all groups are deeply concerned about the method of voting that takes place in here. In fact, you yourself in the chair just a few months ago said we have made mistakes here, which, in a vote of this size, are statistically normal. We would argue that when we are voting on legislation there should not be any possibility of mistakes being made.

Perhaps I would ask Members, when they are going through this lengthy roll-call procedure, to consider just how important voting is, and perhaps in the light of that we will get MEPs next month, when we vote on the EU Lisbon Treaty, to vote for an amendment to allow those 10 countries that promised their own people a referendum, the opportunity to do so.


  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – Herr Präsident! Ich würde nur um Folgendes bitten: In der Geschäftsordnung steht unter Artikel 159: „Das Parlament stimmt in der Regel durch Handzeichen ab“. Daher sollte geprüft werden, ob der Antrag der Fraktion, wonach jede Abstimmung namentlich erfolgen soll, auch der Geschäftsordnung entspricht. Aus meiner Sicht widerspricht das der Geschäftsordnung. Ich bitte, das bis morgen zu erledigen. Ich glaube, dass wir heute genau so abstimmen, wie es in der Abstimmungsliste vorgesehen ist, aber ich bitte, die rechtliche Zulässigkeit bis morgen zu überprüfen.


  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, due cose: questa telecamera che è posta qui, credo che andrebbe rimossa, per consentire al collega Donnici – come a tutti quanti noi – di potere vedere la presidenza e gli altri colleghi; e ne approfitto per congratularmi con la decisione dell'Ufficio di presidenza del Parlamento europeo di dedicare la sala stampa del Parlamento ad Anna Politovskaja.


  El Presidente. − El Reglamento de la Cámara prevé que normalmente la votación se lleve a cabo a mano alzada salvo cuando se solicite expresamente votación nominal.

En la votación a mano alzada puede suceder —no es frecuente, pero sucede de vez en cuando, esporádicamente— que la Presidencia, bien sea porque los diputados no levantan la mano o porque se produce alguna situación de confusión, se equivoque al apreciar el sentido de la votación. En este caso, también frecuentemente, algún diputado pide verificación y, entonces, el Presidente verifica con votación nominal y la situación se resuelve.

Por tanto, todo esto está previsto y nuestras votaciones se realizan, en un 99,9 % de las ocasiones, de manera perfectamente correcta.

En cualquier caso, el Presidente del Parlamento recibió en su momento una carta del diputado señor Booth, en la que señalaba este problema y solicitaba que se actuara al respecto.

Este asunto va a ser tratado en la Conferencia de Presidentes y, por supuesto, lo tratará el grupo de trabajo que se ocupa de la reforma de los métodos de trabajo de la Cámara. Todo eso está en marcha. Por tanto, señor Farage, tenga la seguridad de que le vamos a prestar al tema toda la atención y vamos a intentar que las cosas, cada día, funcionen mejor.

Hoy, señor Swoboda, hoy, vamos a votar —también de acuerdo con el Reglamento—, ya que así lo ha solicitado un grupo político, por votación nominal. Esto, el día de hoy. Y a partir de hoy ya tomaremos determinaciones.


  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on that very point, during the last parliamentary term, a group chaired by Mr Corbett, from the PSE Group, submitted proposals to the House to the effect that, if more than 100 amendments were tabled at the plenary stage, then the report in question should be sent back to committee. There have now been a number of occasions when that has not taken place. I wonder if, when recommending to the Conference of Presidents that it look into these matters, you could also recommend it consider the very good recommendations which Mr Corbett brought forward during the last parliamentary term.


  Graham Booth (IND/DEM). – Mr President, pursuant to Rule 145, I would just like to make a personal statement. Yes, I have written to the President of Parliament complaining about the voting, as you know. I have updated him several times since then, because my request for full electronic voting was turned down by the committee. Its response was ‘no follow-up’. I have, in fact, written several times. The worst case that I have reported was overturned from ‘rejected’ to ‘approved’ by 567 votes to 17, with 18 abstentions. That is why I have called this system ludicrous in the past. It really must be dealt with.


8.1. (A6-0517/2007, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski) It-twaqqif ta' sħubijiet Ewropej fil-qafas tal-proċess ta' stabbilizzazzjoni u assoċjazzjoni (votazzjoni)

8.2. (A6-0506/2007, Bogusław Liberadzki) Kontroll tat-trasport bit-triq ta' merkanzija perikoluża (setgħat implimentattivi mogħtija lill-Kummissjoni) (votazzjoni)

- Antes de la votación:


  Bogusław Liberadzki, sprawozdawca. − Panie Przewodniczący! Rozmawiamy o dyrektywie 95. Jej zmianę miałem zaszczyt referować Wysokiej Izbie we wrześniu roku ubiegłego. Otóż istota dotyczy sprawowania funkcji kontroli, ponieważ dyrektywa ta zawiera bardzo dużo szczegółów technicznych dotyczących pojazdów, ładunków, drogi. W roku 1996 wprowadzono nową procedurę komitologii, czyli procedurę regulacyjną połączoną z kontrolą.

Nasza komisja wnosi, aby w warunkach realizacji znowelizowanej dyrektywy 95 tę nową procedurę regulacyjną połączoną z kontrolą zastosować w ramach kompetencji Komisji Europejskiej. Powaga Parlamentu Europejskiego na tym nie ucierpi. Unikniemy nadmiernej szczegółowości naszej funkcji kontrolnej. Komisja jednomyślnie przyjęła ten projekt regulacji. Wnoszę do Wysokiej Izby również o jednomyślne stanowisko.


8.3. (A6-0513/2007, Paolo Costa) It-tneħħija tad-diskriminazzjoni fir-rati u l-kundizzjonijiet tat-trasport (votazzjoni)

- Antes de la votación:


  Μαρία Παναγιωτοπούλου-Κασσιώτου (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, όπως γνωρίζεται η αρχική πρόταση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής συμπεριλάμβανε σε έναν μόνο κανονισμό την τροποποιημένη πρόταση κανονισμού αριθ. 11 σχετικά με την κατάργηση των διακρίσεων στις τιμές και όρους μεταφοράς και την τροποποίηση του κανονισμού 852/2004 για την υγιεινή των τροφίμων.

Η πρόταση της Επιτροπής βασιζόταν στα άρθρα 75, 152 και 95 της Συνθήκης των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων, η δε προβλεπόμενη διαδικασία για την υιοθέτηση του κανονισμού ήταν η συναπόφαση. Οι συννομοθέτες, το Συμβούλιο και το Κοινοβούλιο αποφάσισαν να χωρίσουν την αρχική πρόταση σε δύο ξεχωριστούς κανονισμούς, έναν για την τροποποίηση του κανονισμού με αριθμό 11 για τις μεταφορές βασισμένο στο άρθρο 75, παράγραφος 3, το οποίο δεν προβλέπει καμία παρέμβαση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου στη νομοθετική διαδικασία και για το οποίο γνωμοδότησε η Επιτροπή Μεταφορών και έναν άλλο για την τροποποίηση του κανονισμού για την υγιεινή των τροφίμων βασισμένο στα άρθρα 95 και 152, 4β) για τον οποίο γνωμοδοτεί προσεχώς η Επιτροπή Περιβάλλοντος. Καλούμαστε σήμερα να αποφασίσουμε εάν το άρθρο 75, παράγραφος 3, αποτελεί την κατάλληλη νομική βάση για την τροποποίηση του κανονισμού για τις μεταφορές, ενώ η τροποποίηση του κανονισμού, όπως είπαμε, 852/2004 θα συζητηθεί αργότερα.

Η πρόταση κανονισμού που υποβάλλεται σήμερα προβλέπει τη διαγραφή του άρθρου 5, του οποίου η ισχύς έχει εκπνεύσει από το 1961 και τροποποίηση του άρθρου 6 που στοχεύει στη μείωση των διοικητικών υποχρεώσεων των μεταφορέων, καταργώντας την υποχρέωσή τους να σημειώνουν τις πληροφορίες των τιμών ενώ αυτό συμπεριλαμβάνεται στις φορτωτικές και στα λογιστικά τους στοιχεία. Αυτή η τροποποίηση αποτελεί τη δυνατότητα ελέγχου των τιμών και των συνθηκών μεταφοράς, καθώς και τη διαπίστωση των τυχόν διακρίσεων. Πρόκειται λοιπόν για τροποποίηση που αντιστοιχεί ακριβώς σε ότι προβλέπει το άρθρο 75, παράγραφος 3, δεύτερο εδάφιο της Συνθήκης των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και εφόσον η τροποποίηση του άρθρου 6 είναι αναγκαία, ώστε τα ευρωπαϊκά όργανα να μπορούν να ελέγχουν την τήρηση της αρχής της μη διάκρισης στον τομέα των μεταφορών σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 75 (3) της Συνθήκης, η Επιτροπή Νομικών Θεμάτων απέδειξε ότι το άρθρο 75(3) είναι η μοναδική νομική βάση που μπορεί να εφαρμοσθεί για την τροποποίηση του κανονισμού με αριθμό 11.


8.4. (A6-0497/2007, Ulrich Stockmann) Imposti ta' l-ajruporti (votazzjoni)

8.5. (A6-0406/2007, Johannes Blokland) Esportazzjoni u l-importazzjoni ta’ sustanzi kimiċi perikolużi (votazzjoni)

8.6. (A6-0515/2007, Csaba Őry) L-applikazzjoni ta' l-iskemi tas-siġurtà soċjali għall-persuni impjegati, għall-persuni li jaħdmu għal rashom u l-membri tal-familja tagħhom li jiċċaqilqu ġewwa l-Komunità (votazzjoni)

8.7. (A6-0494/2007, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis) CARS 21:qafas regolatorju dwar il-kompetizzjoni fis-settur tal-karozzi (votazzjoni)



9. Seduta formali - Grand Mufti tas-Sirja

  Der Präsident. − Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Es ist eine besondere Ehre und Freude, im Rahmen des Europäischen Jahres des interkulturellen Dialogs heute im Europäischen Parlament Seine Eminenz Sheikh Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun, den Großmufti von Syrien, herzlich willkommen zu heißen.


Wie ich letzte Woche in Ljubljana bei der Eröffnungszeremonie dieses Europäischen Jahres des interkulturellen Dialogs nachdrücklich betont habe, ist für das Europäische Parlament dieses Europäische Jahr des Dialogs der Kulturen von großer Bedeutung.

Ich bin tief überzeugt — und viele mit mir —, dass ein friedliches Zusammenleben von Kulturen und Religionen sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch mit den Völkern in allen Regionen der Welt, insbesondere jenseits des Mittelmeers, im Nahen Osten, zugleich möglich und notwendig ist! Denn das Ergebnis eines solchen Vorhabens wird unsere gemeinsame Zukunft nachhaltig prägen. Wir müssen gemeinsam eine geistige und kulturelle Brücke über das Mittelmeer bauen, die auf gegenseitiger Bereicherung und gemeinsamen Werten beruht.

Diese Brücke bauen wir durch einen ständigen, ehrlichen und offenen Dialog, in dem wir einander zuhören, unsere Meinungen offen austauschen und ein gegenseitiges Verständnis entwickeln.

Der Kern des interkulturellen Dialogs ist die Toleranz. Toleranz bedeutet nicht Beliebigkeit. Toleranz bedeutet eigene Standpunkte zu vertreten und die Überzeugung des anderen zu hören und zu respektieren.

Dort, wo es nicht möglich ist, den anderen Standpunkt zu akzeptieren, ist es gleichwohl notwendig, den Auffassungen mit Respekt zu begegnen und sich friedlich auszutauschen und, wo immer es geht, gemeinsames Handeln zu ermöglichen und dadurch Spannungen zu entschärfen.

Wir müssen unsere Gemeinsamkeiten, ja die Substanz der universellen demokratischen Werte betonen. Dazu gehören vor allem die Würde des Menschen und die Verteidigung der unveräußerlichen Menschenrechte.

Das Europäische Parlament wird im Laufe des Jahres 2008 und darüber hinaus mehrmals die Gelegenheit ergreifen, solche Gespräche zu führen. Der heutige Besuch des Großmuftis von Syrien bildet die erste Gelegenheit dazu. Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun, der frühere Mufti von Aleppo, gilt als herausragender Verfechter des interreligiösen Dialogs in einem Lande, wo die religiösen Gemeinschaften in ihrer Vielfalt bis heutzutage friedlich zusammenleben und -wirken.

Ein deutliches Zeichen dafür ist auch die Tatsache, dass der Großmufti bei seinem heutigen Besuch von hochrangigen religiösen Führern begleitet wird — das war sein ausdrücklicher Wunsch —, und hier möchte ich insbesondere den Vorsitzenden der chaldäischen Bischöfe, Bischof Antoine Audo, sehr herzlich begrüßen!

Eminenz! Ich freue mich sehr Sie jetzt bitten zu dürfen, vor dem Europäischen Parlament das Wort zu ergreifen!



  Ahmad Badr El Din El Hassoun, Grand Mufti of Syria.

(The speaker spoke in Arabic. Below is a transcription of the English interpretation.)

Greetings to you all in the name of our Creator, who created mankind from the same soil and through whose soul we have been able to become alive. The source of energy that comes to us is from the one God, the Creator; we are his creation and, hence, I greet you as brothers on this planet, my brothers in spirit and in mankind.

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, Honourable Members, I have come to you from a country which I had not chosen to be in, but heaven chose that I be one of its citizens. This land, which we call the ‘blessed land’, the land of Al-Sham, which includes Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan and Israel, this land which has encompassed all the cultures of heaven: in our land, the Prophet Abraham walked, and the Prophet Moses lived happily there, and in our land Jesus (may God’s blessings be upon him) was born, and from our land he was lifted to the heavens. Muhammad, the Prophet, came also from Mecca to our land to be lifted into the heavens. Therefore, I would like you to understand the meaning of that land, which was a source of light and enlightenment without which we would not have been Christians and followers of Abraham and Moses, and we would not have been Muslims and we would not carry the responsibility of conveying the divine message to the world.

Therefore, I thank you wholeheartedly and I thank the President of Parliament, who allowed me to open this cultural debate in a year which is the year of dialogue between cultures.

I say cultures, but really there are no separate cultures, there is but one single culture.

Cultures have had an impact and enriched the culture of mankind, and culture is from our own creation: we created culture. This Parliament was not built by a Christian or by a Jew or by a Muslim, but it was created by man. This is a symbol of culture, of its construction.

We all form one single culture, which is called the culture of mankind. Therefore we, in our region, do not believe in a conflict between cultures at all. It is a single culture in the universe, and it is not multiple. However, different cultures can exist or co-exist.


So, let us look at where there is conflict between cultures. Conflict exists where there is ignorance, terrorism and backwardness, but a cultured person, whatever his religion may be, will hold my hand so that we can build the culture of mankind together. When man reached the moon, the Soviet Agency at the time and NASA were not all Americans or Russians, they were also Europeans, Italians, Germans, French, Belgians and Arabs. They, together, built the civilisation that allowed mankind to reach space.

So let us have a look once again at the terminology or the term ‘conflict’ between cultures or civilisations. This is dangerous because civilisation cannot be built separately. Those who built the pyramids are our great-grandfathers, and those who built the pyramids in Chile are also among our great-grandfathers and therefore, as I said, civilisation is one.

A second point. Does civilisation have a religion? Or is it a human culture in which religion gives its moral values? There is no Islamic civilisation, or Christian civilisation, or Jewish civilisation. Religion gives civilisation its moral values, but culture is something that we built. God created religion, but we create cultures. This is what we have built, but religion is the work of God. Do not, therefore, limit civilisation because it is the result of our work, whereas religion, as I said, is the work of God.

Who creates civilisation? Mankind – you and I. Who are we, you and I? Are you different from me? No. You are not the other party. The animal might be the other party, but you are my brother or sister, whatever your religion or language, because my mother is your mother, my father is your father, and the land is our mother and Abraham is our father. Therefore, let us create a new generation that believes that ‘the other’ is the animal. But man, whatever his religion or wherever he comes from, is my brother or sister, and his blood is my blood. His spirit is mine and his ideas are mine and his freedom is my freedom, and his culture is different from my culture. So let us build civilisation together. We do not believe, in our region, in the multiplicity of religions: multiple religions do not exist.

Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad came with one single religion – the worship of God and the dignity of mankind. As for legislation and law, these differ from time to time and from period to period. There can be many legislations, but there cannot be many religions. Therefore, your God and our God are the same and single one and we all worship the same Creator. Hence there cannot be religious conflict. This brings me to say that there is no holy war. I do not believe in holy wars, because a war can never be holy: it is peace that is holy.


So let us teach our children in schools, churches and in religious places and in the mosques that what is really sacred in the universe is man and not the Kaaba or the Masjid al-Aqsa or the Church of the Trinity but mankind – mankind is the most holy and sacred thing in the universe, and this is more important than any other sacred thing.


Why do I say this to you, ladies and gentlemen? Because the Kaaba was created by Abraham, a man, and the Wall of Mecca was built by a Jew, and the Church of the Trinity was built by a Christian. But man – who created man? This is the creation of the Creator, and anybody who destroys the creation of the Creator should not be respected.

Any person who kills an Israeli or Iraqi child will be called upon to respond to his action before God because those children are the creation of God on this planet and we destroyed that creation. Can we bring life back to those persons? If the Kaaba were to be destroyed, our children could build it again and if the Masjid al-Aqsa were to be destroyed, we could reconstruct it. If the Church of Trinity were to be destroyed, the next generation would build it but, believe me, if one man is killed, who can give him back his life?

Hence I greet and commend Europe that invited me to come to this place. So I start with you and call upon you to ensure that the dialogue between civilisations has to be endless and open so that we create states based on a civil basis – not a religious or an ethnic basis because religion is a relation between you and God – but we must live together in this world peacefully. I do not impose my religion on you and you do not impose your religion on me. This is something between us and the Creator.

So, let us build a new generation that believes that the civilisation of mankind is a common work and that the most noble of all is mankind and freedom – after God, of course. If we would like to see peace in the world, let us start from the land of peace: Palestine and Israel. So we can tell people, as the Pope said years ago, rather than building the wall, let us build the bridges of peace, because Palestine is the land of peace. Considering how much it costs to build that wall, we could actually allow Christian, Jewish and Muslim children to attend the same school and to live as brothers and sisters in a school of peace.


Yes, we extended our hands to you in Syria last year. President Bashar-al-Asad extended his hands to the world and said ‘I want a true peace’. I will not carry a weapon today but I will always carry the words of peace to stand before the world and say, no more war after today. The victor in war will be a loser if he is temporarily victorious because he killed people, but the real victors are those who become brothers to other people. It is not land that is holy but it is man that is holy. Let us make a holy world once man becomes the holy person.

Therefore, please do not believe the media, because the media on many occasions do not tell the truth. Many of you have visited me in Syria and have come to my mosque, and I went with them to the churches and they saw how we live as one single family, and that we do not believe in simple cohabitation but in living as a family. Whether we are Muslims, Jews or Christians we believe in the one house – the house of life.

I have lived, as you, as a Member of Parliament for 10 years in Syria and I felt, the moment I entered into Parliament, that I did not represent my political party or my group because I was independent; rather, I represented every person who has asked me to represent him or her and I represented every person who has not asked me to represent him or her, because he or she is my brother or sister, and I was a representative of everybody in the country. So, do you represent your countries or political parties or do you represent the human being? Please be representatives for us and your people, because mankind is unique in the universe.

Yes, you have to represent us on the issues of peace and truthfulness and belief. The Islamic world today witnesses war in many of its countries. This world must achieve peace, and it has always wanted peace and, if there are certain crises, that is because of injustice. Christianity came to ensure peace, otherwise we cannot understand what was the mission of the prophets, such as Moses, who called for the achievement of peace. Nobody wanted to kill anybody, and anybody who wants to kill a person would be contradicting his beliefs and religion. Do not use religion for killing; religion is for peace and life.

Yes, this is my message from my country, from a land that was blessed by the heavens and where all the prophets walked and lived in.

Woman is a great person in our land, and she is dignified, whether she is Jewish, Christian or Muslim, although she probably faced injustice because of men. Women participate at all levels of our country and the leaders of my country, including the President, call upon the participation of women in all fields of society.

This city is a title for peace. I saw how it was built and I said that the miracle of the 20th century is Europe. This miracle that witnessed the First World War and the Second World War, and then managed to destroy the Berlin Wall without shedding any blood – not one single drop of blood. All Europe came together, and its people came together in one Parliament. So, could you help us achieve such a parliament – a human parliament, a spiritual one, a universal one? Please help us, because Syria and the whole Islamic world are waiting for you, whether they are Muslims or Christians.

Finally, since Damascus is the Capital of Arab Culture this year and you started the Year of Intercultural Dialogue, I would ask you to agree to holding a meeting for cultures in the Capital of Arab Culture, Damascus, to say that the world is at one and that we are extending our hands to Lebanon, because Lebanon has one people, and we should all help the creation of one Lebanon and one true Palestine, one true Israel, one true Iraq, a land of peace for everyone.

(Sustained applause)


  Der Präsident. − Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ihr Beifall zeigt, dass ich in Ihrer aller Namen Sheikh Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun, dem Großmufti von Syrien, herzlich für seine Botschaft gegen die Gewalt, gegen den Krieg, gegen den Terrorismus danken darf. Er stellt die Würde des Menschen in den Mittelpunkt, und das ist die Grundlage der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Kulturen, es ist die Toleranz, die bedeutet, wir haben unseren eigenen Standpunkt, wir müssen den Standpunkt des anderen nicht akzeptieren, aber wir respektieren ihn und leben so unter Anerkennung der Würde des Menschen friedlich auf dieser Erde zusammen. Herzlichen Dank, Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun, für Ihre Rede hier vor dem Europäischen Parlament!





10. Ħin tal-votazzjonijiet (tkomplija)

  El Presidente. − De conformidad con el orden del día, continuamos con el turno de votaciones.

(Para los resultados y otros detalles de la votación: véase el Acta)


  Graham Booth (IND/DEM). – Mr President, very briefly, I do not think you actually followed the Rules of Procedure correctly during the earlier voting session.

You said ‘the voting is now open’, but you did not ask ‘have all Members voted?’ before saying ‘the voting is closed’, and you did not read out the results.

I think you were out of order.


  El Presidente. − Señor Booth, el resultado de la votación aparece en la pantalla. Por tanto, como ustedes han pedido que todas las votaciones de hoy sean nominales y así lo estamos haciendo, lo que estoy procurando es que esta forma de votar sea lo menos gravosa posible para la Cámara, si a usted no le parece mal, señor Booth.


10.1. (A6-0481/2007, Piia-Noora Kauppi) It-trattament fiscali ta' telf f'sitwazzjonijiet transkonfinali (votazzjoni)

10.2. (A6-0518/2007, Glenis Willmott) Strateġija Kommunitarja 2007-2012 dwar is-saħħa u s-siġurta fuq il-post tax-xogħol (votazzjoni)


  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I rise under Rules 152 and 160 of the Rules of Procedure, concerning voting procedure and roll call votes. It is obvious that the Rules of Procedure have been abused and used in a way utterly contrary to their intention. Could I ask, through you, that specialists such as Mr Corbett and others look very carefully at what has happened today? My understanding is that the President has the discretion to rule that any request for a roll-call vote be declared invalid. That may become a necessity when we have heavier voting sessions in the future.


  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Wir haben in diesem Hause zu Recht eine sehr liberale und vor allem minderheitenfreundliche Geschäftsordnung. Daran wollen wir und daran sollen wir festhalten. Das setzt allerdings auch voraus, dass die jeweiligen Gruppen ihre Minderheitenrechte korrekt und nicht missbräuchlich einsetzen. Wenn das geschieht — und der heutige Fall war ein solcher —, dann sollten wir diese Praxis überdenken.


  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I must take exception to the two points of order just made. The rules are absolutely clear on this. Every group has the right to request roll-call votes. No discretionary power is given to the Chair. We have always accepted that, ultimately, in any democratic chamber the majority has the right to get its way, but what we have just heard is the most intolerant position that does not allow any opposition, that does not allow any dissenting view and, if my colleagues want to understand why the European Union is so unpopular with the voters out there, you need only consider your own intolerant attitude towards anyone expressing any view other than your own.



  El Presidente. − Señor Hannan, que yo sepa, todas las votaciones que se han hecho esta mañana se han hecho por votación nominal. Por tanto, el Reglamento ha sido escrupulosamente respetado.


  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I wish to point out to Mr Beazley and Mr Rack, and perhaps to yourself, Mr President, that today is the first time since I have sat in the European Parliament that we can actually be confident that the results are right, because normally it is a farce! So do not moan at us, we are helping you to tidy up this place so that in the future more of this work is done in committee and we are not given hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of amendments. What we have done is entirely within the Rules and all of you – in particular those who believe in this place – should learn a lesson from it.


  Martin Schulz, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich beziehe mich auf Artikel 171 der Geschäftsordnung und beantrage Folgendes im Namen der Sozialdemokratischen Fraktion: Aufgrund des dringenden Beratungsbedarfs, den wir zur Geschäftsordnung und der Interpretation der Geschäftsordnung haben, bitte ich nunmehr, die Sitzung jetzt zu unterbrechen. Ich bitte, alle weiteren Aussprachen — auch die Stimmerklärungen zu den Abstimmungen — auf heute Abend, 22.00 Uhr, zu vertagen.



  El Presidente. − Hay catorce diputados de la Cámara que han solicitado explicación de voto para cada uno de los siete debates que tuvieron lugar ayer y esta mañana. Catorce miembros y cada uno ha pedido explicación de voto sobre cada uno de los siete debates: diez son miembros del Grupo Independencia/Democracia, dos del Grupo del Partido Popular Europeo y dos No inscritos.

Si estas explicaciones de voto se llevan a cabo ahora, esto nos ocuparía durante unas dos horas.

Por tanto, yo someto a la Cámara la siguiente cuestión de orden: o bien llevamos adelante las explicaciones de voto y nos quedamos dos horas más o interrumpimos la sesión ahora, como proponía el señor Schulz, y las explicaciones de voto tendrán lugar esta noche.

(La Cámara expresa su acuerdo con esta propuesta.)

Señorías, a las 15.00 horas se comunicará cuándo se llevarán a cabo estas explicaciones de voto.


11. Korrezzjonijiet u intenzjonijiet għall-vot: ara l-Minuti

(La sesión, suspendida a las 12.55 horas, se reanuda a las 15.00 horas.)




12. Aġenda

  Le Président. – Chers collègues, vous savez que 19 députés ont déposé des demandes d'explications de vote orales sur chacun des sept rapports votés à midi. Il y a en plus dix demandes d'explications de vote individuelles. La durée théorique des explications de vote serait alors de 143 minutes, un peu plus de deux heures. Afin de pouvoir appeler ces explications de vote aujourd'hui, je propose la modification suivante pour notre ordre du jour:

La déclaration de la Commission sur les déchets dans la région de Campanie, actuellement prévue à 21 heures, se ferait immédiatement après le rapport Angelilli sur les droits de l'enfant.

Quant aux explications de vote, elles seraient appelées en séance de nuit, après la question orale sur le statut des députés européens élus en Pologne.

L'ordre des travaux serait ainsi le suivant:

– de 15 heures à 17 h 30: rapport Cashman, rapport Angelilli, puis la déclaration de la Commission sur les déchets dans la région de Campanie,

– ensuite, de 17 h 30 à 19 h 00: Heure des questions à la Commission,

– puis, en séance de nuit, de 21 heures à minuit, dans l'ordre: le rapport Pack, le rapport Graefe zu Baringdorf, les questions orales des députés élus en Pologne et, enfin, les explications sur les points de vote votés à midi.


  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a point of order, for clarification of the Rules as they were ruled upon earlier today. Under Rule 171, invoked by Mr Schulz, about the suspension of the sitting, it does not say – because we had finished the votes and were before an explanation of vote – that the rule could be invoked at that particular time. If the sitting was then suspended, it is precedent in this House that, when you resume the sitting, you continue with the business, and continuing with the business – based on precedent in this House and what we have done in the eight years I have been here – would be the explanations of vote. I am quite happy to come back here at whatever time is necessary to give my explanations of vote, because I want to do that for a number of reports.

I would ask you what the basis of the ruling on Rule 171 was, because I do not think that was in order; you know you are twisting the Rules, as well as I do here, to go against the democratic wills of some Members of this House. It is a strange type of democracy when you are trying to silence a minority who are just doing what they are allowed to do within the Rules of Procedure.


  Le Président. – Chers collègues, je voudrais rappeler quelques points fondamentaux dans notre fonctionnement. À tout moment, le Président de séance peut suspendre la séance.

Il suffit que je me lève, que je quitte ce siège pour que, automatiquement, nos travaux soient interrompus. Je vous rassure, je n'ai pas l'intention de quitter le siège, mais sachez qu'à tout moment, il suffit que le Président se lève et de fait nos travaux s'arrêtent.

Donc, la séance était suspendue puisqu'il est du pouvoir absolu du Président de séance de suspendre, quand il le souhaite, les travaux. C'est une première chose.

Deuxième règle absolue: c'est la plénière, et la plénière elle seule, qui est maîtresse, maîtresse totale de son ordre du jour. Voilà pourquoi je vous propose de réorganiser l'ordre du jour tel que je viens de le proposer.

Si vous ne souhaitez pas réorganiser l'ordre du jour tel que je viens de le proposer, dans ce cas-là, et dans ce cas-là seulement – vous avez raison, Monsieur Heaton-Harris –, nous reprendrions l'ordre du jour tel qu'il avait été arrêté précédemment.

Voilà pourquoi je demanderai maintenant si les collègues s'opposent formellement à ce que l'on revoie l'ordre du jour tel que je viens de le proposer. Une opposition donc formelle et argumentée sur ma proposition, puis je prendrai quelqu'un qui s'adressera en faveur.


  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, it is undoubtedly true that you, as President, could leave the chair and the Assembly would be suspended. However, that is not the basis on which what happened before lunch time happened. That was on the premise of a proposal under Rule 171, from Mr Schulz, that the House be suspended.

The rule is quite clear, that when such a proposal is made there should be a speaker for, and a speaker against. That was not the case, meaning that the proposal was irregular and should not have been put to the vote, and that the decision is not binding. You should, therefore, now return to the agenda.


  Le Président. – Je vous rappelle une fois encore que l'hémicycle est souverain. Donc, effectivement, comme je le fais actuellement, il est du pouvoir de la Présidence de séance de demander aux collègues, un pour, un contre, de s'exprimer. C'est un pouvoir de la Présidence.

À partir du moment où l'hémicycle a voté, mais je crois que ce matin un vote a été organisé y compris avec vérification électronique, je pense que le résultat du vote ne peut pas être contesté.


  Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte nur festhalten: Es ist richtig, der Präsident, der die Sitzung am Vormittag geleitet hat, hat vergessen zu fragen, wer für bzw. gegen den Vorschlag sprechen will. Aber es ist ebenso richtig, dass die eindeutige Mehrheit dieses Hauses so abgestimmt hat, dass wir nicht jetzt debattieren oder die Erklärungen zur Stimmabgabe haben, sondern am Abend um 22.00 Uhr. Jetzt kommt ein neuer Vorschlag, und ich möchte ihn für meine Fraktion – und, ich glaube, auch für andere Kolleginnen und Kollegen dieses Hauses – unterstützen. Ich halte die Regelung, die Sie vorgeschlagen haben, für vernünftig, und wir werden sehen, was die Abstimmung ergibt. Und wie Sie selbst gesagt haben: Das Haus ist souverän. Das Haus entscheidet mit seiner Mehrheit.



  Le Président. – Chers collègues, j'ai pris un contre et un pour. Si vous intervenez, c'est sur quelque chose de différent, ce n'est pas à nouveau pour argumenter pour ou contre, sinon je ne peux pas vous laisser la parole.


  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a point of order, this Chamber may be sovereign, as you say, but it nonetheless must follow its own Rules of Procedure.

The suspension or closure of a sitting is covered by Rule 171; I quote, ‘The sitting may be suspended or closed during a debate or a vote.’ Now, this morning was not during a debate or a vote, it was after the vote.

Furthermore, Rule 163, ‘Explanations of vote’, does not allow discretion to the Chair to not hear them or to change the time. It reads explicitly, ‘Once the general debate has been concluded, any Member may give an oral explanation on the final vote for not longer than one minute’.

It is true that the rules of this House give substantial arbitrary power to the speaker. But these are two items where no such power pertains, and this House chose – in the most flagrant way – to tear up its own Rules of Procedure rather than delay a couple of people from having lunch.

I have to say it is symbolic of the way in which the European Union is proceeding with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, nay, European Constitution, that you tear up your own rule book when it does not suit you, rather than tolerate an opposing point of view.


  Le Président. – Ce que je vous propose, chers collègues, c'est la chose suivante. À l'évidence, nous ne pourrons pas trancher cet après-midi en plénière tous les arguments des uns et des autres sur l'interprétation du règlement.

S'il y a des récriminations, faites-les par écrit auprès du Président du Parlement. Je suis sûr qu'il saisira la commission compétente.

Maintenant, j'en suis simplement à la fixation de l'ordre du jour. J'ai fait une proposition. J'ai entendu un député contre, un député pour. Je la mets aux voix.

(Le Parlement approuve la demande)

(L'ordre du jour est ainsi modifié)


13. Approvazzjoni tal-Minuti tas-seduta ta' qabel

  Le Président. – Le procès-verbal de la séance de lundi 14 janvier 2008 a été distribué.

Y a-t-il des observations?


  Cristiana Muscardini (UEN). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, lei è molto gentile a darmi la parola dopo venti minuti rispetto a quella in cui la chiedevo, eppure sono centrale rispetto alla Presidenza. Signor presidente, io parlo giusto per il verbale e per la democrazia di quest'Aula.

È bene che la Presidenza del Parlamento e tutti presidenti dei gruppi sappiano che due errori non fanno mai una ragione. Ciò che è politicamente utile non sempre è politicamente corretto, e dopo avere sentito oggi il Gran Mufti, noi dobbiamo decidere in maniera chiara e univoca per tutti se in quest'Aula noi seguiamo la democrazia del regolamento o seguiamo l'interesse che ciascuno di noi può avere a seconda delle circostanze.

Questa mattina è stato fatto un errore rispetto al regolamento del Parlamento e non è che facendo una votazione oggi con un 'Aula vuota noi rimediamo a quell'errore. Noi facciamo un altro errore a scapito della nostra democrazia. Io non sostengo per il gruppo UEN se sia importante parlare dei rifiuti in Italia , alle 21.00 di questa sera o alle 17.00 del pomeriggio. Se sia importante che le dichiarazioni di voto seguano, come sempre è stato in questo Parlamento, il voto quando il voto si è espresso come avrebbe dovuto essere questa mattina. Ma vi chiedo, le chiedo, signor presidente, lei mi può togliere anche la parola, le dico che non mi interessa nulla, le dico, signor presidente, qual è il regolamento di questo Parlamento? Lei lo sa? Rispetto di questo quesito lei vuole rispondere a quest'Aula deserta che vota in base a chi è stato chiamato e non a chi autonomamente voleva esprimere un giudizio! Buffone!


  Le Président. – Madame la Présidente, je vais vous parler aussi calmement que vous avez été énervée dans vos propos. Je vous ai donné la parole pour savoir si oui ou non vous aviez quelque chose à dire sur le procès-verbal du lundi 14 janvier. Vous n'êtes pas intervenue là-dessus. J'ai eu la courtoisie de vous écouter jusqu'au bout et j'espère que les collègues, comme moi, apprécieront le ton que vous employez face à la plénière.

Je considère donc qu'il n'y a pas d'observations, puisque Madame la Présidente ne fait pas d'intervention.

(Le procès-verbal de la séance précédente est approuvé).


14. Qafas Plurijennali għall-Aġenzija ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea għad-Drittijiet Fundamentali għall-2007-2012 (dibattitu)

  Le Président. – L'ordre du jour appelle le rapport de Michael Cashman, au nom de la commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures, sur la proposition de décision du Conseil portant application du règlement (CE) n° 168/2007 en ce qui concerne l'adoption d'un cadre pluriannuel de l'Agence des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne pour la période 2007-2012 (COM(2007)0515 - C6-0322/2007 - 2007/0189(CNS)) (A6-0514/2007).

Un point d'ordre, cher collègue. Pouvez-vous me dire à quel article du règlement vous vous référez?


  Roger Knapman (IND/DEM). – Mr President, on a point of order under Rule 171. Just now you told the House that 19 Members had sought to make speeches. Before lunch we were told that there were 14 Members. I know that when it comes to statistics, and particularly when there is no roll-call vote, things are a bit loose here, but could you explain the difference between those two figures?


  Le Président. – Il m'est difficile de vous donner tout de suite en temps réel une explication, mais je peux en risquer une, cher collègue.

Nous recevons – et j'ai souvent présidé des explications de vote – en temps réel les demandes. Certainement qu'au moment où mon collègue Vidal-Quadras a fait l'annonce, il y avait quatorze noms posés sur le pupitre devant lui et Certainement que dans les secondes ou minutes qui ont suivi, d'autres collègues sont venus jusqu'au pupitre de la présidence signifier qu'eux-mêmes voulaient parler. Voilà pourquoi le chiffre a certainement été augmenté de quatorze à dix-neuf entre l'annonce qu'a faite M. le vice-président Vidal-Quadras et l'annonce que je vous ai faite à l'instant. Mais nous vérifierons ce point de règlement très intéressant.

Nous en revenons, si vous le voulez bien maintenant, au rapport Cashman, et je donne tout de suite la parole à la Commission.


  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Parliament for the very constructive cooperation and support for the quick adoption of the multiannual framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency for the years 2007-2012.

I would especially like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, for his personal commitment on this file. The multiannual framework 2007-2012 as proposed by the Commission and discussed in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs will enable the Agency to work to the best of its capabilities. I would like to say here that I fully understand the reasoning behind each of the amendments proposed by the rapporteur. I am pleased to say that I can accept Amendment 1; Amendment 2 regarding the notion of ethnic minorities; Amendments 3, 4, 5, 8 and 13 (in part) regarding the notion of multiple discrimination; Amendment 15 regarding the notion of social exclusion and Amendment 16 – in particular as all these amendments reflect the compromise solutions found in discussions between the Presidency, the Commission and the rapporteur.

Regarding the other amendments, I cannot accept them for a number of legal and technical reasons which I will explain here very quickly. Some of the amendments do not comply with the basic regulation, namely Amendments 10, 11 and 18. In some cases, amendments go beyond the regulation, particularly Amendment 17. In some other cases they are in contradiction with the regulation, from my point of view of course, such as Amendment 10. Others do not correspond with the better regulation requirements, particularly Amendments 2, 7 and 13, as regards the adding of ‘traditional national minorities and linguistic minorities’ that are already covered by the regulation.

Some amendments are outside Community competence or the competence of the Agency, namely Amendments 14 and 15 (in part). Finally, Amendment 12 would significantly limit the scope of the areas to be dealt with by the Agency as laid down in Article 2 of our proposal.

One point concerning Amendment 6. I am not against the substance of the provision. However, the proposal for the multiannual framework is not, from my point of view, the best place to introduce general statements on the nature and definition of human rights.

This is best done in relevant international conventions and in the Charter. However, I will not oppose this amendment if both Council and Parliament are willing to accept it.

Finally, I cannot accept Amendments 7 and 9. On Amendment 7 the multiannual framework is designed to regulate obligations on European Institutions and/or the Member States to monitor compliance with all international human rights conventions to which the Member States are party.

On Amendment 9, a reference to a review of the multiannual framework before the five-year period is not necessary, given that Commission, Council and Parliament can always request to go outside the scope of Article 2 of the framework.

Generally speaking, the time-frame of five years was set up to prevent jeopardising the effectiveness of the work of the Agency, which needs time to plan its work and to deliver on it. The introduction of systematic reviews could risk undermining the work of the Agency.

Finally, in my view the establishment of the Agency has been a big success for the promotion of the respect of fundamental rights in the European Union. It has also been a success in terms of interinstitutional cooperation. Now we have to set the proper conditions for the agency to operate successfully and to prove its worth in the years to come.


  Michael Cashman, rapporteur. − Mr President, I should like to thank Vice-President Frattini for those words.

If Parliament had codecision on this we would be in a much stronger position. I have to say to colleagues here today that I met with NGOs and civil society at the very beginning, as did other shadow rapporteurs, to see what we could do. It was quite clear to me at the very beginning that if I had my way I would have a list that was endless, because human rights are so important: they are paramount and are the very reason that the institutions were established so that we never got back to those conditions that created the Second World War and the appalling shadow that was cast across so many different peoples and so many different minorities.

However, the reality is that we are merely consulted, which is why I have had to take on a very difficult position. It is extremely difficult for me as a gay man not to want to include specifically homophobia. However, if I am to be consistent in the application of principle in that we need to bring on board that which is not covered, then I have to forego the very things that also my heart desires. So it has been difficult.

I am pleased to say that this report was adopted by 48 votes in favour, none against and 8 abstentions. That indicates that what we have here – although, indeed, there are some amendments which I did not personally support – are the wishes of the committee. I want to pay great tribute to the Portuguese Presidency and my colleague sitting here in the Chamber who worked very closely with me, who supported Parliament in order to try to achieve a position which both the Council and the Commission could support.

I am pleased that the Commissioner has listed nine out of the eighteen amendments. We are getting 50% support – of course, I want 100% support but I live in the real political world. I want the Agency, above all, to succeed. The origins of the Agency are the Charter of Fundamental Rights and all the international conventions on human rights that we have in common amongst the Member States.

However, there are some delegations, some politicians and some Member States who want the Agency to fail. They do not want it to be effective, and that is why I have been absolutely specific in the demands that we are making upon this Agency. I want it to succeed. I believe that the amendments that were adopted in committee will help it to succeed, while not placing upon the Agency undue demands which will go beyond the resources, both human and financial.

There have been suggestions amongst some of the women’s groups that this does not go far enough, but we have introduced the gender perspective and taken account of the Gender Institute. Of course, there must be complementarity, but we must not have duplication because, again, that would waste the resources.

So let me finish and let me listen – arguably the most important thing and one of the most difficult things to do in politics. Let me listen to the debate, but I will not be able to support the amendments that will be placed before the plenary tomorrow for the simple principle: I said at the beginning I could not take on board a whole range of amendments and to change that attitude now would be to go back on the agreement that I reached with the shadows. Of course minority languages are important, of course other areas are important, but there is nothing more important than an Agency for Fundamental Rights which is successful in the work that we set it to do.


  Libor Rouček, Navrhovatel Výboru pro zahraniční věci. − Dámy a pánové, vytvoření Agentury pro základní práva na počátku loňského roku je velmi důležitým a potřebným krokem k ochraně a podpoře základních lidských práv v rámci Unie i mimo ni. Bohužel však nebyl doposud přijat víceletý rámec a nedořešeny jsou i některé personální otázky. Výbor pro zahraniční věci proto vyzývá k urychlené nápravě této situace. Pokud jde o působení agentury za hranicemi Evropské unie, Výbor pro zahraniční věci podporuje opatření přijatá s cílem zamezit duplicitě práce a zajistit potřebnou koordinaci činností s mezinárodními organizacemi činnými v této oblasti, tzn. především s Radou Evropy, s Organizací spojených národů a také s OBSE. Dále jsme toho názoru, že dialog o lidských právech má podstatný význam pro vztahy Unie se třetími zeměmi, proto vítáme skutečnost, že agentura je otevřena účasti kandidátských zemí. A konečně zatřetí, domníváme se, že jakmile vstoupí v platnost reformní smlouva a vznikne funkce vysokého představitele Unie pro zahraniční věci a bezpečnostní politiku, agentura by mu měla být plně nápomocna v jeho nebo v její činnosti.


  Kinga Gál, a PPE-DE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Köszönöm a szót, elnök úr. Örülök, hogy eljutottunk az Európai Alapjogi Ügynökség keretprogramjának elfogadásáig, és köszönöm a jelentéstevőnek azt a munkát, azt az együttműködési készséget, amit mutatott végig egy csöppet sem könnyű feladatban.

Mind az intézményeknek, mind a tagállamoknak, mind az EU-állampolgárok számára most már egyaránt fontos, hogy az ügynökség mielőbb megkezdhesse a rendes munkáját, hiszen hivatalosan tavaly március 1-jével jött létre Bécsben, azonban még mindig nincs működőképes struktúrája, mandátuma, vezetősége.

Ezért nagyon fontos, hogy a keretprogram most elfogadásra kerüljön. Egy olyan komplex problémával szembesültünk itt, amikor egyik oldalról számtalan emberjogi kérdést, alapvető jogi kérdést fel lehetne sorolni, másrészt figyelembe kell venni azt, hogy mi teszi valóban működőképessé ma ezt az ügynökséget.

Én úgy látom, hogy kollégám, Cashman úr igyekezett összeállítani ezt a véleményt úgy, hogy egyszerre tegyen eleget a fenti két szempontnak: hogy rugalmasan tudja kezelni a mindannyiunkat érzékenyen érintő emberjogi problémákat, ugyanakkor az intézmény működőképes maradjon.

Én úgy érzem, hogy a Parlament ezeket az indítványokat teljes mértékben támogathatja, és – annak ellenére, hogy figyelmesen végighallgattam Frattini urat, hogy mi az, ami számára, a Bizottság számára elfogadhatatlan – nagyon remélem, hogy a Tanácsban megértésre talál számos felvetésünk, hiszen ezek a kérdések, ezek a felvetések lehet, hogy pont a kulcsai lesznek annak, hogy úgy végezhesse az ügynökség a munkáját, hogy a valós problémákra figyeljen.

Kimaradt az eredeti felsorolásból, és benne van ebben a javaslatban a nyelvi kisebbségek, a nemzeti kisebbségek ügye, amit nagyon fontosnak tartok, hiszen most látjuk, hogy újra meg újra visszaköszönnek ezek a problémák, és igenis szembesülni fog vele az Unió, foglalkozni kell vele. Úgyhogy én remélem, hogy ezekre oda tud majd figyelni ez az ügynökség. Nem egy „papírtigrissel”, hanem egy valóban működő intézménnyel lesz dolgunk. Köszönöm a figyelmüket.


  Σταύρος Λαμπρινίδης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας PSE. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο Οργανισμός Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων πρέπει επί τέλους να αρχίσει να επιτελεί το σημαντικό του έργο. Γι’ αυτό και ο εισηγητής, τον οποίον συγχαίρω, αναγκάστηκε να περιορίσει τις τροποποιήσεις στο προτεινόμενο πρόγραμμα για να διευκολύνει την ταχεία διοργανική συμφωνία γι’ αυτό το σημαντικό ζήτημα. Θα ήταν βέβαια προτιμότερο στους θεματικούς τομείς να περιλαμβάνοντα και τα κοινωνικά δικαιώματα, να γίνονταν ρητές αναφορές στα θέματα εμπορίας ανθρώπων, καθώς και στην προστασία της ιδιωτικής σφαίρας και της ανθρώπινης αξιοπρέπειας στο πλαίσιο των μέτρων που λαμβάνονται κατά της τρομοκρατίας. Η πόρτα παραμένει όμως ανοιχτή.

Θα σταθώ, σήμερα, ιδιαίτερα σε μια σημαντική τροπολογία που κατέθεσα μαζί με άλλους συναδέλφους, τροπολογία η οποία υπερψηφίστηκε και με την οποία γίνεται ρητή αναφορά στην πρόσβαση σε αποτελεσματική και ανεξάρτητη δικαιοσύνη, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των δικαιωμάτων των κατηγορουμένων και των υπόπτων.

Όταν κλονίζεται, κύριε Πρόεδρε, η εμπιστοσύνη των πολιτών στην ανεξαρτησία και την αμεροληψία της δικαιοσύνης, κλονίζεται η βάση των δημοκρατικών μας κοινωνιών, γι’ αυτό και πολύ ορθά οι αρμοδιότητες του Οργανισμού περιλάμβαναν εξ αρχής αυτή τη διάσταση. Ταυτόχρονα όμως τείνουμε να ξεχνούμε ότι ο κάθε άνθρωπος είναι αθώος μέχρι αποδείξεως του αντιθέτου. Η διαπόμπευση κατηγορουμένων από μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης προς άγραν τηλεθέασης ή ακόμα και από επίσημες κυβερνήσεις και αρχές προς άγραν εφήμερου πολιτικού οφέλους, παραβιάζουν κατάφορα αυτήν την αρχή. Οι δε ύποπτοι, κύριε Πρόεδρε, ιδιαίτερα αυτήν την εποχή που τόσες θεμελιώδεις αρχές αποδεικνύονται εύκαμπτες στο όνομα της καταπολέμησης της τρομοκρατίας, δεν μπορεί να απαγάγονται, να κακοποιούνται και να στερούνται θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα χωρίς επιπτώσεις. Αν κάτι θα πρέπει να μας έμαθε το Κουαντάναμο, του οποίου η έκτη επέτειος έναρξης λειτουργίας μόλις πέρασε δυστυχώς χωρίς σχεδόν κανείς να το πάρει χαμπάρι, είναι ακριβώς αυτό.


  Sophia in 't Veld, namens de ALDE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, allereerst grote waardering voor rapporteur Cashman, die ik altijd als een groot bondgenoot beschouw in de strijd om de grondrechten te verdedigen. Mijn verschil met de rapporteur gaat dan ook niet over de substantie, over de inhoud, maar over de strategie. Het kan een strategie zijn om een paar prioriteiten op te geven in ruil voor steun van de Raad, maar biedt de Raad ons genoeg om onze eigen wensen los te laten? Naar mijn inzicht niet. En in dat geval geef ik er de voorkeur aan om gewoon duidelijk stelling te nemen.

De ALDE-amendementen stellen vier extra prioriteiten voor, namelijk homohaat, privacy, antiterreurbeleid en grondrechten, en de discriminatie van Roma. En laten dat nu precies de vier voornaamste terreinen zijn waar de lidstaten voortdurend de grondrechten schenden. Het Bureau voor de grondrechten had een waakhond moeten worden om de lidstaten op het rechte pad te houden. Maar dat is jammer genoeg niet gelukt. Het is sowieso al een tandenloze tijger geworden. Wat mij betreft - en zeker ook als ik geluisterd heb naar wat commissaris Frattini net heeft gezegd - moet het Europees Parlement gewoon als belangrijkste partner van het Bureau voor de grondrechten duidelijke eigen prioriteiten stellen.

Eerlijk gezegd, als wij rekenen op steun van of overeenstemming met de Raad, dan vraag ik me überhaupt af waar de Raad vandaag is. Dus, collega's, ik vrees dat ik het op de inhoud erg eens ben met de rapporteur - ik ga overleggen in mijn fractie - maar ik kan helaas de strategie niet steunen.


  Konrad Szymański, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Agencja Praw Podstawowych powstała na bazie Centrum Monitorowania Rasizmu i Ksenofobii. Ta zmiana mogła zapowiadać poprawę. Wiedeńskie centrum było znane z nierzetelności i łatwości, z jaką nadużywało oskarżeń o rasizm czy antysemityzm – tak było np. w roku 2001 i 2005 w przypadku Radia Maryja, Ligii Republikańskiej i mojego kraju, Polski.

Nowa instytucja, jeśli pójdzie za wskazaniami sprawozdawcy, szybko powtórzy błędy starej. Postulowane wychodzenie poza zakres tematyczny, elastyczność czy tzw. proaktywne działania – to są cytaty wprost z uzasadnienia tego sprawozdania – to nic innego jak pozwolenie na niekontrolowane działania agencji, pod dyktando skrajnych ideologii, poza prawem międzynarodowym. Wszystko to byłoby bez znaczenia, wszak nie są to jedyne europejskie pieniądze wyrzucane w błoto, jednak system ochrony praw człowieka pozbawiony ram prawa międzynarodowego, pozostawiony zawodowym antyrasistom traci rzecz najważniejszą, jaką posiada - wiarygodność.


  Cem Özdemir, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Wir haben dem Bericht im LIBE-Ausschuss zugestimmt. Wir werden ihm auch hier zustimmen, obwohl wir vieles an Kritik teilen, die im Plenum geäußert wurde, auch durch den Berichterstatter selbst. Ein Punkt wurde bereits vom Berichterstatter angesprochen. Zwar spielt die Geschlechterdiskriminierung künftig auch eine Rolle für die Grundrechteagentur, aber die Frage der Homophobie beispielsweise ist leider nicht Bestandteil des Arbeitsauftrags. Angesichts der Debatten, die wir innerhalb Europas haben, und auch des Diskussionsstandes, den wir in Europa haben, ist es bedauerlich, dass wir uns nicht zu diesem Kompromiss mit Rat und Kommission haben durchringen können.

Andere Punkte wären zu nennen: Wir haben im LIBE-Ausschuss Änderungsanträge gestellt, die leider alle abgelehnt worden sind. Ich will nur an wenige erinnern. Die Diskriminierung von Roma wäre beispielsweise ein wichtiger Punkt gewesen, aber auch die Frage des Schutzes der Privatsphäre. Der Datenschutz wäre ein wichtiger Punkt gewesen. Hier haben wir in Europa einen bestimmten Standard erreicht, den wir auch nach innen vertreten müssen, wenn wir glaubwürdig sein wollen. Wichtig ist allerdings, auch aufgrund der Erfahrungen mit der Bekämpfung des Terrorismus, die Frage, inwiefern sich Terrorismusbekämpfung mit Grundrechten verträgt. Auch diese Frage wäre es wert gewesen, in den Arbeitsauftrag der Grundrechteagentur aufgenommen zu werden.

Alle sind sich einig: Die Grundrechteagentur soll so schnell wie möglich arbeiten. Wir haben uns noch nicht einmal auf einen Direktor verständigen können. Insofern ist ein gewisser Zweifel angebracht, inwiefern die Grundrechteagentur tatsächlich ihren Arbeitsauftrag wird erfüllen können. Die gute Nachricht ist: Verfahren dieser Art wird es nicht mehr viele geben. Wenn ab 2009 der EU-Vertrag wirksam wird, dann werden wir künftig andere Prozesse haben, wie das Europäische Parlament in diese Debatten eingebunden wird.


  Bairbre de Brún, thar ceann an Ghrúpa GUE/NGL. – A Uachtaráin, fáiltím roimh thuarascáil an Uasail Cashman faoi Ghníomhaireacht an Aontais Eorpaigh um Chearta Bunúsacha. Rinne feisirí ón Choiste um Shaoirsí Sibhialta obair den scoth ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. Tréaslaím leo agus leis an rapóirtéir.

Fáiltím ach go háirithe roimh na leasuithe a chinntíonn go mbeidh idirdhealú maidir le teangacha agus mionlaigh traidisiúnta i measc sainchúraimí na Gníomhaireachta. Iarraim ar na feisirí tacú leis na leasuithe seo amárach.

D’ainmnigh na Náisiúin Aontaithe an bhliain seo 2008 mar bhliain idirnáisiúnta do theangacha. Caithfidh an tAontas Eorpach a bheith páirteach san iarracht seo agus caithfidh muidne amárach a bheith páirteach san iarracht seo fosta.

Tá spéis ar leith agamsa san ábhar seo. Leanfaidh mé ag obair ag leibhéal an Aontais Eorpaigh agus mé ag éileamh na hacmhainní riachtanacha maidir leis an Ghaeilge mar theanga oibre den Aontas agus ag leibhéal an toghlaigh áit a bhfuil mé ag tacú le feachtas ar son Acht na Gaeilge, reachtaíocht atá de dhíth go géar i dTuaisceart Éireann chun cearta Gaeilgeoirí a chosaint.

Níl na cearta sin ar fáil faoi láthair. Beidh siad ar fáil má bhíonn siad i reachtaíocht láidir agus beidh siad le fáil má bhíonn leithéid Ghníomhaireacht an Aontais Eorpaigh um Chearta Bunúsacha ábalta tabhairt faoi cheisteanna mar seo do mhuintir seo agamsa agus do dhaoine eile in áiteacha eile a ndéantar idirdhealú orthu bunaithe ar an teanga a labhraítear.


  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – Voorzitter, ik zal met volle overtuiging tegen dit verslag stemmen, omdat ik dit bureau beschouw, collega's, als de Europese waakhond van de politieke correctheid die Europa meer en meer in de greep houdt. Want terwijl dit bureau officieel beweert de grondrechten van de burgers te gaan beschermen, is het in werkelijkheid een bedreiging voor enkele van onze meest fundamentele rechten en vrijheden en voor het subsidiariteitsbeginsel.

De geest van de politieke correctheid die door Europa waart, zorgt er immers voor dat de vrijheid van meningsuiting totaal ondergeschikt moet zijn aan de eisen van een welbepaalde religie, meer bepaald de islam, die niet met kritiek wil worden geconfronteerd.

Zo schakelde het Europees Waarnemingscentrum tegen racisme, waarvan dit bureau dan toch de opvolger wil zijn, zeer bewust het houden van een legitiem discours tegen immigratie en tegen negatieve aspecten van de islam gelijk met racisme. Ditzelfde centrum beweerde dat islamofobie een nieuwe vorm van discriminatie is en dat er naar aanleiding van de Deense cartoonrellen wetten dienen te komen tegen godslastering. En toen een bestelde studie uitwees dat geweld tegen joden in Europa vooral uitgaat van moslimjongeren, werd deze door de directeur van dit centrum prompt naar de prullenmand verwezen.

Weinigen in dit halfrond schijnen nog te beseffen dat de vrijheid van meningsuiting de koningin onder de grondrechten is en dat de vooruitgang in de geschiedenis altijd is voortgestuwd door vooruitgang in de vrijheid van het denken. Europa, collega's, zou nooit op een bepaald moment het centrum van de wereld zijn geweest zonder de vrijheid om ongeremd en ongezouten de waarheid te mogen zeggen, hoezeer die ook kwetst. En dit verslag en dit bureau zetten dit principe op een gevaarlijke wijze op de helling.


  Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE). – Señor Presidente, el establecimiento de un marco plurianual de la Agencia de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea es un tema extraordinariamente importante para quienes pensamos que los derechos fundamentales están en el ADN de los europeos. Y, por tanto, yo me uno a quienes, empezando por el ponente y el resto de los oradores, han dicho que adelante con este marco plurianual, adelante con el funcionamiento de esa Agencia.

Y yo creo también que este informe, como ha dicho la señora Gál, a quien sigo como portavoz de mi grupo, es un informe equilibrado, en el cual se ha hecho un esfuerzo para ser útil sin pedir demasiado.

Ser realista, creo que es la expresión que ha utilizado el ponente. Siendo realista el informe, quiero pedirle al Comisario Frattini, a mi buen amigo Franco Frattini, un poco más de complicidad. Que a la Comisión Europea, de las 18 enmiendas que vamos a presentar, sólo le parezcan bien 9 me parece poco, y hay que hacer un esfuerzo, señor Vicepresidente de la Comisión, en un tema tan importante como éste.

Yo tuve la suerte y el honor de ser presidente de la delegación del Parlamento en la Convención que hizo la Carta, y presido también con idéntico honor el Intergrupo ATD Cuarto Mundo, y hemos conseguido pasar una enmienda, la enmienda 15: incluir dentro de los objetivos de la Agencia la lucha contra la exclusión social y la pobreza. ¿Por qué? Porque quien está excluido socialmente, quien está en la más absoluta miseria, al final no goza de ningún derecho fundamental, y por eso nos parece que sería una señal política importante a nuestros conciudadanos que esa enmienda 15, señor Vicepresidente de la Comisión, la viera con más simpatía que con la que la ha visto. Porque me parece que al final los diputados representamos a la gente, y la gente nos pide que nos ocupemos también de quienes menos tienen.

Por tanto, señor Comisario, yo espero que este debate le haga a usted comprender la importancia de pasar de 9 a más y de apoyar la posición del Parlamento Europeo en esta cuestión.


  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE). – Köszönöm szépen, elnök úr. Nem öröm kilenc hónappal az Alapjogi Ügynökség ünnepélyes átadása után arról beszélni, hogy az intézmény nem lendülhetett munkába, a vezetése még nem állt fel.

Ezen a héten legalább a többéves keretprogram megkapja a Parlament jóváhagyását, amiért magam is köszönetet mondok Michael Cashman jelentéstevőnek. A többéves keretprogram meghatározó jelentőségű az ügynökség munkájában és abban, hogy mennyire lesz hatékony az alapvető jogok monitorozása, a teendők megfogalmazása. Az alapító okiratot létrehozó háromoldalú egyeztetési folyamat olyan utakat hagyott nyitva, amelyeken továbblépni a mi feladatunk.

A tanácsi nyilatkozat például a politika erejével kívánta elérni, hogy az ügynökség felkérésére a rendőrségi és igazságügyi együttműködés területén is vizsgálhassa az emberi jogok érvényesítését az ügynökség. Fontos, hogy a tagországok illetve az Unió intézményei éljenek a rájuk ruházott lehetőségekkel addig is, amíg a Reformszerződés hatálybalépése után a feladat az ügynökséget egyértelműen megilleti majd.

Ugyanígy közös felelősségünk, hogy a nemzeti és etnikai kisebbségek egyéni és közösségi jogait ne csupán a diszkrimináció tilalma, hanem a jogérvényesítés pozitív követelménye is megkérdőjelezhetetlenné tegye. A szociális jogok emberi jogként való elismerése pedig elvileg sem vitatható, hiszen elemi biztonság nélkül nincsen emberi méltóság.

Közhely, de igaz, hogy minden döntés annyit ér, amennyit megvalósítanak belőle. Frattini alelnök úr szavai egy kicsit elbizonytalanítottak, mégis remélem, hogy az ügynökség szigorú következetességet hoz majd az emberi jogok védelmében.


  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Ich möchte die Gelegenheit nutzen, um zwei grundsätzliche Anmerkungen zu machen. Die erste ist, dass ich dringend ersuche und hoffe, dass nach dem Festlegen des Arbeitsprogramms auch umgehend darangegangen wird, den Direktor für diese Menschenrechtsagentur zu benennen, denn es hat eben nur einen Sinn, eine Agentur einzurichten, wenn sie dann auch möglichst rasch funktionstüchtig gemacht wird.

Die zweite grundsätzliche Anmerkung: Ich möchte diese Diskussion nutzen, um wieder einmal eine Bewertung der Leistung und der Sinnhaftigkeit aller Agenturen einzufordern. Ich bin nämlich nicht überzeugt, dass alle Agenturen so arbeiten, wie wir uns das wünschen, und dass sie auf alle Ewigkeit hin bestehen müssen, sondern ich bin vielmehr überzeugt, dass es hier teilweise Parallelstrukturen gibt und dass man durchaus auf einige Agenturen wird verzichten können, ohne dass es irgendjemand merkt und ohne dass irgendjemand darunter leiden würde. Ich möchte Sie fragen, wann die Kommission gedenkt, mit einer derartigen Bewertung zu beginnen.


  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Gratulując panu sprawozdawcy Michaelowi Cashmanowi, chcę dodać jedną uwagę, a mianowicie: spieraliśmy się w trakcie komisji LIBE, czy Agencja Praw Podstawowych będzie, czy nie będzie dublowała działalności Rady Europy. Doszliśmy do wniosku, że nie, ale mam wrażenie, że zazdrościmy Radzie Europy, iż ma taką substancję, która pozwala stosować materialny system prawny.

Wydaje mi się, że Agencja Praw Podstawowych, pomimo tych warunków i tych kompetencji, które ma, powinna się mocno opierać na Karcie praw podstawowych. Powinno to być dla niej jasnym przekazem, że ona jest także strażnikiem Karty praw podstawowych, także dla tych obywateli, tych państw członkowskich, które Karty praw podstawowych nie zaakceptowały w pełni. Uważam, że to jest bardzo ważne, i uważam, że Agencja Praw Podstawowych w tym kierunku powinna iść także przy naszej pomocy, przy pomocy Parlamentu Europejskiego.


  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I should like to thank everyone who took the floor for their suggestions and contributions.

First of all, the European Union should be, and should be seen by citizens to be, not only the best defender but also the best promoter of fundamental rights. By this I mean the rights of groups and communities as well as the rights of individuals. That is a very important approach.

I also feel that, following the proclamation of the Charter and the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, the Agency should become the most effective European instrument in this field. To this end, I would like to see Parliament organising the hearing of the candidates short-listed for the post of director as soon as possible, so that the Agency can start working to the best of its capacities.

I fully agree with the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, that we have to let the Agency start working now. Overburdening it with too many tasks would risk making the Agency a body that appears to be strong, but which in practice is incapable of acting with the required speed.

Finally, I am aware of the concerns expressed by many of you, and can promise you that, well before the end of the five-year period, I would be ready to make full use of the Commission’s powers to request the Agency to go beyond the scope of Article 2, namely in the field of justice and security cooperation.

One final word: I am sympathetic to what my friend, Mr Méndez de Vigo, has said, and will look closely at his suggestions, particularly as regards Amendment 15, in order to try to meet the expectations expressed concerning a European strategy against poverty.

I would also repeat that I am prepared to accept Amendment 6, even if I do not agree with it in principle. I hope that my trying to meet your expectations will make Mr Cashman happy.


  Le Président. – Apparemment, le Parlement apprécie, Monsieur le Commissaire.


  Michael Cashman, rapporteur. − Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for relenting on the very important issue of Amendment 6, which states ‘All human beings are born equal and therefore human rights are indivisible and inviolable’. Can I thank colleagues for their contributions, and can I just tell you that, when one of the non-attached Members states that they are going to vote against me, when those extremists within Parliament vote against me and against my report, my heart fills with joy and my brain tells me that we have got it absolutely right. Because there should be no extremism when it comes to the defence of human rights, except to be extremely defensive of human rights.

I would say to my good friend Sophia in ’t Veld that of course I agree with her, but I believe that the issue of the Roma, privacy and homophobia are already covered. Indeed, the Roma would be covered under discrimination based on ethnicity and race. I would say to my colleague Mr Lambrinidis that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights gives us the area in which we can operate on the basis of privacy, preventing trafficking and dealing with social exclusion. Ms Gál said it was absolutely right that it is about the workability of the Agency and that is what we have to face.

That is why I have included multiple discrimination. We must remember that we are not dealing solely with the areas that they can cover. These are thematic areas based on the objective foundations which are the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the international conventions, which all of the Member States have in common.

To my great friend Mr Cem Özdemir – çok teşekkür ederim! – I would say, on data protection, yes, it is covered. Also, we have the data protection supervisor and we have data protection directives, and the last thing we want is duplication.

It is interesting and we should celebrate. The Angelilli report is coming up. It is an own-initiative report, yet here we have an absolute commitment – not an own-initiative, not a request – that the rights of the child be covered under the Agency which protects fundamental rights. Therefore, I congratulate the House. I urge it to vote with me. Let us not bring in more, let us not dilute, let us be focused, let us get the job done – and Mr President, save your gavel for another time!


  Irena Belohorská (NI). – Chcem veľmi ostro protestovať proti terajšiemu vystúpeniu pána Cashmana, pretože patrím do skupiny nezaradených poslancov a musím povedať, že predtým, ako členka Rady Európy, som pripravovala prácu o zákaze detskej práce a podieľala som sa aj na príprave ďalšej správy o právach dieťaťa, čiže teraz veľmi ostro protestujem proti vystúpeniu pána spravodajcu, ktorý povedal, že mu nezáleží, či niekto zo skupiny nezaradených poslancov bude hlasovať za alebo nebude hlasovať.


  Le Président. – Monsieur Cashman, pour réponse personnelle à une attaque qui était vécue comme personnelle.


  Michael Cashman, rapporteur. − Mr President, I was not, of course, thinking of the Honourable Member when I made my comment.

I referred generally to the non-attached Members, but specifically to the comments made by Mr Dillen, which I believe are extremist comments. But in no way did I mean to offend the Honourable Member, whose record speaks for itself.


  Le Président. – Je peux effectivement témoigner que pour la traduction française, on ne parlait pas de non-inscrits, mais d'extrémistes. Donc il y avait bien une claire différenciation dans les propos de notre rapporteur.

Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu jeudi 17 janvier 2008.


15. Lejn strateġija ewropea dwar id-drittijiet tat-tfal (dibattitu)

  Le Président. – L'ordre du jour appelle le rapport de Roberta Angelilli, au nom de la commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures – Vers une stratégie européenne sur les droits de l'enfant (2007/2093(INI)) (A6-0520/2007).


  Roberta Angelilli, relatrice. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, voglio ringraziare i colleghi, per prima cosa per la preziosa collaborazione, ed in particolare il vicepresidente Frattini per l'impegno sin dall'inizio del suo mandato a favore della difesa dei diritti dei bambini.

La relazione ovviamente non ha la pretesa di esaurire tutti temi, ma credo che sia un ottimo punto di partenza. L'obiettivo era quello di porre le basi per una strategia finalizzata a promuovere e salvaguardare i diritti dei minori sia nelle politiche interne che esterne dell'Unione europea e a sostenere gli sforzi degli Stati membri in questo settore. Come premessa abbiano voluto ribadire la specificità dei diritti dei minori che vanno assolutamente distinti dalla categoria più generale dei diritti fondamentali, di cui peraltro sono parte integrante.

La strategia mira innanzitutto all'affermazione dei diritti positivi dei minori, tra cui il diritto ad una famiglia, il diritto alla salute, all'istruzione, all'inclusione sociale, ma anche il diritto al divertimento, al gioco, allo sport, come pure il diritto ad un ambiente pulito e protetto. In sostanza il fine è quello di creare una società a misura di bambino, in cui i bambini possano sentirsi protetti e protagonisti.

Proprio per questo la relazione poggia su due presupposti principali: 1) partecipazione attiva dei bambini alle scelte che li riguardano; 2) il cosiddetto mainstreaming cioè l'inserimento e la promozione dei diritti dei bambini in tutte le politiche dell'Unione europea. Insomma i diritti dei minori devono diventare finalmente una priorità politica per l'Europa, anche perché i bambini rappresentano circa il 30% dei cittadini europei e per loro c'è ancora molto da fare a partire dalla lotta alla violenza e agli abusi, con fenomeni in preoccupante crescita come la pedofilia e la pedopornografia in rete. L'obiettivo generale è quello di mettere al bando ogni forma di violenza comprese le cosiddette pratiche tradizionali, i delitti d'onore, i matrimoni forzati e non basta solo la certezza della pena per gli autori delle violenze, ma bisogna garantire una strategia di prevenzione in particolare a supporto dei minori a rischio.

Un'altra priorità è la lotta alla povertà infantile. Vale infatti la pena ricordare che anche all'interno dell'Unione europea il 19% dei bambini vive sotto la soglia di povertà e che pertanto è necessario prevedere misure d'aiuto adeguate anche a sostegno delle loro famiglie. In particolare poi si chiedono azioni mirate per i bambini rom e per i bambini di strada, che spesso sono costretti a chiedere l'elemosina diventando facili vittime dello sfruttamento della tratta e della criminalità organizzata.

Un altro elemento su cui si poggia la strategia è garantire l'istruzione e la formazione per tutti i minori, anche quelli più poveri e svantaggiati. Così come vanno intraprese misure destinate ai minori diversamente abili al fine di evitare ogni forma di discriminazione. Siamo tra addetti ai lavori e pertanto forse è superfluo fare in questa sede l'elenco di tutte le emergenze da affrontare: dalla diffusione dei videogiochi violenti, all'aumento dei casi di sottrazione internazionale dei minori, la complessità burocratica che rende difficili le adozioni internazionali, il dramma dei bambini soldato, il lavoro minorile, la mancanza di registrazione alla nascita dei bambini, il numero impressionante dei minori scomparsi di cui non si hanno più notizie. E si potrebbe continuare questo elenco a lungo.

In realtà occorre mettere in rete strumenti adeguati ed informazioni tempestive per scambiarsi esperienze vincenti e buone prassi, mettere in sinergia strumenti di collegamento anche giuridici e penali per affrontare i problemi concretamente e in tempo reale, possibilmente riuscendo a prevenirli.

Concludo, Presidente, dicendo che con l'approvazione del trattato di Lisbona abbiano qualche chance in più. La Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea fa oggi parte del trattato e quindi anche l'articolo 24, che disciplina espressamente i diritti del bambino, stabilendo quindi una base giuridica per l'attuazione della strategia. A questo punto dobbiamo non solo noi Parlamento, ma soprattutto gli Stati membri, metterci immediatamente al lavoro.


  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, ringrazio vivamente l'onorevole Angelilli per questa relazione.

È chiaro che per me, dall'inizio del mio mandato, i diritti dei bambini sono stati, come dire, una top priority, sono stati un punto centrale nella mia agenda e la collaborazione con questo Parlamento, anche in questo campo, permette oggi di avere delle linee politiche che saranno il risultato di questa relazione - che io auguro sarà adottata a larghissima maggioranza - delle linee d'azione che la Commissione seguirà, perché non vi è nemmeno un punto in quella relazione che io non condivida. Si tratta di iniziative orizzontali che toccano tante politiche, ma il comune denominatore è che i minori, cioè i bambini, sono il cuore della nostra società e quindi è chiaro che essi meritano il massimo della nostra attenzione.

Nelle settimane prossime io valuterò, e i miei uffici valuteranno con me, la concreta applicabilità con iniziative concrete, intendo dire dei singoli punti che sono contenuti nella relazione dell'onorevole Angellili. Vi sono già, debbo dirlo, delle azioni in corso: dalla presentazione di una comunicazione che voi avete tenuta in conto, una comunicazione che risale ormai al luglio 2006, una comunicazione complessiva verso una strategia europea per i diritti dei bambini, che ha l'obiettivo tutto politico di rendere i diritti dei bambini priorità politica, come appunto ricordato dall'onorevole Angelilli.

Vi sono delle iniziative che sono state avviate: quella di attivare un numero telefonico comune, il 116 000, che sia un numero comune in tutta Europa per una linea di soccorso. Colgo l'occasione per invitare i molti Stati membri che sono ancora indietro nella concreta applicazione di questa misura a non perdere ulteriormente tempo, l'appello ovviamente non è al Parlamento, ma ai governi dei paesi membri. Questa decisione è stata presa oltre un anno fa e più della metà degli Stati membri ancora non ha linee telefoniche di soccorso in pratica funzionanti, pur essendo una decisione che, io credo, si sarebbe potuta attuare davvero in breve tempo.

Abbiamo discusso nello scorso mese di ottobre, insieme con la Presidenza a Lisbona, la possibilità di mettere insieme una rete europea di sistemi di allerta precoce in caso di rapimento o di scomparsa di bambini. Voi sapete che abbiamo preso il buon esempio del sistema francese, abbiamo visto come funziona in Belgio, abbiamo preso atto che il Portogallo e la Grecia stanno realizzando - avranno già in queste settimane realizzato - dei sistemi, ma è chiaro che un rapitore di bambini non conosce confini e quindi i sistemi di allerta non si possono fermare ai confini geografici.

Abbiamo lavorato molto sulla criminalità che attacca i bambini attraverso Internet. Abbiamo lavorato con una conferenza a livello di esperti lo scorso mese di novembre, che ha portato a dei risultati importanti sotto il profilo tecnico per una cooperazione idonea all'interconnessione dei sistemi elettronici di prevenzione e di reazione contro la cosiddetta pedofilia on line, che è una delle minacce più terribili per i bambini, e voi sapete che grazie all'inclusione tra le priorità 2007 di Eurojust ed Europol siamo stati in grado di smantellare numerose reti internazionali di pedofilia che operavano attraverso la rete Internet.

Abbiamo presentato una relazione sempre a novembre scorso - che è uno dei punti sottolineati - una relazione sullo stato di attuazione della decisione quadro del lontano 2004 sulla lotta contro lo sfruttamento sessuale dei minori. In quella relazione, lo ricorderete, ho messo in luce come un numero troppo alto di paesi membri ancora non ha trasposto la decisione quadro del 2004, ormai quasi quattro anni fa, sullo sfruttamento sessuale dei minori.

Certamente abbiamo creato uno strumento utile con il Forum europeo. La prima esperienza in Germania, sotto presidenza tedesca, è stata principalmente dedicata all'abuso di Internet, alla violenza nei videogiochi. Il prossimo Forum europeo per i diritti dei bambini che si terrà sotto la Presidenza della Slovenia affronterà altri temi, ne sottolineo uno, quello delle adozioni internazionali. Faremo il punto e, come auspicato dall'onorevole Angelilli, stiamo verificando un modo concreto per invitare i bambini, i rappresentanti dei minori a prendere parte direttamente alle riunioni del Forum europeo. Voi capite quanto è delicato invitare dei bambini anche piuttosto piccoli a partecipare a queste riunioni, ma l'obiettivo è deciso e quindi seguiremo anche questa suggestione del Parlamento.

Stiamo sviluppando un sito web europeo dedicato ai bambini, scritto e realizzato in modo semplice, che spieghi, ad esempio, come guardarsi dai troppi pericoli alla sicurezza dei bambini nella vita quotidiana in un modo non aggressivo e non scioccante, però spiegando come si può fare a stare alla larga, diciamo così, dai pericoli. Ne abbiamo appena parlato, intendo dire dell'Agenzia per i diritti fondamentali: una delle mie proposte è stata di porre nel programma pluriennale i diritti dei bambini come una delle aree prioritarie per le attività dell'Agenzia dei diritti fondamentali.

Dobbiamo fare ancora molte cose. Ha ragione lei, onorevole Angelilli, ci dobbiamo occupare dei bambini migranti. È un tema che affronteremo specificamente nel quadro della politica europea sull'immigrazione: i bambini sono spesso vittime, spesso comunque sono i più vulnerabili all'interno del grande sistema delle migrazioni. Dobbiamo insistere con più forza nell'attuazione del piano d'azione europeo contro il traffico di esseri umani, dedicandoci particolarmente ai bambini, oltre che alle donne, cioè le due categorie più deboli che sono spesso vittime di un traffico internazionale di esseri umani. Ci dobbiamo occupare di come finanziare con dei programmi europei delle proposte e dei progetti concreti.

Il nuovo programma Dafne, il programma anch'esso nuovo "Diritti fondamentali", ci possono permettere, ad esempio, di aiutare anche finanziariamente la rete europea di Ombudsman per i bambini. È una rete a cui attribuisco grande importanza e chiaramente accanto a questo quelle organizzazioni non governative che lavorano in questo campo. Il nuovo programma, lo conoscente il "Dafne 3", è stato rifinanziato e può essere uno strumento particolarmente utile.

In conclusione, onorevoli deputati, io sono ovviamente più che pronto, desideroso di continuare a sviluppare questa strategia politica, ma anche per dare risultati molto concreti ai nostri cittadini in uno dei terreni che ci sta particolarmente a cuore.


  ,Μαρία Παναγιωτοπούλου-Κασσιώτου, Εισηγήτρια της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής Δικαιωμάτων των Γυναικών και Ισότητας των Φύλων. − Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η προάσπιση των δικαιωμάτων του παιδιού δεν έλειπε ποτέ από τις εσωτερικές και εξωτερικές πολιτικές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, αλλά λόγω απουσίας νομικής βάσης οι πολιτικές αυτές ήταν διάσπαρτες και για το λόγο αυτό η πρότασή σας, κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε, για χάραξη στρατηγικής για την προστασία των δικαιωμάτων του παιδιού, έγινε ευμενώς αποδεκτή από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, αλλά και από την κοινωνία των πολιτών. Ελπίζουμε ότι θα ενδυναμωθεί όταν θα τεθεί σε ισχύ η μεταρρυθμιστική Συνθήκη, που θα περιλαμβάνει ως αναπόσπαστο μέρος της το Χάρτη των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων, όπως ανέφερε και η εισηγήτρια, κ. Angelilli, την οποία συγχαίρω για τη συνθετική της ικανότητα και την παρουσίαση της σημερινής έκθεσης.

Η δυνατότητα ολοκληρωμένης και συντονισμένης προσέγγισης της προστασίας των παιδιών σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο -μεταξύ άλλων χάρη στις πολυπληθείς ενδιαφέρουσες προτάσεις της Επιτροπής- είναι αναγκαίο να θεωρεί το παιδί όχι θύμα, αλλά κάτοχο θετικών δικαιωμάτων και υποχρεώσεων, που πρέπει να αναπτύσσεται σε ένα υγιές οικογενειακό περιβάλλον και να έχει εξασφαλίσει την ικανοποίηση των υλικών και πνευματικών αναγκών του.

Όχι μόνον ο σχεδιασμός ευρωπαϊκών δράσεων, αλλά και η πολιτική βούληση των κρατών μελών οφείλουν να κατοχυρώσουν το σεβασμό των δικαιωμάτων του παιδιού, με μέτρα που θα απαντούν στις θεμελιώδεις ανάγκες τους και θα προστατεύουν από πολλαπλούς κινδύνους.

Η Επιτροπή των Δικαιωμάτων των Γυναικών και της Ισότητας των Φύλων επικεντρώθηκε στη γνωμοδότησή της στο θέμα της στήριξης της μητέρας και της οικογένειας για την άσκηση των υποχρεώσεών τους. Προέτρεψε σε υποστήριξη των ευάλωτων ομάδων, δηλαδή των παιδιών που αντιμετωπίζουν κινδύνους κακοποίησης, έλλειψη μόρφωσης, υγειονομικής περίθαλψης, σωστής διατροφής και ορισμένων ευκαιριών για ανάπτυξη και εξέλιξη.

Η δυνατότητα συνδυασμού της επαγγελματικής ζωής των γονέων με την οικογενειακή ζωή είναι αναφαίρετο δικαίωμα των παιδιών, αλλά και δημιουργία πολύτιμου κεφαλαίου και επένδυσης για την κοινωνία του μέλλοντος. Και εντός και εκτός Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης παραβιάζονται συχνά τα θετικά δικαιώματα των παιδιών και υπάρχει ακόμη διακριτική μεταχείριση λόγω ανισοτήτων με βάση το φύλο. Υπάρχουν φυλετικά στερεότυπα και αντιλήψεις που περιθωριοποιούν κάποιες ομάδες παιδιών και ιδίως κοριτσιών και νεαρών μητέρων. Η προστασία των γυναικών, ειδικά κατά την εγκυμοσύνη και την ανατροφή των παιδιών, πρέπει να αποτελέσει προϋπόθεση ώστε τα παιδιά να απολαμβάνουν από το ξεκίνημα της ζωής τους τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματά τους.


  Irena Belohorská, Spravodajkyňa Výboru pre zahraničné veci požiadaného o stanovisko. − Ďakujem pekne, pán predsedajúci, ďakujem tiež pani Angelilli za jej správu.

Vítam, že slovinské predsedníctvo zvolilo ako jednu zo svojich priorít otázku detí v ozbrojených konfliktoch, ktorá tiež bola jednou z tém môjho stanoviska. Moja správa v rámci zahraničného výboru sa zaoberá aj nutnosťou registrácie detí pri narodení. Neregistrované deti sú neviditeľné, a teda sa často stávajú obeťou sexuálneho zneužívania, obchodovania s ľuďmi, sú väznené spolu s dospelými, pôsobia ako aktívni kombatanti v armáde, keďže nie je možné určiť, či sú už dospelé alebo nie. Rodný list dieťaťa mu zaručuje meno, národnosť aj prístup napr. k lekárskej starostlivosti. Zároveň vyjadrujem svoju ľútosť nad tým, že prijatie tejto správy je až v januári. Väčšina stanovísk bola odhlasovaná a postúpená výboru ešte pred letom, a teda správa mohla byť odhlasovaná skôr.

Riešenie problematiky detí je veľmi urgentné. Svedčí o tom aj nedávny prípad prevozu viac ako 100 čadských detí do Francúzska. Zámerom akcie bolo pomôcť opusteným rodinám z Darfúru, aby sa o deti - siroty postarali pestúni v Európe. OSN však potvrdila, že deti vo väčšine prípadov neboli siroty a pochádzali nie z Darfúru, ale z Čadu, ktorý s ním susedí.

Urgentné riešenie otázky práv dieťaťa nie je len problémom krajín tretieho sveta, ale aj naším.


  Glenys Kinnock, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. − Mr President, I would like to say at the outset that the Committee on Development feels very strongly that it is important for the Commission to mainstream children’s rights into all aspects of development policy, seeing this as a means of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. I know that the Commission communication proposes to deal with such issues.

I wish to state very clearly that we need a children’s rights approach and need to move away from a common focusing, in this debate so far, on issues such as child-trafficking, abduction and pornography. We need to ensure that we understand we are talking about the rights of children: the rights of children to be consulted; the rights of children to be listened to; and the rights of children to have the respect of adults and not be told by adults what they should be doing.

I also very much welcome the fact that the Lisbon Treaty makes reference to children’s rights. We welcome this, because at the moment only animal rights have this kind of legal base in the European Union, and we urgently needed to make this the case for children too.

Finally, in the wider world and in Europe itself, we need to see that what we are doing is safeguarding children’s lives and generally enhancing the well-being of all the children in Europe and in the wider world.


  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης, Εισηγητής της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής Απασχόλησης και Κοινωνικών Υποθέσεων. − Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα κατ’ αρχήν να συγχαρώ την κ. Angelilli για τη θετική της εργασία.

Η στρατηγική για τα δικαιώματα του παιδιού αποτελεί ένα θετικό βήμα για μια συντονισμένη προσέγγιση τόσο στην εσωτερική πολιτική όσο και στις εξωτερικές σχέσεις.

Η Επιτροπή Απασχόλησης, τη γνωμοδότηση της οποίας συνέταξα και παρουσιάζω, τονίζει τις κοινωνικές πτυχές της παραβίασης των δικαιωμάτων του παιδιού. Εστιάζει στην παιδική φτώχεια που αγγίζει σχεδόν ένα παιδί στα πέντε στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Τονίζει επίσης τα προβλήματα της παιδικής εργασίας, του κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού, ζητεί να δοθεί ιδιαίτερη προσοχή στις ευάλωτες κοινωνικές ομάδες, όπως στα παιδιά μετανάστες, τα παιδιά των δρόμων και τα παιδιά με αναπηρίες. Φοβόμαστε ότι τα σημερινά παιδιά, κύριε Πρόεδρε, καλούνται να ζήσουν σε έναν κόσμο χειρότερο απ’ ότι οι προηγούμενες γενιές. Γι’ αυτό, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να δράσει τώρα, με ουσιαστικές δεσμεύσεις, στόχους και απαιτούμενους πόρους, τόσο σε κοινοτικό επίπεδο όσο και σε επίπεδο κρατών μελών.


  Christa Prets, Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Kultur und Bildung. − Herr Präsident! Ich möchte zunächst einmal der Berichterstatterin gratulieren, auch zu der guten Zusammenarbeit. Wir stimmen in vielen wichtigen Aspekten mit all dem, was vorliegt, überein.

Ich möchte aber zwei Punkte herausstreichen, die mir besonders wichtig sind, nämlich erstens das Recht auf Bildung als Grundvoraussetzung für die gesellschaftliche Entwicklung der Kinder. Die Mitgliedstaaten müssen hier einen barrierefreien Zugang schaffen für alle Kinder und Jugendlichen, und zwar unabhängig von ihrer ethnischen und gesellschaftlichen Herkunft sowie ihrem Familienstand. Das heißt auch, dass jede Art von Ausgrenzung, Diskriminierung und Gewalt gegen Kinder verhindert werden muss. Der Start der Helpline sollte so schnell wie möglich forciert werden. Der zweite Punkt, der mir ganz wichtig ist, ist die Förderung der Sprachen als europäisches Kulturgut.

Auch eine Neuerung sollten wir nicht außer Acht lassen: Die Rechte der Kinder umfassen auch, dass wir sie in die neuen Entwicklungen der Ausbildung und Bildung, nämlich auch im Bereich der Medienkompetenz, einbinden und dies als ein ganz wichtiges Bildungsinstrument forcieren.


  Kinga Gál, a PPE-DE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Köszönöm a szót, elnök úr. Azt hiszem, kevesen vagyunk, akik közvetlen vagy közvetett módon ne lennénk érintettek, ha a gyermekek jogainak védelme a téma.

A közösségi intézmények többször is foglalkoztak már a kérdéskör különböző vonatkozásaival, de az előterjesztő bizottsággal egyetértek abban, hogy mindezen túlmenően szükség van egy átfogó stratégia kialakítására. Van néhány olyan sajátos terület, amelyet feltétlenül figyelembe kell vennünk egy ilyen koncepció kidolgozásakor. Ilyen például a gyermekek elleni mindenféle erőszak tilalma, küzdelem a szegénység, a diszkrimináció ellen, az oktatáshoz való jog.

És ahogy a bevezetőjében Frattini úr elmondta, hogy az ügynökség foglalkozhat majd kiemelten ezzel a területtel, én egy javaslattal fordulok önhöz: hogy miért ne lehetne az első konkrét kérdés a Bizottság részéről az ügynökség felé, hogy pontosan ezt a területet, a gyermekek jogainak az érvényesülését vizsgálja.

Különösen aggályosnak találom a gyermekek szexuális bántalmazását vagy a gyermekmunka intézményét, azt a tényt, hogy óriási különbségek vannak ma azt illetően, hogy a menekültstátusszal rendelkező gyermekeket hogyan kezelik az egyes uniós tagállamokban. Az utcagyerekek, a koldulásra kényszerített gyermekek problémája súlyos probléma itt, a közvetlen környezetünkben is.

Meggyőződésem továbbá, hogy az Unión belül a gyermekjogok maradéktalan érvényesítéséért folytatott küzdelemnek elsősorban a család szerepének átértékelését kell jelentenie ebben az új Európában. Az oktatás mellett a nevelés szerepének erősítését, hogy a gyermekeink a szakmai tudás mellett eligazodást kapjanak egyre zavarosabb világunkban. Talán kevesebb lenne az erőszakra hajló, a fizikailag szenvedő vagy a lelkileg sérült gyermek. Köszönöm.


  Inger Segelström, för PSE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Jag vill börja med att tacka Roberta Angelilli och alla skuggföredragande, men också alla de ledamöter som har bidragit till att vi snart får Europaparlamentets första beslut om en EU-strategi för barnets rättigheter. Den allra viktigaste frågan handlar om barns delaktighet och inflytande. Här blir det ett mödosamt och viktigt arbete att se till att detta blir verklighet och inte bara ord. Barn och unga förväntar sig det.

Den fråga som jag anser ha varit den största framgången är förslagen som rör våld mot barn. Ett enigt utskott ställer sig bakom mitt krav på att allt våld mot barn, inklusive barnaga i hemmet, ska förbjudas genom gemenskapslagstiftning. Det är en stor framgång för barnen. I mitt hemland, Sverige, där barnaga är förbjuden, vet vartenda dagisbarn och alla unga människor att vuxna inte får slå barn. Att vi nu också klargör att det krävs ett samarbete för att stoppa alla övergrepp mot barn innebär att vi behöver ett ökat samarbete med aktörer som banker, reseföretag, kreditföretag och växlingsföretag för att stoppa barnpornografi, sexturism och utnyttjande av barn, och för att få ett säkrare Internet mot pedofiler. Dessutom måste illegala webbplatser kunna stängas. Medlemsstater måste också med en sexköpslag se till att barn inte är en handelsvara.

Den svåraste frågan som vi har haft i utskottet har gällt adoption. Jag är mycket nöjd med att vi nu blivit överens om att barn har rätt till en familj, oavsett om det är hos släkt, i en fosterfamilj eller genom nationell och internationell adoption. Det är barnets bästa som ska vara avgörande, inte de vuxnas bästa. Vi kommer alla ihåg vad som hände på barnhem i Rumänien och i Guatemala nyligen, med kidnappningar av barn till adoption som vi har på näthinnan. Barn är ingen handelsvara.

Nu är det upp till kommissionen att lyssna på det kloka som vi i parlamentet har kommit fram till och att sedan komma med konkreta förslag om hur vi ska förankra barnens rätt som nu, med det nya Lissabonfördraget, blir ett mål och lag i EU. Med det nya Lissabonfördraget måste EU lyssna och i allt arbete se till att barnens rätt också blir genomgående. Detta ska naturligtvis också gälla i det globala perspektivet, i utvecklingsarbetet, i kulturen och inom alla områden. Barnfattigdomen kommer självklart att bli en central fråga men också hur barn har det i krig samt alla ohälsofrågor. Jag är stolt över att vara med i detta parlament som kommer att fatta detta beslut i morgon.


  Siiri Oviir, fraktsiooni ALDE nimel. – Austatud härra volinik, president, head kolleegid! Mul on hea meel selle üle, et Euroopa Parlament on jõudnud Euroopa Liidu lapse õiguste strateegia aruteluni, sest laste õigusi toetav poliitika moodustab homse ühiskonna aluse.

Sellest, millised on tulevaste lapsevanemate väärtushinnangud ja toimetulek, sõltub ühiskonna ja riigi käekäik. Ma tänan raportööri nii kõikehõlmava dokumendi ettevalmistamise eest.

On ratsionaalne, et Euroopa Liidu lapse õiguste strateegia väljatöötamisel on aluseks võetud ka ÜRO lapse õiguste konventsioonis ja selle lisaprotokollides kajastatud põhimõtted. Aga selleks, et Euroopa Liidu lapse õiguste strateegia oleks tulemuslikum ja rakendatav ühiselt kõigis 27 liikmesriigis, tuleks selles konkreetsemalt ette näha rakendusmeetmeid, mille käivitamist toetataks lisaks liikmesriikidele ka Euroopa Liidu vahenditest.

Strateegia on kõikehõlmav, kõigil peatuda ei võimalda mul aeg. Omalt poolt tooksin ühe positiivse, igati toimiva algatusena ära Euroopa Liidu lapse õiguste strateegias toodud soovituse võtta kogu Euroopa Liidus kasutusele laste abiliini telefoninumber, mille taolist laste abiliini oleme meie Eestis praktiseerinud nüüd juba kolm aastat ja – kinnitan teile – see toimib edukalt.

Tahaksin juhtida tähelepanu kahele olulisele sihtgrupile, kelle õiguste tagamisele, arvan, peaksime enam keskenduma.

Esiteks, selliseks sihtgrupiks oleksid puuetega lapsed. Leian, et meie lapse õiguste strateegias tuleks rohkem tähelepanu pöörata puuetega laste õiguste tagamisele, et ka neil oleks sarnaselt teiste sihtgruppidega reaalselt tagatud võimalused – ja võrdsed võimalused – aktiivselt ühiskonnaelus osalemiseks.

Teise sihtgrupina tahaksin rõhutada vanemliku hoolitsuseta laste õiguste tagamise temaatikat. Kahtlemata on kõigil lastel õigus perekonnale. Kahjuks ei ole täna aga mitte kõigil meie lastel võimalik üles kasvada perekonna keskel, nad elavad lastekodus. Lastekodust välja astuvatele lastele, s.t 18–19aastastele, kes juriidiliselt on küll täiskasvanud, kuid sotsiaalselt seda mitte, ei ole me oma dokumentides küllaldast tähelepanu pööranud ja seda tuleks meil hakata tegema.


  Bogusław Rogalski, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Panie Przewodniczący! Jako poseł zajmujący się od kilku lat obroną praw dzieci z zadowoleniem przyjmuję sprawozdanie pani Angelilli dotyczące stworzenia jednolitej strategii Unii na rzecz praw dziecka.

Naruszanie praw dzieci, przemoc wobec nich, handel dziećmi dla celów nielegalnej adopcji, prostytucji, nielegalnej pracy czy żebrania na ulicy stanowi wciąż wielki problem Unii. Wszelkie strategie dotyczące praw dziecka powinny być oparte na wartościach i zasadach zapisanych w konwencji ONZ, zwłaszcza na ochronie przed wszelkimi formami dyskryminacji.

Każde dziecko musi mieć zagwarantowane prawo do utrzymywania stałego i bezpośredniego kontaktu z obojgiem rodziców, a także prawo do wychowania w kulturze rodziców oraz prawo do nauki języka obojga rodziców. Te prawa są nagminnie łamane przez niemiecki Urząd ds. Dzieci i Młodzieży Jugendamt w stosunku do dzieci, których jeden z rodziców jest obcokrajowcem. W przypadku rozwodu Jugendamt doprowadza wszelkimi sposobami do pozbawienia praw rodzicielskich rodzica, który nie jest Niemcem. Dzieciom odbiera się prawo do nauki języka drugiego rodzica, zabrania się rozmowy podczas wyznaczonych widzeń w języku innym niż niemiecki. W oficjalnych pismach stwierdza się, że dwujęzyczność jest dla dzieci szkodliwa. W samej tylko Komisji Petycji jest złożonych ponad 250 skarg na działalność tego urzędu. Pomimo iż rok temu Komisja Europejska stwierdziła, iż działania niemieckiego Jugendamt łamią artykuł 12 traktatu wspólnotowego, który zakazuje wszelkiej dyskryminacji, to państwo niemieckie jeszcze bardziej zaostrzyło praktyki dyskryminujące dzieci obcokrajowców i to jest oczywisty skandal.

Mam nadzieję, że to sprawozdanie będące głosem Parlamentu Europejskiego pomoże znieść panującą w tym względzie dyskryminację.


  Hiltrud Breyer, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Kinder sind keine kleinen Erwachsenen, sie sind auch nicht so genannter natürlicher Teil der Familie oder der Gesellschaft, sondern sie sind eigene Rechtspersonen mit eigenen Rechten.

Alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten haben die bahnbrechende UN-Kinderrechtskonvention unterzeichnet, aber wir stehen in Europa in vielen Bereichen erst am Anfang. Ein Lichtblick ist es, dass die Europäische Kommission die Rechte der Kinder auf die Agenda setzt, aber der Vorschlag der Kommission ist uns noch zu viel Lyrik und zu wenig konkrete Maßnahmen.

Ich freue mich, dass durch den Bericht – und noch einmal meine Glückwünsche an die Berichterstatterin – diese Empfehlung der Kommission mehr mit Leben ausgefüllt wird. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass die Kommission ihre Hausaufgaben macht und im Grünbuch „Kinderrechte 2008“ konkreter wird. Wir brauchen Indikatoren zur Umsetzung von Kinderrechten und genaue Zeitpläne.

Lassen Sie mich drei Punkte herausgreifen, die mir am Herzen liegen, nämlich die Rechte der Mädchen, insbesondere der Mädchen mit Migrationshintergrund. Die Verwirklichung der Rechte der Kinder ist immer auch eine Frage der Gleichstellung, der Geschlechtergerechtigkeit zwischen Mädchen und Jungen, und das hat sich ja auch in diesem Bericht gezeigt. Einen Punkt möchte ich herausgreifen: Ich bin froh, dass der Ausschuss und auch die Berichterstatterin unserem Vorschlag gefolgt sind, wonach in den EU-Mitgliedstaaten zumindest in der Grundschule das Kopftuch für Mädchen verboten werden soll, damit die Mädchen eine echte Wahlfreiheit haben und das Recht auf Kindheit gewahrt wird. Es gibt auch keine Rechtfertigung für Schulverbote für Mädchen mit Migrationshintergrund.

Zweitens: Was mir am Herzen liegt, ist Gewalt gegen Kinder und die zunehmende Verwahrlosung. Hier gilt es, die Medienkompetenz bei Kindern zu stärken. Die Verbreitung von Pornos und Gewalt über Handys hat erschreckend zugenommen, und dies führt zu Abstumpfung und in eine Gewaltspirale, die sich immer schneller dreht. Ich bitte Sie, Herr Frattini, wirklich genau zu prüfen, wie der Jugendschutz im Medienbereich verbessert werden kann und wie wir Kinder besser vor Gewalt schützen können.

Drittens: Ökologische Kinderrechte – ein Thema, das noch niemand angesprochen hat –, also das Recht eines jeden Kindes, in einer intakten Umwelt aufzuwachsen. Die Kommission hat leider in der Kinderrechtestrategie nicht berücksichtigt, dass wir die Schadstoffgrenzwerte künftig mehr an Kindern ausrichten sollten, und nicht nur an den Erwachsenen. Das gilt für Lärm und andere Stoffe. Ich bitte Sie also, auch die ökologischen Kinderrechte aufzunehmen, denn die Kinder sind die Bürgerinnen und Bürger von morgen. Wir alle sind in der Verantwortung, dass das europäische Haus auch ein Haus der Kinder ist!


  Giusto Catania, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, voglio ringraziare la collega Angelilli per il lavoro sensibile che ha fatto su una materia molto importante: una società che sarà essere ospitale con i bambini, sarà essere ospitale con tutti i suoi cittadini. Allo stesso modo io credo che oggi in questo Parlamento facciamo un passo molto importante perché le istituzioni che sono in grado di occuparsi delle condizioni dei minori sapranno certamente in modo migliore occuparsi di tutti i cittadini europei.

Io credo che la relazione della collega Angelilli contenga molti spunti interessanti e anche dinamici, che danno delle indicazioni alla Commissione anche in vista dei passaggi futuri che ci aspettano. Io credo che ci siano alcuni punti su cui vadano fatte alcune sottolineature, in particolare sulla necessità di stare molto attenti rispetto alle figure dei minori non accompagnati nei centri di detenzione amministrativi per migranti.

La commissione per le libertà civili del Parlamento europeo, nelle sue ispezioni in questi luoghi, ha potuto constatare che in molti paesi, in Francia, in Belgio, in Italia, molti minori non accompagnati, molti bambini sono rinchiusi in questi luoghi, in una condizione disumana e degradante, inaccettabile per l'infanzia così come del resto inaccettabile per tutti gli uomini e per tutte le donne.

Per questo noi riteniamo che su questo punto vada rimarcata la necessità di insistere e per questa ragione riteniamo anche che vada fatta molta attenzione sulla necessità di evitare il lavoro minorile. Il lavoro minorile spesso è legato allo sfruttamento ed è legato alla povertà. Per queste ragioni pensiamo che un contributo che deve venire da questo Parlamento è un contributo ampio che va nella direzione di migliorare le condizioni sociali dell'Unione europea.


  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I have many things to say about the rights of the child. Firstly, I welcome the amendments to this report that focus on the family and their importance in providing for a child’s development. I would like to stress the primacy of parents – not the state – as the guardian of children and, for this reason, the importance of support for the family in their responsibilities. The state should assist the parents in protecting and promoting the child, and it should only take over from the parents when the parents are unwilling or unable to serve their children.

On the issue of disability, I praise this report for acknowledging that children with disabilities should be assured full respect and granted equal treatment. I myself have represented many children and their parents who struggled to guarantee education for them. A tragic flaw in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on which this is based is that, although it guarantees primary education for all children, it makes specific educational provision needed by disabled children ‘subject to resources’. These three words have militated against children with special needs getting the help they need in my country.

Amendment 3 deals with children within the EU who have previously been in institutionalised care. This important issue has come to the attention of many MEPs following the BBC documentary Bulgaria’s abandoned children, which focused on care homes for children with disabilities. There will be a screening of this documentary with the participation of the film-maker on 4 March 2008, to which I invite all my colleagues.

Recently the EU voted against an amendment placed before the Committee on Budgets that sought to divert EU funding that goes into institutions towards community- and family-based services. This amendment failed. We must be coherent in our approach to de-institutionalisation and integrate children into society, and we must put our funding into community-based approaches in the future.

I also welcome the strong line Parliament takes on trafficking, especially with Amendment 1. It is hard to imagine anything worse happening to a child than being stolen from their family, whether for military, sexual or labour purposes, or even to fulfil the desire of a couple for a child.

I also want to mention the trafficking of babies before and after birth for organ and cell harvesting and remind my colleagues that the preamble of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child includes children before birth as well as after.

I am pleased that the report takes into account migrant families and unaccompanied minors. With increasing cultural blends, we must continue to acknowledge the importance of embracing all children in our ever-changing society. As much as it is wonderful that labour migration enables parents to go abroad and earn more and provide better for their families, we need to be working towards an equity that will not necessitate this separation and will allow families to stay together in their home country or their country of choosing.

Now I should like to address the issue of sexual and reproductive rights, which is repeated in six articles of this report. I am personally responsible for six teenage girls and two teenage boys. Of course they need to know the facts of life but, at the same time, they need to know the most important fact of life: that they are extremely valuable, developing individuals, persons with a dignity and a future, with a unique contribution to make to their community and family. They do not benefit from the message that is so often given in the name of sexual and reproductive rights that they cannot be responsible and are, in fact, walking disasters who need adult help with damage control, and that they can get this help without any negative effects to themselves or without the knowledge of their parents. The richness of adolescence can and should receive the support of those who are older, who love them and who have already been there.

(The President cut off the speaker)




  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ottima la relazione della brava collega e ritengo prioritaria l'azione dell'Unione e una strategia a difesa dei diritti dei minori. È necessario riconoscere i minori quale soggetto di diritto e reclamare politiche e misure in proposito che si spingano anche a tutelare la vita dell'individuo fin dal concepimento.

La relazione sollecita ulteriori interventi e in modo assolutamente condivisibile spinge all'affermazione di diritti che costituiscono parte integrante di quei diritti che l'Unione e i suoi Stati sono tenuti a rispettare e che necessitano di una base giuridica specifica.

Delle tante emergenze legate all'infanzia sottolineo il numero impressionante di bambini scomparsi e queste scomparse spesso hanno esito tragico a causa dello sfruttamento sessuale e delle violenze pedopornografiche. L'Unione, a mio giudizio, non dovrebbe accettare che in nessuno Stato di essa vi sia alcuna tolleranza nei confronti della pedofilia a nessun titolo, vietando il diritto di propagandarla oltre che ovviamente di esercitarla.


  Edit Bauer (PPE-DE). – Köszönöm, elnök úr. A demográfiai válság nyomán minden gyermekélet felértékelődik. Nem szorgalmazhatjuk egyoldalúan a születési ráta növekedését miközben kevés figyelmet fordítunk a megszületett gyerekek életkörülményeire, esélyegyenlőségére, a szellemi és testi fejlődésükhöz szükséges feltételek biztosítására.

Ezért tartom rendkívül fontosnak Frattini biztos elkötelezettségét, hogy a gyerekek jogainak biztosítása horizontális prioritás legyen az uniós politikákban. A jelentés, amelyhez gratulálok Angelilli asszonynak, joggal emel ki bizonyos problémákat, melyek megoldása égetően sürgős.

Megdöbbentő a gyerekszegénység mértéke, hiszen ahogy a kollégák említették, minden ötödik gyerek szegénységben él, és ez bizony nagyon szorosan összefügg a korai iskolaelhagyással. Nem hunyhatunk szemet az uniós tagországokban a több ezer utcagyerek és hajléktalan gyerek helyzete felett, akik közül sokakat koldulásra, tolvajlásra, illegális munkákra, illetve prostitúcióra kényszerítenek.

Az UNICEF közelmúltban nyilvánosságra hozott tanulmánya szerint nincs olyan ország, nincs olyan tagország, amely nem érintett a gyerekkereskedelem ügyében. Keveset tudunk arról a több százra tehető gyerekről, akik gyerekintézményekből vagy menekülttáborokból tűnnek el évente. Jogos aggodalomra ad okot a gyerekekkel szembeni erőszak, de a gyerekek közti agresszivitás növekedése is.

Elnök úr, a Lisszaboni Szerződés értelmében a gyerekek jogait az Alapjogi Charta 24. cikkelye garantálja. A jelentés – amelynek elfogadását támogatom – az első lépés, hogy az uniós intézmények, a Parlamentet is beleértve, komoly lépéseket tegyenek a gyermekek jogainak következetesebb betartása, helyzetének javítása érdekében. Ezután remélhetőleg a tagországok igyekezete sem fog elmaradni. Köszönöm figyelmüket.


  Martine Roure (PSE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je suis heureuse que la Commission propose la mise en place d'une stratégie européenne sur les droits de l'enfant.

En effet, une grande partie des politiques européennes affecte les enfants et il est donc nécessaire de mettre en place une action spécifique qui permette la protection de leurs droits et leur participation active.

Je me félicite en particulier que le Parlement demande la définition d'une notion d'enfance en danger. En effet, cet instrument nous permettra d'apporter une aide spécialisée aux enfants victimes d'une situation sociale particulière, mettant en danger leur intégrité mentale et physique.

D'autre part, nous ne pouvons abandonner à leur sort les enfants en situation de pauvreté. Ces enfants ne bénéficient pas toujours de la protection dont ils ont besoin car leurs parents n'en ont pas les moyens. Ils ont besoin d'une aide particulière afin qu'ils ne soient pas condamnés à l'exclusion sociale, et les États doivent avoir la responsabilité d'assurer l'accès de tous les enfants à la santé et à l'éducation, quelle que soit la situation sociale ou juridique de leurs parents, afin de garantir, dans la pratique, l'égalité des chances pour tous.

Je souhaite aussi insister sur la situation particulière des enfants migrants. La détention administrative des enfants est inacceptable. Nous ne pouvons comprendre que des personnes qui fuient la guerre ou le désespoir soient considérées comme des criminels, alors encore moins des enfants, qui doivent tous recevoir protection et éducation selon la Convention des droits de l'enfant.


  Ona Juknevičienė (ALDE). – Mes pripažįstame, kad vaiko teisės yra dalis žmogaus teisių, kurias esame įsipareigoję gerbti pagal tarptautines ir Europos sutartis. Vaiko teisės pripažintos Europos pagrindinių teisų chartijoje. Ji turėtų tapti Reformų sutarties sudėtine dalimi ir būti privaloma visoms Bendrijos narėms. Komisare Frattini, komunikate jūs sakote, kad vaikų teisių apsauga Sąjungos viduje dar nėra patenkinama. O aš manau – siaubinga. Beveik penktadalis vaikų skurde. Lietuvoje skursta beveik pusė šeimų, kuriose yra vienas suaugęs ir išlaikomi vaikai. Tikriausiai mes nesuvesime statistikos, kiek išsiplėtusioje Bendrijoje liko vaikų be tėvų, emigravusių ieškoti darbo ir palikusių savo vaikus be tinkamos priežiūros.

Mes pasibaisėję skaitome apie vaikų seksualinį ar psichologinį prievartavimą. Pasigailime vaiko gatvėje, įmetame jam centą į išmaldos prašančią rankelę. Tačiau dažniau nieko nedarome, nes lengviau nusisukti, užsimerkti, pasakyti, kad tai ne mano kaltė, kiti už tai atsakingi. Jūs, komisare Frattini, sakote, kad tai valstybių narių atsakomybė ir kad jūs nenorite kištis į jų reikalus. Briuselis kišasi į daugelį Bendrijos narių klausimų: mums svarbu sureguliuoti žemės ūkį, vidaus rinką, kapitalo judėjimą. Manome, kad tai gyvybiškai svarbūs klausimai. Aš tikiu, kad mūsų didžiausias rūpestis privalo būti žmogus ir, pirmiausia, vaikas. Tai mūsų ateitis. Manau, kad būtent Europos Sąjunga turi prisiimti atsakomybę dėl žmogaus ir, pirmiausia, vaikų, teisių užtikrinimo. Aš nepritariu dokumentui, kuris tik rūpinasi, primena, ragina. Manau, kad mes čia esam reikalingi tiek, kiek rūpinamės savo žmonėmis.


  Wojciech Roszkowski (UEN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałem pogratulować pani Angelilli znakomitego raportu na temat, który wydaje mi się kluczowy dla przyszłości Unii Europejskiej. Większość postulatów tego raportu oczywiście zasługuje na wsparcie, ale mam parę wątpliwości.

Po pierwsze, przywołuje się tutaj zasadę równości dziewcząt i chłopców, co można rozumieć jako stwierdzenie ich identyczności, tymczasem każdy rodzic wie, że dziewczynki i chłopcy różnią się oraz wymagają innego podejścia wychowawczego po to by realizować zasadę ich równej godności. Po drugie z punktu widzenia praw dziecka wzrost liczby alternatywnych struktur rodzinnych, o których jest mowa w raporcie stanowi zagrożenie, któremu należało by zapobiegać. O tym zagrożeniu się w raporcie nie mówi. I po trzecie, skoro w punkcie 167. wzywa się do zapewnienia dzieciom i młodzieży edukacji seksualnej, punkty 163 i 164 mówiące o prawie do zdrowia seksualnego i reprodukcyjnego są zbędne, chyba że pod tymi terminami ukrywa się prawo do aborcji.

W tym miejscu widać, że nie da się oderwać praw dzieci narodzonych od praw dzieci nienarodzonych, choć są one początkowo tylko embrionami, nieuchronnie stają się dziećmi, a kto ma wątpliwość niech pamięta, że kiedyś wszyscy byliśmy embrionami.


  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – Neste minuto de intervenção sublinho que consideramos que a primeira prioridade da União Europeia relativamente às crianças deverá ser a avaliação das consequências das suas políticas para o incumprimento, ou cumprimento, dos direitos das crianças, nomeadamente quanto à redução rápida e significativa da pobreza infantil, dando a todas as crianças oportunidades iguais.

Neste sentido e, por exemplo, pergunto: Quais as consequências da política monetária da União Europeia e do seu objectivo de estabilidade dos preços, ou melhor, de moderação salarial, para o incumprimento dos direitos da criança? Quais as consequências da denominada flexisegurança da União Europeia, da liberalização do mercado de trabalho, da facilitação de despedimento, da precarização dos vínculos laborais, do aumento do tempo de trabalho e da flexibilização do horário de trabalho para o incumprimento dos direitos das crianças? Quais as consequências das actuais políticas da União Europeia de promoção da liberalização e privatização dos serviços públicos incluindo a saúde e a educação para o incumprimento dos direitos das crianças? Eis alguns exemplos do que seria o mais adequado, necessário e urgente mainstreaming da União Europeia relativamente aos direitos da criança.


  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – Senhor Vice-Presidente da Comissão, Senhoras e Senhores Deputados, a violência contra quem não se pode defender é particularmente condenável. A violência contra as crianças é especialmente odiosa. Precisamos de legislação comunitária que proíba todas as formas de violência, quer seja física, psicológica ou de natureza sexual. Já foram referidos os dados da UNICEF, de 2003, que referem que há países comunitários, como por exemplo a França, onde morrem cerca de três crianças por semana, por abuso e negligência e noutros onde esse número anda nos dois por semana, como é o caso da Alemanha e do Reino Unido.

Saúdo o empenho dos Estados-Membros e das instituições da União Europeia na implementação de políticas relativas às crianças, que têm vindo a aumentar nos últimos anos. No entanto, a legislação, as políticas e as estruturas existentes continuam a ser insuficientes para fazer face a todo o leque de questões que se colocam relativamente à sua protecção, quer sejam vítimas de pobreza, tráfico, violência familiar, abuso sexual, pornografia, trabalho infantil ou o drama das crianças-soldados que persiste no século XXI.

Por isso felicito o Vice-Presidente Franco Frattini por esta iniciativa que demonstra que existe a vontade necessária para tornar esta questão uma prioridade da acção para a União Europeia e criar uma estratégia geral da União para promover e salvaguardar de forma eficaz os direitos da criança no âmbito das políticas internas e externas da União. Congratulo-me igualmente que o novo Tratado de Lisboa venha incorporar os direitos da criança no âmbito dos objectivos da União criando uma nova base jurídica para a defesa desses direitos.

De facto é necessário melhorar a prevenção, campanhas de informação, reforço dos direitos sociais para apoio às vítimas. É necessário também reforçar as operações transfronteiras contra os sites Internet de pornografia infantil com vista ao encerramento desses sites e ao desmantelamento dessas redes criminosas. A Internet oferece às crianças oportunidades fantásticas para comunicar e obter informação, mas temos de garantir que o façam de maneira segura.


  Σταύρος Λαμπρινίδης (PSE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα παιδιά μας έχουν ανεξάρτητη προσωπικότητα, έχουν απαράβατο δικαίωμα στην προστασία των θεμελιωδών τους δικαιωμάτων, που θα πει όχι σε εξευτελιστική μεταχείριση και βία, όχι σε απάνθρωπη εργασία, όχι σε αποκλεισμούς από την εκπαίδευση, όχι στη φτώχεια, όχι στη σεξουαλική εκμετάλλευση και κακοποίηση, όχι παιδιά στρατιώτες στον πόλεμο. Και έχουν μεγαλύτερη ανάγκη τα παιδιά από αυτές τις παγκόσμιες αξίες απ’ ότι έχουν οι ενήλικες. Πρώτον, διότι είναι, εξ ορισμού, νέα και ευάλωτα. Δεύτερον, διότι ο γονιός ή ο δάσκαλος ή ο παπάς ή όλοι αυτοί με τους οποίους έρχονται σε επαφή, βρίσκονται πάντα σε μια θέση εξουσίας απέναντί τους, και τρίτον, διότι αν κάτι πάει στραβά στην παιδική ηλικία αυτό καταλήγει να επηρεάζει καταλυτικά και τη μελλοντική ζωή ενός παιδιού.

Αυτά τα δικαιώματα καλούμαστε να υπερασπίσουμε σήμερα. Θα εστιάσω σε δύο:

Πρώτο, τα παιδιά των μεταναστών είναι ίσως τα πιο ευάλωτα. Τουλάχιστον όσα γεννιούνται ανάμεσα μας θα πρέπει να αποκτούν άμεσα την ιθαγένεια των χωρών μας. Να μην στιγματίζονται εκ γενετής και φυσικά να πηγαίνουν στο σχολείο ανεξάρτητα από το status των γονιών τους, να μην καταδικάζονται στον κοινωνικό αποκλεισμό.

Δεύτερο, προστασία παιδιών στο διαδίκτυο. Τόσο των παιδιών που συχνά ανυποψίαστα μπαίνουν, "σερφάρουν", συνομιλούν με αγνώστους, όσο και παιδιών πιθανών θυμάτων σεξουαλικής εκμετάλλευσης. Προϊόντα μιας πολύ επικερδούς επιχείρησης. Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το διαδίκτυο είναι η νέα πλατεία του χωριού. Όπως στην πλατεία οι γονείς προειδοποιούν τα παιδιά να μη μιλούν με αγνώστους, έτσι θα πρέπει να εκπαιδευτούν και να συνειδητοποιήσουν ότι αντίστοιχο ενδιαφέρον και συμβουλές απαιτούνται στο διαδίκτυο. Η Ευρώπη οφείλει να συμβάλει σε αυτήν την εκπαίδευση καθώς και σε τηλεφωνικές γραμμές άμεσης στήριξης γονιών και παιδιών που αντιμετωπίζουν τέτοιες καταστάσεις.


  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I agree with virtually all the recommendations made in this excellent report. In particular, I agree that the future EU strategy should recognise the important role of the family as the basic institution in society for the survival, protection and development of the child.

I also support the right of the child to maintain, on a regular basis, a personal relationship and direct contact with his or her parents unless, of course, that is contrary to the child’s best interests. I fully endorse the suggestions in this report to establish a child-friendly society, in which children can feel protected and actively involved.

Paragraph 27 urges the Commission and Member States to take action to ensure observance of the rights of mentally-disabled children to access education. In an Irish context they have a right to an appropriate primary education, but this is subject to resources. In reality this often means they receive an inappropriate primary education.

Paragraph 27 also states that mentally-disabled children should have access to the courts. There was recently a case in Ireland of a young girl with Downs Syndrome who had been sexually assaulted, and yet a judge decided she was not competent to tell the truth to the jury. He tested her in court with the assistance of the prosecution lawyers. During this test, the accused and his lawyers were present, but the girl’s family was ordered to leave the court. Unless all children can be assured of the absolute right to access the courts we will be failing our children.

Finally, I should like to put a short question to the Commissioner. The recent decision to incorporate children’s rights into the Lisbon Treaty as one of the objectives of the EU will provide a new legal basis for children’s rights. Can the Commissioner elaborate – even briefly – on the practical outcomes he expects from this? I put this question particularly in the light of the forthcoming referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty.


  Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka (UEN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałabym zwrócić uwagę na problem zasygnalizowany w punkcie 118 sprawozdania, a dotyczący ograniczeń swobody kontaktu z dziećmi w rozbitych rodzinach wielonarodowościowych.

Szczególnie jaskrawe przypadki mają miejsce w Niemczech w efekcie działania instytucji o nazwie Jugendamt. W ich wyniku rodzice niebędący obywatelami Niemiec pozbawieni są możliwości rozmowy ze swoimi dziećmi we własnym języku, a w skrajnych przypadkach tracą nawet prawa rodzicielskie.

Zapisy tworzące Jugendamt pochodzą z 1939 r., powtarzam: z 1939 r., i w niemal niezmienionej formie funkcjonują w ramach obowiązującego prawa. Instytucja ta działa w imię tzw. dobra dziecka, które to pojęcie nie zostało jednak nigdzie zdefiniowane, co oznacza, że może być dowolnie interpretowane. Jugendamty w postępowaniach faworyzują rodziców o niemieckim pochodzeniu. Zastrzeżenia budzi też fakt, że nie podlegają one żadnej zewnętrznej kontroli, dlatego wnoszę, aby Komisja Europejska przygotowała propozycję regulacji, która pozwoliłaby na uniknięcie jakichkolwiek form dyskryminacji ze strony urzędów państw członkowskich, jak ma to obecnie miejsce w Niemczech.


  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Przede wszystkim chciałbym w pełni zgodzić się z głosem pani poseł Foltyn-Kubickiej.

Zagadnienie ochrony praw dziecka zyskuje rosnącą uwagę ze strony prawodawców Unii Europejskiej. Zarazem jednak coraz więcej dziedzin w ramach kompetencji unijnych ma bezpośredni wpływ na prawa dzieci. Dlatego z zadowoleniem przyjmuję komunikat Komisji zapowiadający wprowadzenie strategii dotyczącej ochrony praw dziecka. Wola nadania priorytetowego znaczenia tej kwestii w działaniach Unii Europejskiej – uznania dzieci za pełne podmioty prawne, zasługuje na pełne poparcie. Niemniej ostrożny tytuł komunikatu, tzn. „w kierunku strategii”, a nie „strategia”, sugeruje, że będzie miał on ciąg dalszy w formie publicznych konsultacji, które pomogłyby określić główne priorytety dla przyszłych działań Unii.

Unia Europejska nie stworzyła dotychczas żadnej specjalnej podstawy prawnej dotyczącej praw dziecka. Tutaj wyrażam swoje ubolewanie, bowiem gdyby traktat konstytucyjny był ratyfikowany wprowadziłby bardziej odpowiednie ramy prawne w art. 1.3, który zawierał bezpośrednie odniesienie do praw dziecka. W traktacie lizbońskim została włączona ochrona praw dzieci jako wewnętrzny i zewnętrzny cel Unii Europejskiej. Prawa te potwierdza także Karta praw podstawowych. Jednakże to wstyd, że sto milionów dzieci żyjących w Unii Europejskiej nie jest równych pod względem posiadanych praw i swobód.

Jest oczywiste, że ze względu na swoją wrażliwość i specyficzne potrzeby dzieci wymagają specjalnych zabezpieczeń i opieki, łącznie z odpowiednią ochroną prawną. Jednakże prawa dzieci nie powinny być ani przeciwstawiane ani izolowane od praw człowieka w ogólności. Analiza dokumentów unijnych sugeruje, że może pojawiać się ruch w stronę traktowania praw dzieci jako zagadnienia oddzielnego względem praw człowieka jako całości. Jest to niebezpieczna ścieżka i może tworzyć niebezpieczne podziały.

Dziękuję sprawozdawczyni, że nie dopuściła, aby delikatność zagadnienia zakłóciła jej zrównoważone podejście do tematu. To dobrze, że raport nie koncentruje się wyłącznie na środkach ochronnych, ale podkreśla potrzebę pozytywnej afirmacji praw dzieci, takich jak prawo do rodziny, edukacji, inkluzji społecznej, opieki zdrowotnej i równych szans.


  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE). – Köszönöm, elnök úr. Erős társadalmat és gazdaságot csak testében és lelkében egészséges generációkra, polgárokra lehet építeni, ezért a jövő generációk sorsát és jogait a tőlünk telhető módon biztosítanunk kell saját érdekünkben is, hiszen a jövő generációk szolidaritására előbb-utóbb mindannyian rászorulunk.

Ezért illeti elismerés Roberta Angelillit a témát komplex módon megvilágító jelentéséért. Gyermekeink teljes élethez való joga bonyolult rendszere a társadalmi követelményeknek és a jogi biztosítékoknak. A gyermek joga, hogy egészséges körülmények között szülessen és nevelkedjen. Joga, hogy tanulhasson, hogy megvalósíthassa álmait.

A családok és gyermekek szegénysége alapvetően gátolja e jogok érvényesülését, ezért nem lehet elégszer hangsúlyozni, mennyire meghatározó az európai intézmények és tagországok szerepvállalása a szegénység elleni harcban. Ezzel is elejét kell venni a gyermekek elleni bűncselekményeknek és a gyermekek kizsákmányolásának.

Az elmúlt év végén a határok nélküli Európa új korszakba lépett. Nagy a kihívás, hogy a schengeni nyitás ne teremtsen kedvező lehetőséget a bűnelkövetők számára, ezért kívánatos lenne egy olyan rendszer kidolgozása, amely a gyermekek ellen elkövetett bűncselekményekkel és az ítéletekkel kapcsolatos információkat a tagállamok számára hozzáférhetővé teszi és megvédi a gyermekeket a bűnelkövetők foglalkoztatásától a környezetükben.

Angelilli asszony kiváló jelentése akkor válik igazán értékké, ha jogalkotási lépések követik majd. Bízom benne, hogy így lesz. Köszönöm, elnök úr.


  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – Drepturile copilului reprezintă o tematică esenţială care ne uneşte pe toţi, indiferent de ţara de origine sau viziunea politică.

Vorbind despre copii, vorbim despre viitorul nostru, al cetăţenilor europeni şi în fond al întregii Uniuni Europene. De aceea, nu pot decât saluta elaborarea raportului privind strategia europeană în domeniul drepturilor copilului. Însăşi procesul său de elaborare, prin includerea a şase avize de la diverse comisii parlamentare, confirmă importanţa subiectului şi a textului inclus în Carta drepturilor fundamentale.

Interesul superior al copilului trebuie să fie considerat primordial. Prin prisma valorilor şi a conceptului său de dezvoltare, Uniunea Europeană are obligaţia morală de a transforma drepturile copilului într-o prioritate de importanţă majoră pentru acţiunea sa, atât pe plan intern, cât şi pe plan internaţional.

Pe plan intern, aş dori să reiterez importanţa a două aspecte: în primul rând este vorba de consecinţele negative ale emigraţiei şi situaţia precară a copiilor lăsaţi singuri în ţările lor, de părinţii care au emigrat. Îi mulţumesc raportorului că a acceptat sugestia mea de a atrage atenţia asupra acestui fenomen încă prezent în viaţa europenilor şi îl susţin în apelul său de a asigura acestor copii îngrijire, integrare socială şi o educaţie cuprinzătoare. Nu mai puţin important este obiectivul de a asigura tuturor copiilor europeni dreptul la educaţie.

În afara Uniunii Europene este esenţial să promovăm drepturile copilului şi pe plan internaţional, mai ales în cadrul relaţiilor Uniunii Europene cu ţările vecine şi partenerii strategici. Dintre situaţiile diverse existente în lume, aş dori să punctez încălcarea drepturilor copiilor în cazurile de criză şi conflict, mai ales în zonele de conflict îngheţat ,unde statul de drept este pur şi simplu negat. Uniunea Europeană nu poate tolera astfel de situaţii şi trebuie să lanseze acţiuni ferme în vederea asigurării respectării drepturilor copilului pretutindeni.

Anul 2007 a permis Uniunii Europene realizarea unor paşi fermi în această direcţie,

dar anul 2008 va fi cel crucial pentru transpunerea în fapte a noii strategii privind drepturile copilului. Invit, deci, Comisia şi Consiliul să ia în considerare recomandările Parlamentului European pentru a transforma această strategie într-un succes.


  Iratxe García Pérez (PSE). – Señor Presidente, este informe aporta una visión integral y coherente a la labor que debemos impulsar desde la Unión Europea con la infancia. Debemos implicar a todos los responsables de hacer efectivos los derechos de los niños y las niñas a una educación igualitaria, la lucha contra todo tipo de violencia y contra el trabajo infantil, y la protección de los niños y las niñas inmigrantes.

Siendo conscientes de la evolución de la sociedad reconocemos que el modelo tradicional de familia no puede ser el único referente y que cada vez existen más modelos alternativos a los que debemos atender desde el convencimiento profundo de que los niños deben disfrutar de un entorno familiar favorable.

Ligado a este tema quiero destacar la iniciativa referida a las adopciones internacionales, donde se necesita una regulación legal más adaptada a la realidad que responda a las incógnitas que hoy se nos presentan y que, desde algunos Estados, como es el caso de España, ya se ha iniciado, garantizando el interés superior del menor.

Pero antes de finalizar quería mostrar la reserva de la delegación socialista española al apartado 127 referido a la prohibición del velo en la escuela, ya que somos más partidarios del diálogo y la mediación.

Señorías, estamos hablando del sector más vulnerable de la sociedad, pero también de un futuro que necesita las bases sólidas de valores como el respeto, la tolerancia y la convivencia.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I welcome this report and the work the rapporteur has done on it.

From listening to the debate, there is almost total agreement on what we need to do when it comes to children’s rights, and we have come a long way from the old adage that ‘children should be seen and not heard’. Today we not only want to see our children but also to hear and listen to what they have to say.

However, we need some clarification – and perhaps the Commissioner could do that for me – in relation to what competence the EU has in this area of children’s rights in the light of the Treaty that has been spoken of and our vote in Ireland on that Reform Treaty. As you know, under the Irish Constitution, the rights of children are seen as best protected in the context of the family. We need to acknowledge the important role the family plays in protecting children’s rights and we need to look at measures aimed at strengthening families and supporting them where that is necessary.

There is also the question of the marital versus non-marital family and whether there are equal rights for children in both of these situations. There is a significant increase in the separated and divorced population in Ireland and an increase in cohabitation of couples: one in twelve families takes this form, with responsibility for 50 000 children. We need to look at how the rights of those children are being protected under Irish law as it currently exists.

There is also an issue about the access of children to both of their parents and the invisibility of children currently under the Irish family law system, and that has to be addressed.

One last point: there was uproar in 2006 when the Irish Supreme Court struck down the law on statutory rape on the basis that it did not allow an accused individual to enter the defence of honest mistake over a victim’s age. The case involved a 41-year-old man and a 12-year-old girl. Today, ironically in the Dublin district court, sex assault charges against this individual were dropped. We are to have two constitutional amendments in Ireland on the issue of the family and the case I just mentioned, and I think we need to see where the EU fits into children’s rights so that we vote in Ireland in the right way.


  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Nasza dzisiejsza dyskusja jest dowodem, że Parlament Europejski chce współtworzyć europejską politykę wobec dzieci. Dlatego napawa niepokojem stanowisko wielu państw członkowskich, które uważają, że niemal cała regulacja dotycząca praw dzieci leży w gestii prawa rodzinnego, a przez to - niejako z definicji - należy do wyłącznej kompetencji narodowej.

Takie stricte narodowe podejście bardzo często stawia Parlament poza głównym nurtem decyzyjnym w zakresie praw dziecka i sprowadza nas, Parlament, wyłącznie do roli opiniodawcy. To nie jest dobre podejście w jednoczącej się Europie. Przykładem może być rozporządzenie w sprawie transgranicznego egzekwowania alimentów, które Parlament przyjął niedawno - w grudniu - właśnie w procedurze konsultacji. To rozporządzenie ma sprawić, że dzieci zapomniane przez jednego z rodziców nie będą dłużej głodne i opuszczone, że otrzymają środki materialne wyegzekwowane dzięki nowemu, skuteczniejszemu systemowi. Dlatego uważam, że Parlament reprezentujący przecież także wszystkie europejskie dzieci ma moralny obowiązek, aby aktywnie współtworzyć prawo na ich rzecz.

Podsumowując powiem tak: Panie Komisarzu więcej Parlamentu w europejskich regulacjach na rzecz dziecka.


  Edward McMillan-Scott (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Roberta Angelilli, and the other rapporteurs for their work on this important dossier, and of course to thank Commissioner Frattini for his encouragement for the communication and for the work that has been done by the Commission in this field.

While recognising that these matters are primarily those for the Member States, there is also, I believe, a role for the European Union, and that of course is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, where, for the first time, the rights of children are embraced. I believe that a society is best judged by the way it deals with its innocence and we are, as a European Union, a society.

The particular interest I have in this field is that of parental child abduction across frontiers. I have handled many cases in this sphere and there are several hundred each year between the EU Member States and indeed between EU Member States and our neighbour countries and beyond. While there are international conventions like the Hague Convention and, internally, the Brussels II Convention, there are still many deficiencies. Recently I was grateful to the international law firm Freshfields for examining several cases under the Brussels II Convention and identifying some of the problems within our own Member States.

I believe that the work that has been done by the European Parliament and by the Commission needs to be seen in the context of international developments in law. I think it is right that the old United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which puts the paramountcy of the interests of the child first, is absolutely crucial. In the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the concept of the right of a child to both parents is also introduced. That is vital and is now widespread across the world.

But there are two aspects which turn on the way in which a case is handled by a court. Even though this point is not contained within the report in explicit terms, we should also remember the rights of children mature enough for their wishes to be heard by a Court, as in the case of my constituent, 7-year-old Jessica, at the High Court recently. Secondly, where appropriate, independent legal representation for the child should be provided. These are two elements which I think we need to develop in the coming months.


  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie alla relatrice per l'ottimo lavoro svolto. Il secolo XX si era aperto con i bambini che non avevano praticamente alcun diritto e si è concluso con passi avanti evidenti ed incontestabili, ma la strada da percorrere è ancora lunga e non semplice, come sottolineano molti passaggi della relazione.

Nel breve tempo a disposizione, e anche sulla base di esperienze personali a fianco dell'Unicef, volevo esortare la Commissione a insistere su un aspetto: è necessario uno strumento comunitario in materia di adozioni, oggi le normative dei 27 Stati sono del tutto disorganiche. Si impone l'opportunità di adottare una cornice normativa che contribuisca a migliorare la qualità dell'assistenza nei servizi d'informazione per gestire gli step della preparazione per le adozioni internazionali e il trattamento dell'iter per le richieste e di servizi a fianco della famiglia nella fase successiva all'adozione. Troppo spesso in questi ambiti di riscontrano ancora oggi abusi, carenze, lungaggini e disagi che le famiglie adottanti e soprattutto i bambini davvero non meritano.


  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – Všetky členské štáty ratifikovali Dohovor OSN o právach dieťaťa v roku 1989, ten však nezahŕňa žiaden sankčný mechanizmus.

Existuje viacero orgánov zaoberajúcich sa ochranou práv detí, ktorých aktivity je potrebné lepšie koordinovať a zabezpečiť ich publicitu, napr. vytvorením spoločnej internetovej stránky. Týmto spôsobom by sme predišli nežiaducemu vzájomnému prekrývaniu ich poznatkov. Ďalším krokom by mohlo byť poverenie komisára pre ľudské práva ochranou práv detí. Privítal by som, keby sa komisár podľa prioritných oblastí zaoberal bojom proti chudobe a proti všetkým formám násilia. K násiliu páchanému na deťoch by nikdy nemalo dôjsť, preto je podľa môjho názoru dôležité nielen trestať páchateľov, ale hlavne predísť neľudským činom.

V tomto zmysle podporujem spravodajkyňu v žiadosti o zavedenie postupov, ktoré umožnia lepšiu medzištátnu koordináciu stíhania, čo by v praxi malo zabezpečiť, že človek odsúdený v jednom členskom štáte bude vedený v záznamoch ako páchateľ násilia na deťoch aj v ostatných členských štátoch. Domnievam sa, že tento spôsob bude významným krokom v predchádzaní ďalšiemu krutému zaobchádzaniu s deťmi, ako je napr. sexuálne mrzačenie, pohlavné zneužívanie, detská pornografia, únos a obchodovanie s deťmi.

Pokiaľ ide o detskú pornografiu, vysoko si vážim iniciatívu Európskej komisie v spolupráci s niektorými bankovými inštitúciami a spoločnosťami vydávajúcimi kreditné karty, ktoré sa snažia vylúčiť stránky predávajúce detskú pornografiu zo systémov online platieb. Táto činnosť by dopomohla k vytvoreniu databázy predajcov detskej pornografie, z ktorej budú informácie o tvorcoch a šíriteľoch tohto odpudzujúceho typu obchodovania predložené polícii príslušného členského štátu, EUROPOLU a INTERPOLU. Keďže si uvedomujem, že ide o veľmi dôležitú oblasť, podporujem, aby sa na ochranu detských práv vyčlenili potrebné ľudské a finančné zdroje. Ide predsa o budúcnosť našich detí, čiže o našu budúcnosť.


  Κατερίνα Μπατζελή (PSE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα και εκ μέρους μου να δώσω συγχαρητήρια στην κ. Angelilli, η οποία πραγματικά έδωσε ένα ολοκληρωμένο πλαίσιο για να κατοχυρωθεί η Χάρτα των δικαιωμάτων των παιδιών.

Θα ήθελα να επικεντρώσω την τοποθέτησή μου σε τρία ζητήματα πέραν των άλλων που ακούστηκαν στην αίθουσα.

Πρώτον, θα πρέπει να γίνει έγκαιρη διάγνωση και αντιμετώπιση των φαινομένων βίας και κακοποίησης εις βάρος των παιδιών, με τη δημιουργία ενός εξειδικευμένου πρωτοκόλλου καταγραφής, γεγονός που σταδιακά θα συμβάλει στην αποτελεσματική πρόληψη του φαινομένου.

Δεύτερον, η υιοθέτηση από όλα τα κράτη μέλη του πρωτοκόλλου για την πρόληψη, καταστολή και τιμωρία της εμπορίας και σεξουαλικής εκμετάλλευσης των ανθρώπων, όπου μεταξύ των άλλων θα πρέπει να επανεξεταστεί το θέμα της χορήγησης των προσωρινών ή μη μόνιμων αδειών παραμονής στην επικράτειά τους.

Τέλος, το θέμα της ουσιαστικής αντιμετώπισης του φαινομένου της παραβατικότητας των ανηλίκων, με μέτρα πρόληψης και κοινωνικής ενσωμάτωσης των ανηλίκων, καθώς και μέτρα δικαστικής και εξωδικαστικής παρέμβασης.

Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αυτή τη χρονιά έχουμε το διαπολιτισμικό έτος και οφείλουμε να διατηρήσουμε τις γέφυρες σύνδεσης όλων των πολιτισμών και όλων των θρησκευτικών αντιλήψεων. Θεωρώ ότι η παράγραφος 127 αυτής της έκθεσης δεν θα μπορούσε να γίνει αποδεκτή.




  Zita Gurmai (PSE). – Tisztelt elnök úr, biztos úr, kedves képviselőtársaim. Európa sorsát jelentősen befolyásolja, hogy képes-e gyermekeket befogadó és támogató társadalmak kialakítására. Az Európai Unió jövője szempontjából meghatározó jelentőségű a gyermekek jogainak támogatása és védelme. A gyermekbarát társadalmak kialakítása az Unióban nem választható el az európai integráció további elmélyítésétől és megszilárdításától.

Átfogó EU-stratégiára van szükség, amely hatékonyan elősegíti és biztosítja a gyermekek jogainak érvényesülését az Unión belül és kívül is. A gyermekeket megilleti a különleges gondoskodás és a megfelelő jogi védelem. A tagállamok felelőssége, hogy sokoldalúan támogassák a szülőket gyermeknevelési feladataikban. Biztonságos és befogadó Európát csakis ezekkel az eszközökkel építhetünk.

Politikánkban folyamatosan szem előtt kell tartani a gyermekek sokféleségét, eltérő igényeit, különös figyelmet fordítva a szegénységre, a szociális kirekesztésre, a hátrányos megkülönböztetés hatásaira mind uniós, mind világszinten.

Fontosnak tartom, hogy az ENSZ gyermekjogi bizottságának ajánlásait az EU az EU-n kívüli államokkal kötött bilaterális megállapodásai keretében következetesen és rendszeresen figyelembe vegyék.

The PSE Group would like a separate vote on amendment 127.


  Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Mr President, I welcome the decision to incorporate children’s rights as one of the objectives of the EU Treaty of Lisbon, providing a new legal basis for children’s rights.

Ms Angelilli’s report deals with many important issues relating to children’s well-being and protection. However, I want to emphasise acknowledgement of the fact that, for children, the poverty and social exclusion of their parents represent serious obstacles to exercising their rights.

I support the report’s demand that the EU work in cooperation with the relevant UN agencies, international organisations and research centres to improve the gathering of comparable statistical data on the situation of children in the EU, with a view to developing and including a larger number of indicators relating specifically to children, child poverty and social exclusion.

Child poverty is a neglected issue, yet one in five children in the EU lives on the brink of poverty. Will this not condemn 20% of the EU’s future adults to never fulfilling their true potential?

If the political will is there, then let us work together across Member States to share best practice and learn from one another. We have witnessed the EU-wide campaign to make poverty in the developing world history, so why can we not have a similar campaign, across the EU, to make child poverty history?


  Katrin Saks (PSE). – Olukorras, kus kolmandikul maailma lastest pole piisavalt süüa ja kus kuuendik ei käi koolis, on kuidagi imelik rääkida vaesusest Euroopa kontekstis. Aga ometigi on see probleem ja eriti murettekitav on tõsiasi, et võrreldes täiskasvanutega on puuduses laste arv palju suurem. Tõsi, enamasti ei tähenda see tühja kõhtu, vaid arenguks vajalike võimaluste puudumist.

Juhiksin teie tähelepanu faktile, et uutes liikmesriikides on turumajanduse tormiline areng kaasa toonud suure kihistumise, mis eriti teravalt mõjutab just laste heaolu. Sotsiaalsed probleemid omakorda suurendavad aga vägivalda. Ja see pole ainult laste traagika.

Suur osa inimressurssi – seda, mida näiteks minu kodumaal Eestis napib kõige enam – jääb kasutamata ja seetõttu on see ka riikide ja liidu probleem.

Kuigi enamus lastega seotud poliitikaid on liikmesriikide pädevuses, tahan rõhutada just Euroopa Liidu strateegia, indikaatorite, andmekogude ja raportite olulisust. Loodan, et nende mõju liikmesriikidele suureneb veelgi enam.

Poliitikuna ma tean, kui raske on oma valijatele põhjendada, miks näiteks naabrid hoolivad lastest enam.


  Bogdan Golik (PSE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Przedstawiona inicjatywa dotycząca stworzenia strategii na rzecz praw dziecka jest sygnałem nie tylko dla Europy, ale i dla całego świata, jak należy właściwie chronić prawa najmłodszych. Kieruję więc słowa uznania dla pani poseł Roberty Angelilli za świetne sprawozdanie.

Niestety przypadki łamania praw nieletnich często pojawiają się w niektórych miejscach Europy - Europy, w której jesteśmy tak dumni z wysokorozwiniętego systemu ochrony praw człowieka. Dlatego musimy zapewnić dzieciom doświadczającym różnych upokorzeń poczucie, że jest ktoś, do kogo mogą zwrócić się o pomoc i kto im tej pomocy udzieli. Popieram więc wezwania autorki sprawozdania do stworzenia skuteczniejszego monitoringu, a także pomysł Komisji Europejskiej uruchomienia telefonu zaufania dla dzieci potrzebujących pomocy.

Ważną kwestią jest też problem dzieci pochodzących z rodzin ubogich, imigrantów oraz uchodźców. Cierpią one z powodów od siebie niezależnych i przez to często skazane są w przyszłości na gorsze życie niż ich rówieśnicy, którzy nie byli skazani na ucieczkę z ojczyzny. Dlatego popieram propozycję przyznania im pełnych praw, niezależnie od sytuacji prawnej ich rodziców, a także umożliwienie im równego dostępu do edukacji.


  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, grazie a tutti coloro che sono intervenuti anche per aver riconosciuto che stiamo, Commissione e Parlamento, realizzando insieme, per la prima volta in Europa ancor prima dell'entrata in vigore del trattato di Lisbona, una reale politica europea orizzontale in tutti i terreni per la difesa e per la promozione dei diritti dei bambini, quindi un risultato politico che fino a due anni fa non era sull'agenda europea e quindi questa è anche una risposta a coloro che vedono la necessità di risultati concreti: l'Europa si sta in questo muovendo.

Mi è molto piaciuto quanto ha detto l'onorevole McMillan: uno dei primi criteri per valutare il livello di uno Stato, il livello di civiltà di un paese, è come questo paese tratta i suoi figli più giovani, i bambini, e gli Stati membri dell'Unione europea e tutti noi europei abbiamo l'ambizione di essere protagonisti nel mondo sul trattamento e le opportunità che offriamo ai bambini.

Sono stati toccati molti temi e alcuni sono già nella proposta che io avevo presentato e nelle raccomandazioni che l'onorevole Angelilli molto opportunamente ha fatto, ma altri punti credo che nei prossimi mesi dovranno essere sviluppati. Prendiamo quest'anno 2008 come un anno per fare avanzare ancora questa strategia europea.

Il tema della famiglia, il ruolo della famiglia, l'onorevole Gál, l'onorevole Sinnot, hanno bene sottolineato come tanti dei problemi che incontriamo derivano da un ruolo della famiglia che è scaduto o che non è quello che dovrebbe essere. Ce ne occupammo, lo ricordate, l'anno scorso a proposito dei videogiochi violenti, dove emerse da un'indagine statistica in Europa che solamente il 20% dei genitori interpellati si interessano di come i loro figli usano Internet e quindi entrano in contatto con questi strumenti o usano videogiochi; quindi l'80% dei genitori interpellati non hanno conoscenza di che tipo di giochi elettronici o di che tipo di siti Internet siano visitati dai loro bambini. Ecco l'esempio del perché la famiglia, come è stato detto, è il primo luogo dove i diritti dei bambini vengono alimentati.

Poi il tema del lavoro minorile, ne ha parlato l'onorevole Catania, ne hanno parlato altri. Voi ricorderete che nella proposta che io ho formulato di una sanzione severa contro gli imprenditori che sfruttano il lavoro nero degli immigrati regolari c'è una particolare aggravante e questa aggravante è proprio l'utilizzare un bambino migrante, che è al tempo stesso vulnerabile perché migrante, è sfruttato perché lavora in nero ed è particolarmente vulnerabile perché un bambino non dovrebbe lavorare, ma dovrebbe andare a scuola; quindi c'è una proposta sul tappeto che, se adottata, sarà una direttiva europea cioè una norma che imporrà agli Stati membri di introdurre delle regole che oggi purtroppo non ci sono.

Il tema dei minori migranti non accompagnati: questo è un tema importante e ne stiamo discutendo per finanziare dei progetti mirati, perché abbiamo scoperto situazioni davvero tragiche, non solo quelle ricordate, ma anche, ad esempio, alle Isole Canarie il governo spagnolo ci ha sottoposto casi veramente preoccupanti, di cui ovviamente ci dobbiamo fare carico, di bambini che arrivano in massa e sono tutti non accompagnati perché i genitori li mandano avanti semplicemente da soli. Questo è un fatto scioccante in quanto tale. La legislazione europea contro la violenza dei bambini deve essere rafforzata e questo certamente l'onorevole Segelström lo ha ricordato.

C'è un tema molto serio che mi preoccupa personalmente. Esistono regole per garantire che l'affidamento di un bambino ad uno dei due genitori in caso di separazione o di divorzio sia effettivo. Ebbene, in molti Stati membri questa regolamentazione in vigore non è concretamente applicata, non perché i governi non la applicano, ma spesso perché c'è, da parte dei magistrati, delle Corti, una scarsa conoscenza, ci sono casi di vera e propria sottrazione di un bambino da parte di un genitore verso un altro genitore. Non si riesce in alcuni casi a dare effettività alle decisioni e quindi questo tema nell'ambito dell'affidamento dei minori va molto potenziato.

Il turismo sessuale è un altro tema su cui dobbiamo lavorare: la cooperazione tra autorità pubbliche e soggetti privati, le agenzie turistiche o le compagnie di carte di credito per aiutarci a scoprire quelli che comprano su Internet materiale pedopornografico, perché è chiaro che i pedofili non comprano cash, comprano con le carte di credito. Se ci sarà, come noi stiamo cominciando a fare, una cooperazione, allora anche, ad esempio, il dramma del turismo sessuale lo potremo ridurre e stroncare.

Un argomento nuovo è il diritto a crescere in un ambiente non inquinato, i diritti dei bambini all'ambiente. Questo è un tema su cui ci dovremo concentrare molto perché è un argomento non solo nuovo, ma di tutta evidenza per ciascuno di noi.

Qualcuno ha sottoposto il problema, l'onorevole Harkin ad esempio, dell'effetto del trattato di Lisbona. Il trattato di Lisbona non introduce una specifica base giuridica, ma dà valenza di politica europea alla strategia che oggi qui stiamo affrontando e che finora si è basata su una comune volontà politica. Oggi il trattato di Lisbona dà una copertura al ritenere davvero europea la strategia di protezione dei bambini e quindi facciamo un passo avanti davvero straordinario.

In conclusione, noi dovremo lavorare nei prossimi mesi su questo ed è evidente che si tratterà di un investimento che l'Europa fa per il suo futuro. È un investimento sui giovani, un investimento per i bambini, ma io vedo un ultimo tema in cui i bambini potranno essere protagonisti di una delle politiche più importanti dell'Unione europea: la politica di integrazione delle comunità di immigrati. Se noi ci affideremo ai bambini, ai più piccoli che stanno nelle scuole facendoli diventare ambasciatori dell'integrazione, per loro è molto più facile giocare insieme o studiare insieme a bambini che vengono da culture e storie diverse, noi avremo dato ai bambini un compito, come qualcuno ha detto, non da piccoli adulti, ma da veri protagonisti o coprotagonisti di una politica di integrazione, che se non parte dall'integrazione dei bambini nelle scuole non sarà mai una vera politica di integrazione degli immigrati che vengono da altri paesi.


  Roberta Angelilli, relatrice. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, volevo innanzitutto ringraziare ancora una volta il Vicepresidente Frattini per averci rinnovato la garanzia di un impegno forte della Commissione europea nel settore dei diritti dei bambini e poi lo ringrazio anche per l'appello che ha fatto nella sua introduzione, l'appello lanciato agli Stati membri per la tempestiva attivazione delle linee telefoniche di assistenza ai minori, perché in effetti questi ritardi sono davvero ingiustificabili; e lo ringrazio anche per aver ricordato che non tutti gli Stati membri hanno ancora istituito il Garante nazionale per i diritti dell'infanzia, noi l'abbiamo ricordato e deplorato anche all'interno della relazione.

Ringrazio ancora tutti i colleghi e le colleghe che hanno collaborato alla stesura di questo documento, ma anche quelli che sono intervenuti perché credo che ci siamo ritrovati tutti insieme all'unisono sul concetto del superiore interesse del bambino. Ovviamente, lo ribadisco e condivido le preoccupazioni che sono state espresse anche oggi in Aula, noi dobbiamo costringere i nostri Stati membri a passare con più tempestività dalle parole ai fatti e ovviamente anche il Parlamento e la Commissione europea devono fare la loro parte.

Qualche flash su alcuni temi che sono stati sottolineati: il tema dell'ambiente, lo ribadiva anche adesso il Commissario Frattini, sicuramente si poteva forse fare di più all'interno della relazione, però seppur sinteticamente noi l'abbiamo ribadito: il tema dell'ambiente, il diritto ad un ambiente sano e pulito deve essere uno dei diritti principali da garantire ai minori.

Mi ha fatto poi piacere sapere che uno dei temi trattati nel prossimo Forum europeo dei diritti dei minori sarà dedicato al problema delle adozioni internazionali e a tale proposito voglio anch'io ribadire che, oltre a questo problema enorme che è spesso tutto burocratico della difficoltà delle adozioni internazionali, c'è il dramma dei bambini contesi tra genitori dopo separazioni o divorzi. È davvero un'emergenza europea, che ovviamente si è andata sviluppando anche in seguito proprio all'allargamento delle frontiere.

Concludo dicendo che sono ovviamente molto soddisfatta del lavoro svolto e credo che certamente non sarà un lavoro perfetto, ma è un ottimo punto di partenza a condizione, lo ripeto, che ci sia la serietà e la responsabilità di agire con concretezza in tempi certi.


  Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì alle 12.00.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 142)


  Lívia Járóka (PPE-DE), in writing. – Educational segregation is one of the most harmful forms of discrimination faced by Roma children. As a basic human right, education is crucial for the attainment of other human rights, and investment in early childhood education for Roma is a policy that functions on multiple levels and benefits more than the children it aims to educate. The benefits of early education include: the promotion of social equity, increased individual and broader social productivity, reduced levels of poverty, and the elimination of discriminatory attitudes and social exclusion. As Roma children become more educated, they increase their chances of becoming productive members of the workforce. While they earn money and contribute to the national budget through taxes on both income and consumption, they begin to influence the way in which non-Roma view them, thereby affecting broader social issues. Also, as Roma become more productive and their poverty level decreases, they also become contributing members of society instead of beneficiaries of public aid. The combination of the increased contribution and the decreased benefits paid out by the government is the net budgetary benefit to the national budget. A program that supported these developments would benefit all Europeans and not only the Roma.


  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE), kirjallinen. – Yhteisen eurooppalaisen arvopohjan perustavimpia ja kantavimpia rakenteita on velvollisuutemme suojella viattomia sieluja, lapsia. Harvasta asiasta voimme olla yhtä yksimielisiä.

On välttämätöntä, että myös yhteisön tasolla suojataan lasten oikeuksia nykyistä tehokkaammin. Komission tiedonanto lasten oikeuksien suojaamista koskevan strategian perustamisesta oli tervetullut.

Parlamentin mietintö strategiasta on kiitettävä. Nostan esille laajasta kokonaisuudesta muutaman kysymyksen.

Ensinnäkin perheiden asema liittyy saumattomasti lasten oikeuksiin. Perhe on kiistatta lapselle paras elinympäristö. Perhe ja perhe-elämän suoja ovat lapsen oikeuksia, jotka toteutuvat, kun perhe voi hyvin. Strategiaan tuleekin sisällyttää toimia perheiden hyvinvoinnin edistämiseksi. Lapsen oikeutta kumpaankin vanhempaan pitäisi lähtökohtaisesti suojata.

Lapset altistuvat jo varhain kauhu-, väkivalta- ja seksuaaliviihteelle – tuhoisin seurauksin. Muun muassa mietinnön ehdotus yhtenäisen audiovisuaalisen sisällön ja videopelien myyntiä ja levitystä alaikäisille koskevan luokitus- ja merkintäjärjestelmän luomiseksi EU:n sisällä on arvokas. Saastuttaja maksaa -periaatteen tulisi toimia kaupallisessa väkivaltaviihteessä, sillä vahingot ovat valtavat.

Kolmanneksi tulisi ponnistella määrätietoisesti lapsipornografian kitkemiseksi. Lapsia sortavien internetsivustojen sulkemiseen tähtäävien rajat ylittävien operaatioiden vahvistaminen ja julkisten viranomaisten ja yksityisen sektorin välisen yhteistyön parantaminen ovat komission tärkeimpiä tehtäviä.

Valitettavasti lastenkaan oikeudet eivät ole säästyneet tämän päivän arvorelatiivisuuteen taipuvaiselta yhteiskuntahengeltä. On uskallettava sanoa ääneen, mikä ei ehdottomasti ole relatiivista. Lasten oikeudet ja suoja ovat ihmisarvon ytimessä; siksi "myllynkivistä" ja "merten syvyyksistä" on edelleen syytä muistuttaa.


  Katalin Lévai (PSE), írásban. – Európai Unió kiemelkedő felelőssége az emberek alapvető jogainak, de legfőképpen a gyerekjogoknak a védelme. Ezzel szemben az Unióban gyerekek 19% él a szegénység kockázatával, ez szám magasabb, mint a felnőtt lakosság körében (15%). Világszerte 40 millió 12 év alatti gyermek szenvedő alanya valamilyen erőszakos cselekedetnek. Csaknem 6 millióan végeznek kényszermunkát, másfél millióan esnek emberkereskedők áldozatául. Ezeket a folyamatokat látva, igencsak szükséges egy, a zéró toleranciát alkalmazó gyermekek jogainak védelmére irányuló európai stratégia.

Úgy gondolom, hogy ebben kulcs szerepet játszhat a jobb jogi szabályozás, ezen belül is az új és a már meglévő szabályok kiskorúkra gyakorolt hatásának vizsgálata. Nem támogatom azonban egy külön a gyermekek jogaiért felelős parlamenti szerv létrehozását. Ennek esetleges feladatait a Bizottság által kinevezett gyermekjogi koordinátor is elvégezheti. Támogatom viszont egy emberi jogokért és kisebbségért felelős biztosi poszt létrehozását, amely egyúttal a gyermekek jogainak védelméért is felelős lenne. Fontos megjegyezni, hogy a hátrányos helyzetben élő gyerekek többsége roma származású vagy az Európában élő kisebbséghez tartozik. Tanácsos volna egy európai intézményi reform végrehajtása is, amelyben a biztos alá tartozó gyermekjogi kordinárok az intézmények, NGOk, kormányzatok között folyó párbeszéd és együttműködés összekötő kapcsaivá válnának. Tekintve, hogy az Unióban már így is számos gyermekjoggal foglalkozó európai szervezet, intézmény működik, újabbak létrehozásával ellentétben a hangsúlyt a régiek összefogására, hatékonyabb működésére kell, hogy tegyük.

Ma egyre aktuálisabb kérdésé válik a gyermek jogok védelme mellett az oktatás kérdése is. Az odafigyelő nevelés a nem tudatos gyermekbűnözőkből, tudatos törvénytisztelő állampolgárokat nevel.


  Joseph Muscat (PSE), bil-miktub. – Inkun qed nonqos jekk fi ħdan dan id-dibattitu dwar id-drittijiet tat-tfal ma nitkellimx dwar il-każ ta' Shaun Attard, li qasam qalb il-Maltin u l-Għawdxin.

Dan it-tifel Għawdxi ttieħed mingħand missieru b'mod li żgur ħalla effett psikoloġiku fuqu.

Jista' jkun li l-liġijiet qed jiġu osservati f'dan il-każ u li d-Direttivi Ewropej qed jiġu rispettati. Madankollu, hemm dubji kbar dwar jekk dak li qed iseħħ hux verament għal ġid ta' dan it-tifel.

Jiddispjaċini ngħid li minn dak li qed nara, l-awtoritajiet Ingliżi qed jagħmluha diffiċli biex missier it-tifel ikollu smigħ xieraq dwar dan il-każ. Anki l-ftit kuntatti bejn it-tifel u l-missier qed ikunu mimlijin intoppi.

Nappella biex filwaqt li tiġi osservata l-liġi, jingħata smigħ xieraq lil Mario Attard u aktar minn hekk, wieħed jara bis-serjetà x'inhu l-aħjar għall-ġid ta' Shaun.


  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN), na písmie. – Dzisiejsza debata na rzecz praw dzieci porusza wiele podstawowych kwestii dotyczących prawidłowego rozwoju naszej młodzieży. Przyszłość naszych dzieci, zabezpieczenie im prawidłowego rozwoju, warunkuje, jaka będzie przyszłość naszego kontynentu w zakresie prawidłowych stosunków interpersonalnych.

Prawa dzieci muszą być respektowane. Muszą być także respektowane prawa rodziców do ich wychowywania, zgodnie z wartościami, które wyznają. Mówienie o prawach dzieci i pomijanie kwestii ich prawa do wychowywania się w naturalnych rodzinach, gdzie jest ojciec i matka, jest łamaniem ich praw. Przecież decydowanie o adopcji dziecka, które jest przekazywane parom tej samej płci, i decydowanie w ten sposób o jego przyszłym losie, a nawet w pewien sposób narzucanie mu orientacji seksualnej jest łamaniem jego praw podstawowych. Nie można o tej kwestii milczeć, bo łamie to unijną poprawność polityczną.


16. Sitwazzjoni allarmanti ta' l-iskart fir-reġjun tal-Campagna (dibattitu)

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la dichiarazione della Commissione sulla situazione allarmante dei rifiuti in Campania.


  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. − Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αξιότιμα μέλη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, τα απορρίμματα που συσσωρεύονται στους δρόμους της Νάπολης και άλλων γειτονικών πόλεων από τις 21 Δεκεμβρίου, όπως μας πληροφορούν τα μέσα ενημέρωσης, υπολογίζεται ότι έχουν ξεπεράσει την τεράστια ποσότητα των 100.000 τόνων. Το γεγονός αυτό σε συνδυασμό με τις αρνητικές –θα έλεγα καταστροφικές- συνέπειες για την υγεία των κατοίκων και το περιβάλλον, προκαλεί βαθειά ανησυχία.

Η κρίση των τελευταίων ημερών στη Νάπολη δεν προέκυψε από το πουθενά. Είναι το αποκορύφωμα της πλημμελούς εφαρμογής της ευρωπαϊκής νομοθεσίας για τα απόβλητα, τα τελευταία 14 χρόνια για τα οποία η Ιταλία έχει καταδικαστεί επανειλημμένα από το Δικαστήριο των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων.

Πέραν από το ρόλο του οργανωμένου εγκλήματος που υπογραμμίζεται από τον τύπο, άμεσο αίτιο της παρούσας κρίσης φαίνεται να είναι η απραξία και η έλλειψη βούλησης για τη θέσπιση των μέτρων που απαιτούνται για την επίλυση του χρόνιου προβλήματος της διαχείρισης των αποβλήτων.

Όταν η Επιτροπή ενημερώθηκε για πρώτη φόρα σχετικά με την κρίσιμη κατάσταση στην οποίαν περιήλθε το σύστημα συλλογής και διάθεσης αποβλήτων στην Καμπανία, την άνοιξη του 2007, κίνησε κατά της Ιταλίας διαδικασία παραβάσεως της κοινοτικής νομοθεσίας περί αποβλήτων. Έκτοτε, η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί από κοντά τις εξελίξεις και έχει ήδη προβεί σε μια πρώτη επιτόπια αξιολόγηση της κατάστασης, κατόπιν πρόσκλησης της Ιταλικής κυβέρνησης. Μια περαιτέρω συνάντηση με τις αρμόδιες Ιταλικές αρχές έχει προγραμματιστεί εντός των επομένων ημερών. Τώρα, εναπόκειται στις Ιταλικές αρχές να λάβουν άμεσα μέτρα για την απομάκρυνση των απορριμμάτων από τους δρόμους. Όπως όμως δείχνει η νέα αυτή κρίση, δεν αρκεί να απομακρυνθούν απλώς τα απορρίμματα από τους δρόμους. Τα όποια βραχυπρόθεσμα μέτρα πρέπει να συμπληρωθούν με τη θέσπιση, και το σπουδαιότερο, με την αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή μακροπρόθεσμων στρατηγικών μέτρων. Για παράδειγμα, ενός επαρκούς δικτύου εγκαταστάσεων επεξεργασίας αποβλήτων με πλήρη τήρηση των προτύπων που ορίζει η κοινοτική νομοθεσία. Αυτό πρέπει να συνδυαστεί από ολοκληρωμένη μακροπρόθεσμη στρατηγική διαχείρισης αποβλήτων με στόχο την προώθηση της ανακύκλωσης και της διαλογής των αποβλήτων κατά την αποκομιδή.

Το νομοθετικό διάταγμα αριθ. 61, που εκδόθηκε το Μάιο του 2007 για την επίλυση της κρίσης των απορριμμάτων, δεν πέτυχε το στόχο του. Το σχέδιο έκτακτης ανάγκης που ανακοίνωσε ο Πρωθυπουργός κ. Πρόντι στις 8 Ιανουαρίου, είναι μια πιο φιλόδοξη ενέργεια προς την κατεύθυνση αυτή, αλλά κρίσιμο στοιχείο εξακολουθεί να παραμένει το χρονοδιάγραμμα των μέτρων που πρέπει να είναι σύντομο και αποτελεσματικό. Θα συνεχίσουμε να παρακολουθούμε με προσοχή την εφαρμογή των μέτρων στην πράξη από τις Ιταλικές αρχές. Η Επιτροπή θα εξακολουθήσει να ασκεί πίεση στην Ιταλική κυβέρνηση για να τερματιστεί η κρίση, προτίθεται δε να συνεχίσει τις νομικές διαδικασίες κατά της Ιταλίας. Πρέπει να σταματήσουν επί τέλους οι συνεχείς παραβάσεις της κοινοτικής περιβαλλοντικής νομοθεσίας στην Καμπανία, όπως επιτάσσει το κοινοτικό δίκαιο.

Παρ’ όλο που η κατάσταση δείχνει να είναι δύσκολη, δεν είναι αδύνατη η συμμόρφωση των Ιταλικών αρχών με την κοινοτική νομοθεσία περί αποβλήτων. Είμαι βέβαιος ότι μπορούν να αντληθούν χρήσιμα παραδείγματα, όχι μόνο από άλλα κράτη μέλη αλλά και από άλλες περιφέρειες της Ιταλίας όπου βρέθηκαν λύσεις για την ελεγχόμενη διάθεση των αποβλήτων με το συνδυασμό διαφόρων μορφών μείωσης του όγκου, συλλογής και διάθεσης.


  Giuseppe Gargani, a nome del gruppo PPE-DE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io dico subito al Commissario che pur condividendo la sua relazione, credo che la situazione non sia difficile ma drammatica.

Io potrei esaurire il mio intervento riportando un giudizio dell'Economist di qualche giorno fa: i rifiuti accumulati nelle strade della città non sono solo dannosi, ma rappresentano un azzardo politico e ricordano ai cittadini la fragilità della loro civiltà, il che li può indurre a ribellarsi ai propri rappresentanti politici. È questa la situazione.

Napoli è famosa per le Quattro giornate, come tutti sanno, quando il popolo si sollevò contro lo straniero. Qualche giornale ha scritto che oggi i nemici del territorio sono quelli che hanno compromesso il buon nome di Napoli nel mondo. Si consuma appunto una civiltà. La tragedia dei rifiuti a Napoli e in Campania non è scoppiata in una notte, ma si trascina da 14 anni; otto miliardi di euro sono stati spesi inutilmente e le immagini televisive hanno mostrato all'Europa e al mondo intero l'impraticabilità delle strade della città e la tragedia vera e propria, come il Commissario ha ricordato, è iniziata appunto il 21 dicembre, quando i camion della nettezza urbana si sono fermati perché le discariche sono strapiene, non vi sono inceneritori, il pericolo sanitario è incombente e di raccolta differenziata, signor Commissario, non se parla assolutamente.

La Campania, infatti, è priva di termovalorizzatori, le discariche sono in mano alla delinquenza organizzata, la camorra. La regione Campania non ha saputo affrontare un problema che tutto sommato è di ordinaria amministrazione, come quello della pulizia della città, perché non ha voluto farlo, perché l'amministrazione regionale e il suo presidente sono succubi della malavita organizzata che ha il controllo sull'intero business.

Alcune forze politiche che fanno parte del governo Prodi e tutti i partiti dell'opposizione hanno chiesto lo scioglimento del Consiglio regionale e la nomina di un commissario con pieni poteri per reagire contro l'irresponsabile presenza del ministro dell'Ambiente, onorevole Pecoraro Scanio. Il contributo del piano europeo 1994-1999 di 200 milioni è stato utilizzato soltanto per l'81% e manca un piano regionale e perciò c'è il commissario.

Onorevole Presidente, mi dia ancora qualche secondo. Il commissario può assegnare contratti senza rispettare le regole europee per gli appalti e così si crea un circolo perverso che determina illegalità e inefficienza. Il rischio concreto è quello di perdere i 330 milioni per i fondi strutturali. La Commissione ha avviato una procedura d'infrazione contro l'Italia, era inevitabile purtroppo, e certamente la Campania è lontana anni luce dalle regole che le direttive europee impongono e che i vari commissari anche di governo non hanno tenuto in considerazione.

Chiediamo l'ispezione della Commissione a fine mese e una presa di posizione forte per imporre la messa in opera dei termovalorizzatori e questo l'Europa può farlo e chiediamo un'ispezione anche del Parlamento, un salto di qualità da parte sua (...).


  Presidente. − Devo raccomandarmi, prima di proseguire il dibattito con i colleghi, e fare oltre che una raccomandazione anche un avviso relativo alle nuove procedure. Innanzitutto chiedo ai colleghi di mostrarsi docili al richiamo della presidenza per quanto riguarda i tempi degli interventi, poi ricordo che con la procedura catch the eye chi ritenga di non avere finito il tempo del proprio intervento può chiedere eventualmente di intervenire di nuovo, ovviamente gli sarà data la parola dopo averla data a coloro che intervengono per la prima volta.


  Gianni Pittella, a nome del gruppo PSE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei innanzitutto ringraziarla per la comunicazione chiara, puntuale ed efficace che ci ha fatto, per le preoccupazioni che ha manifestato questa sera e anche nei giorni e nelle settimane passate, per i richiami a cui noi ci rifacciamo avendo ben consapevolezza che è inderogabile il rispetto della normativa europea.

Noi pensiamo che non si debba mai trasformare il Parlamento europeo in una cassa di risonanza di polemiche nazionali ancorché su temi così sensibili e su questioni così drammatiche. Pensiamo piuttosto che sia proprio questa drammaticità a reclamare analisi serie, sia sul caso specifico che sul grande tema dei rifiuti, che non è un tema soltanto di Napoli e della Campania, ma è un tema a cui tutte le comunità devono far fronte. Un tema che chiama in causa un modello di sviluppo che spesso sacrifica uomo e ambiente alle logiche del profitto, un tema sul quale si offrono spesso ricette ideologiche e la falsa antinomia tra industrialismo senz'anima e ambientalismo senza sviluppo.

L'Italia, non dobbiamo dimenticarlo, è stato uno dei primi paesi a dotarsi con il governo Prodi e con il ministro Ronchi nel 1997 di una legge moderna, coerente con quanto dice da tempo l'Unione europea: educazione ambientale, raccolta differenziata, messa in sicurezza, utilizzo di mezzi di riciclo e di riutilizzo all'avanguardia e sicuri per i cittadini e per l'ambiente. Questa legge ha trovato anche eccellenti applicazioni e ha creato anche fonti di economia e di occupazione.

In Campania ciò non è avvenuto. Che cosa si è rotto? Che cosa non ha funzionato? Non vi è dubbio che vi siano responsabilità politiche di quanti da destra a sinistra si sono susseguiti soprattutto nelle gestioni commissariali. Non tocca a noi in questo momento accertare eventuali responsabilità di altro tipo, che se vi fossero andrebbero sanzionate in modo rigoroso, ma saremmo poco onesti tutti se gettassimo la croce solo sulla politica.

In Campania hanno svolto un ruolo decisivo in negativo molti altri fattori come la criminalità organizzata, un senso civico poco diffuso, la carenza storica di infrastrutture. Il governo italiano sta fornendo una risposta immediata, assumendo decisioni importanti con la volontà di ridare responsabilità agli enti locali, uscendo dalla logica del commissariamento e garantendo l'autosufficienza nello smaltimento dei rifiuti. Scelte queste che consentono di guardare con maggiore fiducia al presente e al futuro - la par condicio, Presidente, ho finito però - io credo che tali decisioni permettano anche di rispondere in modo convincente alle legittime richieste europee. Occorre ora sostenere tali scelte, occorre ora ridare dignità ad una città, ad una regione e ad un paese, l'Italia, nelle quali, e riprendo le parole del Presidente Napolitano, non mancano energie positive, realtà nuove.


  Alfonso Andria, a nome del gruppo ALDE. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, su questo argomento bisogna resistere alla tentazione della strumentalità, lasciando prevalere obiettività e onestà intellettuale, senza tacere gli scenari di contesto in cui il problema si inquadra e cioè: l'interesse della malavita organizzata e le sue infiltrazioni nella gestione dei rifiuti e perciò le innumerevoli discariche abusive disseminate sul territorio campano; l'accoglienza mai negata ai rifiuti pericolosi e tossici provenienti da altre regioni, in particolare del Nord Italia; le debolezze delle classi dirigenti locali; il ritardo culturale delle popolazioni nell'approccio con la risorsa rifiuti; i veti incrociati relativamente alle localizzazioni dei vari impianti del ciclo, persino da parte di esponenti della Chiesa cattolica locale; le divisioni oltre che del mondo politico anche di quello scientifico, ad esempio riguardo alle tecniche di smaltimento; l'inadeguatezza delle tecnologie prescelte per gli impianti di smaltimento definitivi programmati a seguito di una gara europea espletata in Campania nel 1998.

Oggi però c'è un intervento massiccio dello Stato. La politica ha finalmente capito che deve fare di più, tutta la politica, perché negli ultimi 14 anni, alternandosi in ruoli di governo e di opposizione a livello locale, regionale, nazionale, tutte le forze politiche non hanno saputo attrezzare risposte ferme, determinate e coerenti.

È apprezzabile perciò il gesto alto di solidarietà che alcune regioni d'Italia, anche rette dal centrodestra, hanno compiuto per aiutare la Campania in questo gravissimo momento, concorrendo a restituirle l'immagine che merita in termine di attrattività culturale, paesaggistica, di risorse produttive e di talenti.

Non è questo il momento della fuga o del disimpegno per chi ha responsabilità di prima linea e che paga le colpe di tutta la politica. Questo è il momento della responsabilità, per questo apprezzo il taglio che il Commissario Dimas ha dato al suo intervento, un taglio costruttivo che ci fa guardare all'Europa non soltanto come ad un'Europa che sanzioni, che si limiti alla sanzione, ma ad un'Europa che aiuti un paese membro ad uscire dalla crisi.


  Cristiana Muscardini, a nome del gruppo UEN. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, la questione dei rifiuti in Campania non è più soltanto un disastro sanitario e ambientale, ma assume le caratteristiche di un thriller economico e istituzionale. Sul thriller economico risponderà, ci auguriamo, la magistratura, sul thriller istituzionale chiediamo qualche chiarimento.

L'11 settembre del 2007 la Commissione, rispondendo ad una mia interrogazione, si diceva preoccupata ma speranzosa che i provvedimenti urgenti adottati dalle autorità italiane avrebbero contribuito a risolvere la situazione e affermava che, qualora l'indagine in corso avesse evidenziato infrazioni della normativa, avrebbe adottato i provvedimenti di cui all'articolo 226 del trattato. Il 2 gennaio 2008 invece il portavoce della Commissione ha dichiarato che la procedura d'infrazione nei confronti dell'Italia è stata aperta a giugno 2007. Qual è la verità? Quella scritta l'11 settembre nella risposta a me o quella dichiarata dal portavoce? Perché la Commissione nella risposta non fa cenno a questa procedura d'infrazione?

Altro thriller è quello che ha visto alcuni gruppi politici europei, vicini al governo Prodi, esprimersi contro una risoluzione comune sul disastro ambientale e sanitario in Campania che avrebbe dovuto concludere questo nostro dibattito. Quando le coincidenze superano il livello normale di casualità risulta più che probabile la difesa di un interesse e quando l'interesse politico, anche inconsapevolmente, si sposa con interessi diversi, che magari coincidono con quelli delle ecomafie, non è più una questione di destra o di sinistra o di sola incapacità politica. In noi è forte il sospetto che ragioni partitiche d'interesse abbiamo volutamente tratto in inganno le istituzioni europee.

L'alta presenza di diossina nel territorio, il permanere di una situazione di illegalità, il non voler assumere come Parlamento la responsabilità di una risoluzione comune, si interseca con le scelte politiche del governo italiano, della regione Campania e del comune di Napoli che, guarda caso, hanno la stessa matrice politica.

Chiediamo l'intervento urgente dell'OLAF, al fine di verificare l'utilizzo dei fondi stanziati fino ad ora e per garantire la gestione corretta di quelli futuri. Chiediamo che la Commissione chiarisca al Parlamento entro 30 giorni da oggi quali siano e a chi siano imputabili le responsabilità di questa vergognosa e tragica emergenza che ormai non è più soltanto regionale, ma nazionale ed europea.


  Monica Frassoni, a nome del gruppo Verts/ALE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io volevo veramente ringraziare il Commissario Dimas perché ha agito in queste ultime settimane, in questi ultimi mesi, nel modo in cui molti ambientalisti vorrebbero vedere anche in altre occasioni e cioè agendo in modo forte, visibile, e soprattutto ascoltabile da parte di tutti a difesa della normativa comunitaria.

Io credo che non è sempre stato così e penso che, dal punto di vista dell'applicazione delle normative comunitarie, esistono una serie di infrazioni che sono state aperte dalla sua istituzione anche in anni precedenti- soprattutto nel periodo del governo precedente a quello di oggi - che purtroppo sono rimaste sostanzialmente inascoltate e che soprattutto sono state trattate come una semplice routine. Voglio citare le infrazioni sulle discariche abusive - ce ne sono più di 4.000 - e tutta una serie di altre questioni che riguardano la definizione dei rifiuti, ecc.

Questo prefigurava già la situazione nella quale noi ci troviamo oggi. Perché è evidente che quando uno Stato membro e quando un governo, che a suo tempo aveva un centinaio di deputati di maggioranza, non riesce a fare altro, per quanto riguarda la legislazione dei rifiuti, che semplicemente violare le direttive comunitarie cercando di fare delle scappatoie, è chiaro ed evidente che situazioni di mala amministrazione, di mala gestione, di criminalità e di assoluta inadempienza sono rese ancora più semplici.

Quindi io sono gratissima alla Commissione per il suo intervento, spero che continui assolutamente a vigilare perché credo che ce ne sarà bisogno e penso anche che l'uscita dalla gestione di emergenza sia la condizione assolutamente fondamentale per uscire da questa situazione. Penso anche che la questione di chi è responsabile sia importante.

Da questo punto di vista io sono d'accordo con coloro che dicono che la Commissione deve anche attivare dei modi attraverso i quali vengono controllati i fondi che sono stati spesi e quelli che saranno spesi, perché credo che per tutti noi cittadini europei, e non solamente come italiani, il tema di come in modo positivo si possono usare i fondi sia una questione assolutamente centrale che ci riguarda assolutamente tutti.

Detto questo, sono dell'opinione che le misure del governo italiano, soprattutto quelle che sono state descritte per i prossimi tre o quattro mesi, devono essere sostenute, fermo restando che le regole del gioco devono essere chiare e devono anche essere rispettate. Credo che non sarebbe assolutamente opportuno trovarci in una situazione nella quale a emergenza si risponde con emergenza, violando le norme, perché dove siamo adesso è anche un risultato di quella violazione.


  Roberto Musacchio, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io condivido nel merito quanto ha detto il Commissario Dimas che ci richiama tutti alle nostre responsabilità e ci indica un percorso importante; e ci ricorda che il modo per affrontare i problemi è di stare alle regole europee, uscendo dalle logiche di emergenza che creano nuova emergenza. Proprio per questo il dibattito è importante, perché può e deve servirci ad aiutare a risolvere i drammatici problemi aperti a Napoli e in Campania in materia di rifiuti.

Naturalmente la cosa immediata non sono le polemiche, ma è il rimuovere i rifiuti che creano una condizione di pericolosità per i cittadini. Il governo in tal senso sta operando, ma occorre poi realizzare un'effettiva soluzione e il riferimento alle norme europee è in tal senso decisivo. Le norme europee, ce lo ricorda il Commissario, sono chiare, consolidate da decenni e ribadite anche nella nuova direttiva quadro che stiamo discutendo. C'è una gerarchia per affrontare il tema dei rifiuti e la gerarchia dice: al primo posto riduzione, poi raccolta differenziata, poi riuso e riciclaggio e solo da ultimo, se serve, lo smaltimento.

In Italia si fatica troppo a stare dentro a queste indicazioni e a Napoli e in Campania la situazione è degenerata. Ma problemi ne abbiamo anche altrove, come si vede dalle infrazioni: troppi commissari, troppa confusione tra le norme per i rifiuti e quelle per l'energia, con pratiche inaccettabili, come quella che per anni ha assimilato in Italia l'energia prodotta dai rifiuti a quella rinnovabile con enormi incentivi - 30 miliardi di euro in dieci anni, con un provvedimento che si chiama CIP 6 - che hanno creato distorsioni profonde sia alle politiche energetiche che a quella dei rifiuti e portano anche a situazioni un po' paradossali per cui proprio in Campania ci sono sette milioni di tonnellate di ecoballe che, se fosse aperto l'inceneritore che doveva smaltirle, non potrebbero esservi bruciate.

Troppe deroghe alle leggi europee in materia ambientale. Ribadisco spesso: l'emergenza ha creato nuove emergenze. Ora dobbiamo, e sono convinto che il governo voglia, metterci in regola e le regole sono quelle europee, dalla valutazione dell'impatto ambientale alla gerarchia per i rifiuti. Per questo il dibattito di oggi non può essere una palestra per polemiche, ma un momento di confronto con il Commissario per favorire questa relazione tra Europa e Stati membri. Ripeto: al primo luogo la gerarchia, per applicare al meglio norme comunemente realizzate.


  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, che capacità ha questa sinistra italiana e che complicità trova in quella europea, per imporre che si parli della vergognosa emergenza dei rifiuti in Campania che proprio il centro sinistra governa da decenni senza che si voti. È la stessa sinistra che ci affligge con il riscaldamento globale e se ne infischia di garantire una qualità dell'ambiente e della vita decente a milioni di cittadini della Campania; e il bello è che ho sentito parlare di interesse nazionale da difendere! Sono gli stessi paladini dell'interesse nazionale che un paio di anni fa infamarono l'Italia, il suo governo e le forze dell'ordine con la discussione e il voto sul fantomatico caso Lampedusa.

Dunque, auspicare almeno che quest'Aula conosca e si informi meglio di una questione che non è solo italiana e senza reticenze stigmatizzi la questione anche con un voto va di pari passo con la mia richiesta, anche in qualità di capo dell'Azione della Fiamma, di utilizzo di tutti gli strumenti sanzionatori utili a colpire il governo regionale e quello nazionale, che hanno emblematiche responsabilità oltre che evidenti incapacità in questa annosa questione e non si risolvono a dignitose dimissioni.


  Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, la situazione a Napoli è drammatica soprattutto perché, invece di porre rimedio alla sentenza di condanna della Corte di giustizia e quindi assicurare una gestione dei rifiuti in linea con la legislazione europea, si è perso tempo e di questo ne siamo profondamente rammaricati. Se non si vuole però rischiare che la situazione di emergenza della Campania si estenda in altre regioni, bisogna intervenire applicando le norme europee, realizzando termovalorizzatori - nonostante l'incredibile resistenza di certi pseudoambientalisti come il ministro Pecoraro Scanio - favorendo la raccolta differenziata.

Ma l'Italia non è tutta come la Campania, fortunatamente in molte regioni come la Lombardia si sono compiuti passi in avanti determinanti che hanno prodotto un efficiente sistema di raccolta e di smaltimento dei rifiuti. Ma in altre regioni la situazione è molto preoccupante. C'è preoccupazione da parte dei cittadini ed è il caso di Roma e del Lazio. Alcuni dati: la quantità dei rifiuti è superiore a quella di Napoli e della Campania, 4.500 tonnellate di immondizia raccolte ogni giorno a Roma contro le 1.000 di Napoli e i 450 chilogrammi pro capite della Campania contro i 617 del Lazio, superiore addirittura alla media nazionale di 539 chilogrammi prodotti da un italiano. Tutto questo è contenuto in un'interrogazione che abbiamo appena presentato con gli altri parlamentari eletti a Roma.

Però il piano di rifiuti regionale non è mai partito e già ci sono due procedimenti di infrazione avviati. I cittadini allarmati guardano con fiducia alle istituzioni europee, al Parlamento e alla Commissione in modo particolare. Ecco perché, signor Commissario, le chiediamo con forza che in occasione dell'incontro del 28 di questo mese la Commissione acquisisca i dati e gli elementi sulla situazione di Roma e del Lazio preannunciando un'ispezione, ci auguriamo, da parte dello stesso Commissario Dimas e proponiamo anche l'ispezione di una delegazione di questo Parlamento, anche per valutare il grado di adeguatezza e, concludo, degli interventi per il 2008. Si intervenga, signor Commissario, prima che sia troppo tardi.


  Marco Pannella (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, si consoli Presidente, non è la prima volta. Signor Commissario il 28, come è stato adesso ricordato, quando lei sarà a Roma per discutere con il nostro governo, assolutamente l'Italia – e credo l'Europa – hanno bisogno che la Commissione sia durissima a sostegno dell'azione della giustizia europea. Lei ha ricordato, mi pare, che l'Italia ha avuto un primato: quello di condanne per quell'ammasso di rifiuti che è la giustizia italiana, con vent'anni di richiami inutili.

Il problema è solo questo: abbiamo una strage di illegalità che produce necessariamente stragi di vite anche stragi maggiori, non solo in Italia e quindi quello che io mi auguro, signor Commissario, è che la Commissione tenga presente che lì adesso abbiamo la testimonianza che dall'Italia come negli anni '20 da una via nuova, diversa, viene una minaccia per tutta la nostra Europa, quel paese che (...).

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore)


  Roberta Angelilli (UEN). – Signor presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'emergenza dei rifiuti in Campania di oggi è una tragedia più e più volte annunciata e quei cumuli di immondizia che si vedono sulle strade sono solo la punta di un iceberg fatto di inefficienze, sprechi e male affare.

Ci dispiace che questa vicenda danneggi l'immagine dell'Italia intera e della regione Campania, ma tacere ancora una volta sulle responsabilità e chiudere un occhio contribuirebbe a mantenere irrisolto un problema che è degenerato anche a causa del silenzio e dell'omertà e se non bisogna fare polemica politica sulla pelle della gente, non credo che sia neanche accettabile un certo buonismo che serpeggia anche stasera in quest'Aula.

Non possiamo più tacere né più giustificare, né l'ha fatto la Corte dei conti, sul fatto che sono andati in fumo milioni di euro, di fondi europei, nazionali e locali. A chi devono chiedere il risarcimento dei danni i cittadini per questo disastro ambientale, per il danno d'immagine e per lo spreco di risorse pubbliche e soprattutto quali provvedimenti intende prendere la Commissione per obbligare fattivamente lo Stato italiano a prendere dei provvedimenti adeguati dal momento che neanche oggi i bambini di Napoli e della Campania sono andati a scuola?


  Umberto Guidoni (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il Commissario per la sua lucida analisi. A Napoli e in gran parte della Campania la situazione dei rifiuti è ormai degenerata e le conseguenze sono sotto gli occhi di tutti, ma i problemi li abbiamo anche in altre realtà, come si vede dal numero di infrazioni in materia ambientale che l'Italia ha collezionato in questi anni.

Fra questi io voglio citare il famigerato Cip6 che per anni ha assimilato l'energia prodotta dai rifiuti a quella rinnovabile con enormi incentivi sottratti alle politiche di sviluppo delle energie rinnovabili ed elargiti alle potenti lobby industriali che hanno provocato gravi distorsioni della gestione dei rifiuti. Quello che in Campania rende tutto ancor più drammatico sono i 14 anni di intrecci e di irresponsabilità che hanno portato al primo processo sui rifiuti contro imprese e rappresentanti delle pubbliche istituzioni, fino ad arrivare al ricorso contro Impregilo alla Corte europea per disastro ambientale.

L'uscita dall'emergenza deve significare anche un nuovo stile di governo del territorio: non più deroghe, ma applicazioni delle norme europee. La gerarchia stabilita dall'Europa nella nuova direttiva quadro per i rifiuti è chiara. Soltanto come estrema ratio si deve utilizzare lo smaltimento, altrimenti bisogna fare la differenziata, il riciclaggio e così via.

Oggi però dobbiamo uscire da una situazione che in Campania rischia di raggiungere un punto di non ritorno e per questo c'è bisogno di mobilitare tutte le risorse disponibili e di fare ricorso alla solidarietà delle regioni italiane e agli aiuti dell'UE, per azioni immediate nei prossimi tre o quattro mesi, per rimuovere i pericoli per i cittadini e per restituire Napoli all'Europa.


  Mario Borghezio (UEN). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dalla Padania la situazione della Campania sembra fantascienza, dalla Padania dove si fa la raccolta differenziata, dove si pagano le tasse sull'immondizia. La sinistra al governo nel nostro paese, pensate con un ministro verde dell'ambiente, deve nominare responsabile dei rifiuti l'ex capo della polizia, sembra una cosa dell'altro mondo. Noi diciamo chiaramente che la Campania è fuori dallo spazio giuridico europeo, dominata da una connection vergognosa di politica e camorra che noi abbiamo denunciato da molto tempo.

Allora basta con i finanziamenti, sospendere tutto, Commissario, non mandi più una lira alla camorra, ai delinquenti. Prendano esempio dal Nord laborioso e onesto! Liberiamo la gente onesta della Campania dal dominio della camorra, nella quale sono invischiati vari partiti! Noi ci chiamiamo totalmente fuori, siamo contro questo dominio politico mafioso! In aiuto a queste popolazioni, per il nostro paese ci vuole il federalismo! Bisogna cambiare le cose, cambiare il sistema! Liberare la gente onesta che lavora e produce anche al Sud dal dominio mafioso! Questo vi dice la Padania onesta!

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore)


  Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io ritengo che l'Italia non abbia nessuna voglia di attenersi a quelle che sono le normative europee. Ce lo dice il fatto che sia stato l'unico paese ad astenersi in quanto governo, con un ministro verde dell'ambiente, sull'approvazione in Consiglio della posizione comune sulla recente direttiva sui rifiuti.

Io voglio fare una domanda, perché al di là della sciagura di avere un ministro verde assolutamente irresponsabile e privo di qualunque certezza nelle sue azioni, noi abbiamo anche però avuto uno scarso interesse a controllare da parte della stessa Commissione europea, perché noi abbiamo avuto fondi nel 2000-2006 e i P.O.R. della Campania sono stati utilizzati evidentemente senza che il comitato di sorveglianza esercitasse fino in fondo le sue funzioni, altrimenti avrebbe bloccato dei fondi che non avevano prodotto alcuna efficienza sul territorio. Forse è superfluo ricordare chi era Presidente della Commissione europea in quel periodo e chi oggi è Presidente del Consiglio in Italia con un ministro verde?


  Riccardo Ventre (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, compiacimento per questa nuova forma di democrazia. Innanzitutto compiacimenti per la lucida analisi del Commissario e speriamo che ad essa faccia seguito poi un'azione concreta, un'azione che veda coinvolto anche – e lo chiediamo anche al Presidente del Parlamento – il Parlamento, perché il problema dei rifiuti a Napoli travalica l'essenza stessa dello smaltimento, l'ambiente e quant'altro per diventare fenomeno nazionale ed europeo per quanto ci riguarda.

Brevissime notazioni: la quantità di rifiuti che viene oggi tolta dalla strada è di gran lunga inferiore a quella che viene immessa sulle strade, per cui le misure adottate dal governo sono assolutamente insufficienti. La massa dei rifiuti, la quantità globale dei rifiuti aumenta di ora in ora, per cui la situazione è sempre più drammatica.

In secondo luogo una notazione politica. Diceva l'onorevole Pittella che il Parlamento europeo non deve diventare cassa di risonanza di diatribe nazionali. Ebbene, sta avvenendo questa sera in questo dibattito esattamente il contrario da parte del centrosinistra. Ne prendiamo atto e ci comporteremo di conseguenza.


  Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io ho chiesto di parlare perché sono molto preoccupata di come il dibattito si sta svolgendo in Italia e anche un po' qui, anche sul modo in cui l'informazione dà notizie ai cittadini, perché sembra che oggi di fronte al disastro bisogna avere una soluzione magica: da una parte, come dire, la forza e la militarizzazione e, dall'altra, gli inceneritori.

Quindi i cittadini pensano che forse arriverà qualcuno dal di fuori a risolvere questo problema e l'informazione non si sofferma sul fatto che, se non ci sarà una diminuzione e una differenziazione dei rifiuti e un comportamento civico diverso, non ci sarà soluzione. Questa è la responsabilità degli enti locali perché hanno pensato che affidare questo problema ad un'impresa che si chiama Impregilo avesse risolto le questioni. Si sono deresponsabilizzati e sono diventati conniventi e subalterni a questo potere.


  Salvatore Tatarella (UEN). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, i termovalorizzatori funzionano in Italia e nel resto dell'Europa. La raccolta differenziata si fa in Italia e nel resto dell'Europa. Il riciclaggio si fa in Italia e nel resto dell'Europa. Solo a Napoli non si fa da almeno 15 anni e questo è avvenuto sotto gli occhi di tutte le istituzioni che avrebbero dovuto intervenire: fra queste istituzioni c'è anche l'Europa, c'è anche la Commissione.

Io ritengo che sia stato fatto poco e che si deve fare di più, anche da parte della Commissione, perché le iniziative prese fino ad oggi, anche in questi giorni, dal governo sono assolutamente inutili e inidonee allo scopo. Mandare il capo della polizia a Napoli soltanto per quattro mesi non risolve alcun problema se a Napoli non si rispetteranno tutte le normative europee, se il governo italiano non è capace di farlo, che lo faccia con tutti gli strumenti a disposizione la Commissione europea.


  Armando Veneto (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, io credo che le analisi sul passato servano solo se si vuole usare il futuro per smetterla con guai che il passato ha provocato. E invece questo non credo che stia avvenendo, perché qui, come al solito, ci sono i rimpalli della politica e ciascuno prende la posizione più conveniente.

Io credo che l'unica cosa seria che si debba fare è quella di chiedere al Commissario di insistere perché finalmente il vero problema sia risolto, che è quello della raccolta differenziata, che preveda strumenti che la consentano, premi per chi la esegue e un piano straordinario per la raccolta dei cartoni e degli altri materiali. Il CONAI, l'ente che riunisce i produttori e gli utilizzatori di imballaggi, al quale è demandato il compito del riuso del materiale diverso da quello umido, finisce per incassare il prezzo anche al Sud per poi versarlo al Nord, che come al solito approfitta della situazione per drenare i fondi del Sud e portarseli al Nord. È una storia che deve finire!

Dunque noi chiediamo al Commissario, del quale apprezziamo molto le iniziative, che insista perché il commissariamento in Campania non valga per il passato, ma serva finalmente e una volta per tutte per il futuro.


  Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, sono stato eletto in un gruppo politico che quando era al governo in Italia, prima dell'attuale, ha dovuto schierare le forze di polizia per poter avviare la realizzazione di regolari impianti di smaltimento dei rifiuti in Campania, opere urgenti, allora ostacolate da oppositori, onorevole Frassoni, che oggi sono ministri nel governo di Romano Prodi.

Infatti le recenti dichiarazioni di Prodi, proprio sul tema dei rifiuti in Campania, sono la prova del totale fallimento del governo da lui presieduto. Napoli è la prova di uno Stato che non garantisce la legalità e tollera una situazione pericolosa per la salute dei cittadini, dannosa per il turismo e per l'immagine dell'Italia, quindi per la nostra economia e per le nostre esportazioni. Va però precisato che il grave problema che i cittadini della Campania stanno vivendo è circoscritto ad una sola delle venti regioni d'Italia ed è facile individuare le responsabilità politiche e amministrative in capo ad alcuni amministratori di cui chiediamo le dimissioni.


  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I should like to clarify that the responsibility for implementing Community law correctly lies primarily with the Member States. The Commission has no powers under the Treaty to substitute Member States’ authorities in their planning activities and in their decisions, for example on whether or not to construct waste-disposal installations and where those installations will be. The role of the Commission is that of monitoring the application of Community law. Where this is not satisfactory, as in the current case, the Commission can launch infringement procedures, but the solutions must always be found and put in place by the Member States.

We are concerned that the waste situation in Campania is worsening, despite the actions taken by the Italian authorities in 2007. It is essential that the Italian authorities, besides taking immediate measures to tackle the current crisis, intensify their efforts for putting in place a structure enabling the Campania region to ensure long-term sustainable waste management that is fully in line with European waste legislation. I am convinced that, this time, crisis management must lead to a real turnaround in waste management policy in order to avoid further risks to human health and the environment. Therefore, any action to be taken for the future will have to lead to an effectively implemented strategy focusing not only on establishing a sufficient network of waste-treatment facilities. It is of equal importance to provide the necessary structures for separate waste collection, recycling and the avoidance of waste, fully respecting the waste hierarchy within which the dumping of waste remains the least-desired option.

Any new waste-management plan in that sense must not remain on paper, as we have seen in the past, but needs to be strictly implemented. The present waste disaster could be taken as an opportunity to demonstrate Italy’s capacity of turning the Campania region into a best practice example of proper waste management, and other Italian regions, such as the area of Milan, have shown that this is possible.

The Commission, as the guardian of the Treaty, will continue the infringement procedure against Italy – started in June 2007 – for a breach of Community waste legislation. It is ready to take further legal steps, should the current breaches of Community legislation continue, using all available measures under the Treaty, including the possibility of imposing fines under Article 220 of the Treaty.

Apart from this, however, my services are ready to assist Italy in any manner deemed necessary and helpful for finding and implementing a long-term sustainable solution to the current waste-management problem.





  President. − The debate is closed.


17. Ħin tal-mistoqsijiet (mistoqsijiet għall-Kummissjoni)

  President. − The next item is Question Time (B6-0001/2008).

The following questions are addressed to the Commission.

Part one


  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, could you offer the House a little guidance, in view of the time, so that those of us who have tabled questions know exactly what the procedure will be? Will you be dividing the items up equally into three parts, or into two half-hour parts? I ask because those of us involved in a potential third part need to know what is likely to happen, given the time at which we are starting.


  President. − Thank you, Mrs Doyle, you are quite right. We will take the priority questions, and then we will divide Question Time in half between Commissioner Kuneva and Commissioner McCreevy, as far as we can. We are hoping to run to at least 7.30 p.m. and it may be a bit longer with the forbearance of our interpreters. I hope everybody is as content as they can be with that.


  President. − Question No 31 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0980/07)

Subject: Ensuring consumers are protected from counterfeit and sub-standard medicines

The safety and efficiency of the European medicine supply chain is becoming a significant concern for European consumers, and existing weaknesses in this system could have potentially disastrous consequences for patient safety.

It is clear that European consumers want safe and affordable medicines. However, in Ireland consumers pay a premium for their medicines, with the current medicine wholesale mark-up at 17.66%, more than double the EU average. This trend is mirrored across the EU, where the fragmented nature of the market has contributed to an associated growth in 'pharmaceutical parallel trade' (PPT).

According to a report from the European Alliance for Access to Safe Medicines, counterfeit and sub-standard medicines are finding their way into the supply chain in the EU.

Could the Commission outline its position in relation to this matter, in particular does it plan to tackle this problem by reviewing parallel trade and promoting a genuine single market in pharmaceutical products which is in the interests of consumers and appears essential to ensure that the benefits of the internal market, including affordable medicines, extend to all parts of Europe's economy?


  Günter Verheugen, Vizepräsident der Kommission. − Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren Abgeordnete! Das Hauptanliegen der gemeinschaftlichen Rechtsvorschriften und politischen Konzepte im Arzneimittelbereich besteht darin, eine Versorgung der Patienten mit sicheren, wirksamen und hochwertigen Arzneimitteln bei gleichzeitiger Berücksichtigung ihrer Erschwinglichkeit und allgemeinen Verfügbarkeit sicherzustellen.

In der Vergangenheit ist schon mehr als einmal die Frage der Sicherheit von Arzneimitteln im Zusammenhang mit ihrer Vermarktung im Rahmen des so genannten Parallelhandels angesprochen worden. Das hat mich veranlasst, zur umfassenden Klärung dieser Frage eine Untersuchung in Auftrag zu geben, bei der alle Aspekte der Vertriebswege und insbesondere Fragen im Zusammenhang mit gefälschten Arzneimitteln und Parallelhandel geprüft werden sollen. Die Untersuchung zielt darauf ab, die gegenwärtige Lage zu analysieren und politische Optionen zu entwickeln, um Lücken zu schließen, erforderlichenfalls durch Änderung der geltenden Rechtsvorschriften. Untersucht werden in diesem Zusammenhang auch potenzielle Verbindungen zwischen dem Parallelhandel und dem Auftauchen gefälschter Arzneimittel.

Ich muss Ihnen leider sagen, dass der erste, bereits abgeschlossene Teil der Untersuchung zum Thema Parallelhandel gezeigt hat, dass beträchtliche Risiken für die Patientensicherheit durch Parallelhandel entstehen. Dafür sind mehrere Faktoren verantwortlich, darunter Fehler bei der Neuverpackung oder Neuetikettierung, geringe Wirksamkeit von Produktrückrufen, komplexere Verteilungswege, Versorgungsunterbrechungen und schließlich Mängel bei der Durchsetzung geltender Rechtsvorschriften.

Die Kommission führt derzeit eine Analyse der Untersuchungsergebnisse im Hinblick auf die Entwicklung einer kohärenten Strategie zur Beseitigung dieser Sicherheitsrisiken durch. Die verschiedenen politischen Optionen werden hinsichtlich ihrer voraussichtlichen sozialen, wirtschaftlichen und ökologischen Auswirkungen überprüft. Angesichts der großen Bedeutung dieser Frage für die öffentliche Gesundheitspolitik hat die Frage für die Kommission eine hohe Priorität. Entscheidungen bezüglich des weiteren Vorgehens werden in Kürze fallen.

Darüber hinaus möchte ich Sie informieren, dass das Pharmaforum eine Plattform für einen erleichterten Einsatz und Austausch bewährter Praktiken in den Bereichen Preisgestaltung und Kostenerstattung für Arzneimittel bietet. Diese Themen fallen zwar in die Zuständigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten, entsprechende Maßnahmen müssen jedoch mit dem geltenden Gemeinschaftsrecht übereinstimmen. Die Arbeiten des Pharmaforums, in dem Patientenorganisationen, Angehörige der medizinischen Berufe und Führungskräfte aus der Branche sowie die Gesundheitsminister aller Mitgliedstaaten vertreten sind, können einen Beitrag zu der wichtigen Frage eines erschwinglichen Zugangs zu sicheren Arzneimitteln leisten.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for your response, which is clear but alarming, because obviously there are problems about safety.

I would like you to outline the timeframe which will apply to your response, because I think people are not generally aware how at risk they might be from counterfeit medicines. And could I ask you – in writing, perhaps – to address an issue which is of concern in Ireland in relation to vaccines which were legitimate vaccines but which damaged children and for which people are still waiting for some form of compensation after 40 years?

Perhaps you could write to me stating how other Member States are handling that contentious issue.


  Günter Verheugen, Vizepräsident der Kommission. − Ich bin dazu gerne bereit. Zu Ihrer ersten Frage möchte ich sagen, dass ich bereits entschieden habe, dass die Frage des Parallelhandels mit gefälschten Medikamenten mit Priorität behandelt wird. Ich habe den Arbeitsplan der Generaldirektion geändert, und wir werden noch in diesem Jahr gesetzgeberische Vorschläge machen. Ich denke, das wird kurz nach der Sommerpause möglich sein.

Was Ihre andere Frage angeht, so danke ich für Ihr Verständnis, dass ich das nicht ohne vorherige Prüfung beantworten kann. Ich werde diese Prüfung veranlassen, und Sie werden die erbetene schriftliche Antwort in den nächsten Tagen erhalten.


  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – Norėjau paklausti apie kainas. Vokietijoje lašeliai nuo slogos kainuoja 2–1,5 karto pigiau negu Lietuvoje tie patys vaistai. Mes rūpinamės, kad visos šalys, ir besivystančios, turėtų prieigą prie vaistų. Ar mes galime pasirūpinti, kad mūsų, Europos Sąjungos piliečiai už tuos pačius vaistus mokėtų bent jau panašią kainą. Ar galime ką nors daryti čia, Europoje ?


  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). – Señor Presidente, el tema de los servicios sanitarios es recurrente en los debates del Parlamento Europeo. Cada vez que tratamos de la Directiva de servicios se quieren incluir y hasta ahora nos hemos opuesto y han quedado al margen.

El suministro de los medicamentos es un servicio sanitario. Hay algunos Estados, como el Estado español, que tienen consolidado un conjunto de establecimientos —farmacias— y sólo en ellos se pueden expedir los medicamentos.

Yo quisiera preguntarle al señor Comisario si en esa investigación que ha hecho la Comisión se nota alguna diferencia entre aquellos Estados donde las farmacias son un comercio restringido y vigilado y el resto, en cuanto a la falsificación de medicamentos y a la calidad inferior de los mismos.


  Günter Verheugen, Vice President of the Commission. − On the first question, I would like to say that, apart from the study on safe medicines in parallel trade, additional ways to address parallel trade are currently being explored, in particular with respect to pricing initiatives.

Revision of the transparency directive to include specific information on pricing would also be a possible way forward. But what I try to do is first of all to clarify the situation and to know exactly what is happening. Then to analyse the question whether EU legislation is able to change that because the whole issue of pricing and reimbursement of medicines in the European Union is under the full responsibility of the Member States; we have no powers whatsoever. But it is obvious that we need to cooperate. That is the reason why the pharmafirm pricing and reimbursement is one of our priorities.

I am well aware that, for citizens, the fact that the same medicine has completely different prices in different European Member States is difficult to understand. It is also difficult for me to understand. The fact that these prices are regulated is only one factor. Another factor, of course, is that the pharmaceutical industry is part of the market economy. They are free to set their prices, but we are intensely studying the situation and I think that we will be able to present solutions.

To the second question I can say that, yes, it is true: there are different systems in the European Union. For instance, certain medicines in some countries can only be sold in pharmacies. In other countries you can buy them in supermarkets. Only for prescription drugs is the situation the same overall. These drugs are only available in pharmacies.


  President. − Question No 32 by Chris Davies (H-0984/07)

Subject: Carbon dioxide emissions

What targets has the Commission set itself for reducing CO2 emissions generated by its activities, buildings and transport needs?


  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. − Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Επιτροπή έχει αντιμετωπίσει έως σήμερα το ζήτημα των εκπομπών σε διοξείδιο του άνθρακα από τις δραστηριότητές της μέσω του συστήματος οικολογικής διαχείρισης και οικολογικού ελέγχου, του γνωστότερου ως EMAS, με τους κανόνες του οποίου και συμμορφώνεται.

Ήδη από το 2005 η Επιτροπή εφαρμόζει το EMAS σε 5 από τις υπηρεσίες της στις Βρυξέλλες και 8 από τα κτίριά της. Στο διάστημα αυτό έχει καταγραφεί σαφής μείωση του ρυθμού αύξησης κατανάλωσης, μεταξύ άλλων, ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας από τις εν λόγω υπηρεσίες, κάτι που είναι αναμφισβήτητα θετικό.

Πάντως για την Επιτροπή δεν έχουν τεθεί επί του παρόντος γενικοί στόχοι μείωσης εκπομπών του διοξειδίου του άνθρακα, αλλά στο πλαίσιο του EMAS, η Επιτροπή μελετά και αναλύει το συνολικό όγκο των εκπομπών της σε διοξείδιο του άνθρακα και θα καθορίσει γενικούς στόχους μείωσης εκπομπών εντός του 2008. Ειδικότερα, όσον αφορά το στόλο των αυτοκινήτων της, η Επιτροπή έχει ήδη θέσει στόχο μείωσης των εκπομπών διοξειδίου του άνθρακα κατά 26% κατά μέσον όρο μεταξύ των ετών 2006 και 2012.


  Chris Davies (ALDE). – The Commission will be making some major announcements on Wednesday, and I expect that people everywhere will be asking then whether we practise what we preach. So to hear that only five DGs have currently signed up to EMAS is not very encouraging, although I cannot say that Parliament can claim to be much better. It would certainly fail such a test, although action is now being taken to address the issue.

Does the Commissioner accept that his arguments in favour of the ‘big picture changes’ that must be made by Member States if we are to tackle climate change could be undermined if the Commission is not seen to be acting on the fine detail – on its own implementation of these improvements?


  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − Yes, I agree with you. We should practise what we preach, and this is what we are going to do in 2008. I expect the Commission and its services will target a reduction in emissions to at least the same level as we are requesting of the Member States.

As you know, we have set a 30% reduction target, provided that other developed countries follow, or a 20% target if they do not sign up to an international agreement on reducing emissions. We will set ourselves the 30% target, and I expect that, in so doing, we will show by example that we mean what we are asking others to do.

By the way, we will have to conduct a study to determine the exact quantity of emissions from the Commission, before setting targets and a timetable, and also establishing an action plan to combat emissions.


  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Mich würde interessieren: Wir haben diese „top down“-Vorgaben mit minus 30 %, und da scheint es ja eine große Einigkeit zu geben. Sie haben ja völlig richtig gesagt, das werden die anderen tun, um diese Ziele zu erreichen.

Ich möchte Sie persönlich fragen: Haben Sie einen Plan, wie Sie persönlich diese 30 %-ige Reduktion in Ihrem persönlichen Umfeld erreichen werden?


  Karin Scheele (PSE). – Das Europäische Parlament hat ja unter Heranziehung von EMAS minus 30 % bis 2012 festgesetzt, und wir sind auch gespannt, welche konkreten Maßnahmen es vom Europäischen Parlament und von den Verantwortlichen gibt.

Herr Kommissar, Sie haben gesagt, dass das Ergebnis des Heranziehens von EMAS ein geringerer Stromverbrauch ist. Mich würde interessieren: Welche konkreten Maßnahmen wurden gesetzt, welche konkreten Maßnahmen sind für die kommenden Jahre vorgesehen, und welche Rolle spielen dabei erneuerbare Energien?


  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − I did not fully understand that your question was for me personally. Usually I do not like to say what I am doing, but I can tell you that in Brussels, for example, I do not have a car – I do not drive a car; I prefer, over the weekend, to walk around, and this is also good for health. Regarding my official car, I did the following thing, because I expected questions like this: I asked WWF, who have 10 sustainable top projects, to recommend me a car which is the most sustainable, and they recommended one for me and this is what I am using for my services. By the way, it is quite within the limits that we have asked the automobile industry to achieve by 2012. Then, in Greece, since I was a Member of Parliament there, I have had a very small car, even smaller than what I have for the service here, and I drive it very rarely.

Now, again I would not like to tell you, but travelling to Bali I offset my going there by purchasing from one of those schemes – I think it was the allowances from the emissions trading system – and these are then cancelled. So I try to do as much as I can, and if you have anything more to tell me, I shall be very glad to follow your advice.

Now, regarding renewables: this is a big discussion. We should do what we decided at the beginning of the previous year – in March 2007 – and achieve the 20% targets for all the Member States. Regarding the buildings and the services of the Commission, we should try to use renewables as much as we can, because the main source of emissions from the Commission is from the buildings. Almost three quarters come from the buildings, so if we can find ways to use renewable energy for our services, that will be very good; but this has to be studied in the action plan that I told you about before.


  President. − Question No 33 by Claude Moraes (H-0986/07)

Subject: Protecting consumers against spam, spyware and malicious software

The European Commission has named the protection of consumers in the digital world among the central themes of its plans for consumer policy in the coming years. In this context, it has stated that effective and responsive enforcement mechanisms which would allow national authorities to co-operate in the combat of rogue traders who use spam and fraudulent websites are essential.

What progress has the Commission made in developing such mechanisms to protect consumers?

In particular, what has been done in order to improve possibilities for consumers to seek redress and reclaim their money when they fall victim to spam, spyware or other malicious software?


  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, the Commission is concerned about privacy and security problems in the information society, in particular when these put consumers at risk.

The use of spam, spyware and malicious software is in clear breach of the European privacy legislation, and in some cases it is even a criminal offence. This is why we need vigorous enforcement by competent authorities.

Last December, Commissioner Reding (whom I have the pleasure to replace here) welcomed the fast and effective intervention by the Dutch regulator, which imposed a fine totalling EUR 1 million on three Dutch enterprises for illegally installing ‘spyware’ and ‘adware’ on more than 22 million computers in the Netherlands and elsewhere.

She has called upon other regulators to follow this example. On 13 November 2007 the Commission adopted its proposals on the Telecom Reform, which include provisions that further strengthen the security and privacy regime underpinning the information society.

In relation to spam, the proposals introduced the possibility for internet service providers to take legal action against spammers. This provision is expected to become an important tool in the fight against spam in Europe.

Also, the effectiveness of anti-spam enforcement will be strengthened by including this in the scope of the Regulation on Consumer Protection Cooperation, which provides for a network of public enforcement authorities throughout the Community and a minimum level of investigation and enforcement powers to apply this regulation effectively.

More generally, the proposals include the provision for customers of electronic communication services to be informed of possible actions that a service provider may take to address security threats, or in response to a security or integrity incident.

By introducing the concept of breach notifications, users of electronic communication services would be told about breaches of security when this has resulted in personal data being lost or compromised, and about precautions that they may take in order to minimise the economic loss or social harm that could result from a security breach.

To ensure compliance with these requirements, national regulatory authorities will be given the power to issue binding instructions to operators on the measures that are required to secure electronic communication networks and services and to oversee proper implementation.

The proposed European Electronic Communications Market Authority will have as one of its core tasks network and information security and will assist the Commission in implementing measures on a European level where appropriate.


  Claude Moraes (PSE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for that comprehensive answer. I do not know what the digital equivalent of ‘epidemic’ is, but following this Christmas season we now see an epidemic of this kind of behaviour. All the independent organisations have said that.

I do not want to belittle anything the Commission has done; I think it has made this a priority. What I would ask, though, is that examples like the Dutch example of encouraging prosecutions, encouraging ISPs to be free to go after these people – none of this, I feel, is coming back to consumers. Is there something simple that the Commission can issue for MEPs, to tell our consumers what you are doing and how effectively this is being measured?


  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − I could not agree more. I have already said that proposals are in place and are currently under consideration by Parliament and the Council. I expect these to enter into force, and we will then have all the necessary requirements in place.

The current legal situation allows action to be taken against such violations, although this depends on the case. In the case of a criminal offence, people can ask for the support of the police, or can take other legal action. As I have already mentioned, the example set by the Dutch regulator OPTA has been welcomed by the Commission in a press release. I have the full text here. If you wish, I can hand it to you after Question Time so you can read what we have already done.


  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE-DE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, απουσιάζει βέβαια η Επίτροπος κ. Reding, αλλά είμαι πεπεισμένος ότι το εύρος των γνώσεων του Αντιπροέδρου της Επιτροπής, του κ. Verheugen επαρκεί για να μου απαντήσει σε ένα συμπληρωματικό ερώτημα, δηλαδή αν η Επιτροπή διαθέτει στοιχεία ή ενδείξεις που συνδέουν την προέλευση των ανεπίκλητων ηλεκτρονικών μηνυμάτων, των SPAM, με τις εταιρείες που προσφέρουν υπηρεσίες και προϊόντα προστασίας από τέτοιου είδους ανεπιθύμητες οχλήσεις.


  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – I would like to connect the first question by Ms McGuinness on protecting consumers from counterfeit and sub-standard medicines with the question by Mr Moraes on protecting consumers against spam. One of the huge problems I, like most others, have is the amount of medicines advertised in spam, along with all sorts of products that enhance all sorts of bits of the body which some of us do not even possess! I wonder, with reference to the parallel market study you referred to, if there are any studies under way on the whole issue of the internet, spam and counterfeit medicines, and in particular on sub-standard medicines that offer no guarantee of safety or efficacy for consumers and patients everywhere. There is horrific growth in that particular area.


  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − That is quite an interesting combination. On the first question, unfortunately the Commission is not in possession of these data, because the regulatory authorities belong to the Member States. But I will inform Commissioner Reding about the question and perhaps, in contact with Member States, we can find a solution.

On a personal basis I can only say that I find the idea behind your question absolutely reasonable, and I think we should try to find a way to bring that together.

On the second question, it even relates to an issue that we have not discussed this evening, the question of information to patients. We have three issues here: the abuse of electronic communication systems; we have the problem of information to patients, which is very often misleading; and we have the problem of counterfeited and parallel trade. I did not say that in my answer to the question on counterfeit medicines and parallel trade, so I can add it here.

We are also working on a proposal to get a clear framework for information for patients and experiencing exactly the problem that you have mentioned, namely that the existing regulations and existing restrictions which we have are, so to speak, overruled by the use of the internet. This is important for us – and this is the reason why we are studying the whole problem and why we will produce a proposal on how information for patients in the European Union should be organised, although we know that it is extremely difficult. But I have to say that, for the time being, we have regulations in place.

For instance, advertising for prescribed drugs is not allowed. If that happens via the internet it is, of course, a breach of the existing rules, and Member States have not only the right but, in my view, they have the obligation to do something against that.

So the answer to your question is yes. The Commission is aware that such a problem exists, and in our forthcoming proposals we will try to address that issue.

I have to introduce a caveat here: the use of the internet is something that you cannot control. This is exactly the problem that we have and we will try to find the best possible solution.


Part two


  President. − Question No 34 by Giovanna Corda (H-0965/07)

Subject: Monitoring imports of dangerous consumer goods

At the end of November the Commission presented a survey of the system for monitoring the safety of consumer goods, which revealed numerous shortcomings in the application of the existing directives in the Member States but also with regard to traceability and the responsibilities of industry, distributors and importers.

Can the Commission indicate the following, in particular? What specific measures does it intend to adopt to improve monitoring by Member States in accordance with Directive 2001/95/EC(1) on general product safety and cooperation with customs services? What measures will it take to ensure traceability of imported consumer goods? What measures will it take to induce manufacturers, importers and distributors of imported consumer goods to shoulder their responsibility and, if appropriate, to penalise them?


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − The first results of the product safety stocktaking were released on 22 November 2007. These indicate that the regulatory framework is fit for the purpose, if properly applied and when properly applied. The Rapex system is working efficiently to ensure that dangerous products are recalled from the market throughout the European Union.

The stocktaking report nonetheless identifies scope for improvements, both in preventive actions and in international cooperation, such as enhanced enforcement. Some envisaged improvements are already at an advanced stage towards becoming concrete actions, notably as concerns the revision of the Toy Safety Directive. The Commission is also in the process of preparing a temporary measure requiring warnings on magnetic toys, pending revision of the standards, to address the risk those toys could pose. The Commission is assisting the Member States’ market surveillance authorities to identify and share best practices with a view to improved controls.

In October 2007, Member States reported on initiatives for better cooperation with economic operators and on specific surveillance campaigns on toys. The Commission intends to publish comparative enforcement capacity data in the consumer scoreboard for 2008, in what is a new and, I hope, very helpful initiative. The Commission also continues to concretely reinforce the market surveillance capacity of the Member States by participating in the financing of well-designed joint market surveillance projects. Those projects received EUR 1.3 million in Community funding in 2007.

In addition to actions to improve protection within the EU, various actions are under way to strengthen protection at borders. Recent major changes to EU customs legislation will assist in identifying high risk consignments for controls. Secure customs exchange mechanisms will also enable rapid action to be taken when information becomes available on new types of dangerous products. Information available in the Rapex system will be distributed using this mechanism, in order to alert the competent customs authorities of specific, potentially dangerous cargos. The Commission also agrees that traceability is an issue for further improvements. Statistics show that products of unknown origin notified through Rapex were, for the first time, down to 3% in October 2007, as compared to 17% in 2006. The Commission is currently analysing, with the help of the Member States, how to ensure that this improvement is not only temporary, and how to make it sustainable.

The Commission has already included, in the legislation under the internal market for goods package, a provision requiring economic operators to have available the identity of their supplier. This should be helpful for market surveillance intervention once that legislation enters into force. The Commission has also asked what China could do about traceability, and welcomes the initiatives taken in China to require bar coding, at factory level, of certain categories of high risk products.

Finally, the Commission has highlighted the responsibility of the economic operators concerned, and welcomes the commitment from industry to work on measures to build consumer confidence, in particular through what we are calling a ‘safety pact’. The Commission will also send experts to carry out a study of business safety measures in the supply chain, and will report further on this in the first quarter of 2008.


  Giovanna Corda (PSE). – Madame la Commissaire, je vous remercie bien sûr de votre réponse, qui démontre la volonté de la Commission de prendre une série de mesures afin de réduire au maximum les risques liés à la circulation des jouets importés, notamment de Chine.

Un des points importants, comme le souligne la Commission, est la traçabilité des jouets du producteur au consommateur – vous venez d'en parler un petit peu. Une question très importante demeure néanmoins. Lorsque des centaines de milliers de jouets sont retirés du marché, comme l'an dernier, pouvez-vous me dire, Madame la Commissaire, que deviennent ces jouets? Quelles preuves avez-vous qu'ils disparaissent entièrement du marché? Il me revient – ce n'est pas anodin si je pose la question aujourd'hui – qu'ils sont remis sur le marché vers d'autres enfants. Dans le monde, tous les enfants ont droit à la même façon de faire de notre part et je crois que nous sommes tous d'accord là-dessus. La traçabilité vous permet-elle de retracer leur route vers la destruction effective?


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − I think that your question is absolutely valid and very humane. We have to pursue our goal: these dangerous toys must not reach not just the European market, which is our duty, but any market, and we have some well-developed tools to help us. We can conduct a market surveillance, we have controls and our Rapex system, which is a system through which we can get information through the market and not only when the dangerous goods are stopped at our borders.

However, what is also important for us as a global leader in the safety process is not to allow these dangerous goods – especially toys – to reach other children – in China as well. It is not enough just to preach for the safety of European kids, which is part of our duty. I have asked the main producers several times openly and clearly to destroy the toys and I have also invited them to the Commission in Brussels, where we discussed how to ensure that the toys are destroyed. They all committed to this. In particular, I urged Mattel, as the major industry with more recalls than any other, to comply, and it has agreed to this obligation. It is not legally binding: I cannot make them destroy their factories. But I think we are facing a time when the legislative framework is just a framework and there are things that are beyond and outside the framework. We need to vigorously pursue measures that are above the absolutely necessary from a legislative point of view. I had an opportunity to discuss this issue with UNICEF and the Americans during the TACD dialogue. I am fully aware of your concerns and, believe me, I will not spare efforts to make it public and to pursue the goal of destroying these toys. Nevertheless, I do not have a legislative base outside Europe.


  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – Frau Kommissarin! Sie haben darauf hingewiesen, dass sehr viel gemacht wird, um gefährliche Güter vom Markt zu nehmen. Das ist ein wichtiger Schritt. Nun werden manche dieser Güter auch mit allgemein bekannten Prüfzeichen versehen auf unsere Märkte gebracht, u. a. auch mit dem bekannten CE-Prüfzeichen. Das ist nun nach allen Regeln der Kunst, etwa wenn die Sicherheit nicht gegeben ist oder wenn das Spielzeug tatsächlich gefährlich ist, nicht nur ein Missbrauch, sondern das ist eigentlich Betrug. Gibt es hier die Möglichkeit, strafrechtliche Konsequenzen anzudenken?


  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for your detailed response. In relation to Ireland, one item purchased there over the Christmas period actually exploded, and the name of the manufacturer was not identifiable.

Is it possible to have legislation introduced in all countries to make it illegal to sell an item on which the manufacturer is not clearly identifiable? I think that is the way forward, and I would ask if that could be done.


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − If you do not mind, I will start with the second question, because I have a more certain legislative base on which to answer you. The Commission has already included, in the internal market for goods package, legislation containing a provision requiring economic operators to have available the identity of their supplier. This will help to enhance the identification of the good and to have a clear label as to who the producer is, for one thing, and also who the supplier is. The global chain is becoming longer and longer, and there is no longer any item which we can be absolutely certain has been produced only in one country.

I understand your question, but think that we also need to raise awareness and make parents more vigilant, because rogue traders will always exist. We need to raise awareness as regards checking the retailer and only buying from a responsible retailer, and also as regards checking the labels on the product. While nobody can remove that responsibility from our shoulders as consumers, I believe that your point is absolutely valid, and I agree that, not only the manufacturer’s name, but also specific information should be shown on the label, especially in the case of toys.

This question is perhaps linked with the first one on what we can do about falsification – if I have understood your question correctly. If the good is a fake good, that is one thing. We need to tackle fake goods through intellectual property rights, and also through our custom activities. I have to tell you that our customs authorities have raised the frequency of their checks three times higher than the world norm. The advice from the World Custom Unions is to check 3% of goods at borders and ports, and in Europe we check 10%. I also think it would be a good idea to enhance our research and development to make surveillance and checks at the borders even tighter, with better technical devices to conduct screenings and other important innovations that can be introduced at the borders for goods coming onto our markets.

I would like also to point out that even if the good is not counterfeit, and clearly shows the ‘CE’ mark, this will not mean that the good necessarily conforms to all the requirements within the framework of this directive. We also need to keep, additionally, to these New Approach Directives, which set out requirements on how a good is produced, and to ensure constant market surveillance from the point of view of safety, because sometimes safety is even more important, or at least equally important, and does not always coincide with the manner in which the good is produced.

It might be, for example, as in the case of the problem with magnets in toys, to which we are responding, that when we see that the situation has changed we need to respond and take measures on the basis of safety, and not just on the basis of the requirements we have asked the producer to fulfil. If we combine the two sets of requirements – on the producer and on the good once the market – then we will have better-protected consumers.


  President. − Question No 35 by Manolis Mavrommatis (H-0966/07)

Subject: Profiteering by food shops

Most Member States experience considerable fluctuations in food prices, very often because shops are able to exploit periods of mass consumption, such as public holidays. Milk, in particular, is a product with a constantly rising price in all Member States.

Does the Commission monitor the commercial activities of food shops and supermarkets during periods of higher consumption? Is it collaborating with national consumer protection organisations to find an effective solution to profiteering?


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − I know that this question is very important, and I would like to assure you that the Commission does not monitor shops during periods of higher consumption, nor does it collaborate with the national consumer organisations on this specific question.

So we very much rely on national efforts. However, the Commission does intend to improve its tools for monitoring the functioning of the internal market from a consumer perspective.

The single market review set out the Commission’s plans for a consumer scoreboard and for more detailed price monitoring, but I would like especially to stress that this is about monitoring.

Published Eurostat data show that prices of milk, cheese and eggs in Greece are 38% higher than the average prices of the same group for the European Union. The average prices for this product group over the period 1996-2007 grew by almost 52% in Greece and only by 24% in the EU.

However, this development appears to be structural rather than seasonal. Since 2005 the prices of dairy products for Greece do not appear to reveal seasonal fluctuations.


  Μανώλης Μαυρομμάτης (PPE-DE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ευχαριστώ πάρα πολύ την Επίτροπο, ευχαριστώ πολύ και για τα στοιχεία. Θα βρω και τη Eurostat να δούμε όλον τον πίνακα, διότι είναι αξιόλογος βεβαίως και σημαντικός για την πατρίδα μου -την οποίαν προαναφέρατε- αλλά πιστεύω ότι υπάρχουν και σε άλλες χώρες αντίστοιχα περιστατικά και γι’ αυτό το λόγο θα είχε ενδιαφέρον να δούμε πώς η Επιτροπή σας θα αντιμετωπίσει γενικά το θέμα αυτό. Είτε με σύσταση, είτε με οδηγία η οποία πλέον θα αφορά όλα τα προϊόντα και όχι μόνον τα τόσο καταναλωτικά.


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − The Commission is undertaking measures at different levels aimed at reducing increases in food prices. One initiative is to begin monitoring prices, which I mentioned earlier. This is one of the objectives of the consumer market scoreboard on which we are working and which I believe will be supported by the Commission pretty soon.

The Commission has also proposed a number of measures within the framework of agricultural policy. A reduction of obligatory set-aside land, already in force for the 2008 crop season; an increase in milk quotas for the year 2008-2009 adopted by the Commission and proposed to the Council, if adopted, will be in force from 1 April 2008 onwards, and a reduction of import duties in the cereals sector to reduce increases in cereal prices and also in the future of the price of meat. This measure came into force from the beginning of January 2008.

This is a kind of inventory of what we have done. But, through the consumer market scoreboard, one of the main topics of our investigations will be prices and part of this basket will be about food prices. So we will duly inform you; we will consult as to what the next step will be after the data monitoring and we can take action to see what is behind this – of course, hand in hand with the national authorities.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – It is interesting that when food prices are rising, the Commission will act to look at it and I would urge the Commission to come up with statistics that show us the share-out of the final retail price between producer – and I mean farmers – and consumer, because that information is not available. I think that it is also fair to say, on the record, that the era of relatively low food prices is over and that I think that the Commission should not fool people by saying that we are going to go back to lower food prices. Perhaps what we need to do is to educate people about buying quality food at a fair price.


  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – Praeitą vasarą pradėjo kilti kainos visose Europos Sąjungos šalyse. Tada mes kėlėme klausimą, ar nėra kartelinių susitarimų. Mano šalyje, Lietuvoje, nustatyta, kad pieno perdirbėjai susitarę kelia kainas. Dabar tiriamas mėsos sektorius. Ar kur nors kitose Europos šalyse yra atlikti tokie tyrimai, ar Jūs žinote apie tai? Dabar atsirado naujas terminas – „the end of cheap food“. Ar šituo nauju terminu nesinaudoja maisto pramonės atstovai ir kaip apsiginti vartotojams?


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − The price of food fluctuates because of the seasonal character of agricultural production. Those fluctuations are not completely passed on to consumers because the cost of raw materials has, until recently, been decreasing and because of warehousing technologies catering for those seasonal shortages. Recently, more systematic food price increases seem to be taking place, and the principal reason seems to be growing demand from emerging large economies, like China and India. We have already discussed the fact that in India last year there were five million more people with a new diet that is based much more on milk, milk products and meat.

Last summer the situation worsened owing to adverse climatic conditions in many producing regions, and this has been the main reason for the exceptionally high increase in food prices in the European Union since September 2007. The Commission and the national competition authorities are carefully monitoring the market. Anti-competitive practices have been discovered in the dairy sector in the United Kingdom and in Greece, and fines have been imposed on firms involved in those anti-competitive practices.

I feel that, if the Latvian national authorities have been informed, then they will be working on the case you mention, especially as it is high on the public agenda. What we really need is a sectoral investigation to see whether there is any kind of cartel behind it, which has already happened in two EU countries.


  President. − I have just been informed, unfortunately, that we have a problem with the availability of our Commissioners. Mr McCreevy has to leave us at 7.20 p.m. Therefore, what I would intend to do, Commissioner Kuneva, with your permission, is to change now to Commissioner McCreevy, but if you could stay with us to take some additional questions at the end, that would be most helpful.


  President. − Question No 41 by Marian Harkin (H-0962/07)

Subject: The Review of the Single Market

In light of the recent Commission publication on the Review of the Single Market, what measures does the Commission intend to take to promote the financial education of consumers, financial inclusion and adequate redress for consumers, particularly in light of the recent sub prime crisis in the US and the current financial turbulence?


  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − I would like to thank the Honourable Member for her interest in the single market review.

Alongside our Communication on the single market for 21st century Europe, we adopted a package of measures to improve the competitiveness and efficiency of retail financial services markets. Integral to that package are initiatives to improve consumer confidence and empower them to seek out the best product for their individual needs. Although the Commission focus on empowering consumers is not recent, current financial turbulence certainly highlights the importance of this matter. I would like to address all three areas mentioned by the Honourable Member: education, inclusion and redress.

Financial education is best delivered as close as possible to the citizens that need it, namely at the level of national and regional authorities, non-governmental agencies and the financial services sector. At the end of 2007, we adopted a communication on financial education to raise awareness of the need to increase consumers’ level of financial literacy, promote the provision of high-quality financial education in the European Union and provide some practical tools to help achieve these goals. It includes some principles to guide financial services providers and announces some practical initiatives. These range from publishing an on-line database of financial education provision and research in the EU, to an enhancement of the existing Dolceta on-line educational tool to help teachers incorporate financial matters into the school curriculum.

Today, having a bank account is a prerequisite for being able to fully participate in social and economic life, and all EU citizens should have access to a basic bank account. We are currently carrying out a study to identify and analyse policy measures taken by Member States to prevent financial exclusion. Based on this information, which we hope to receive at the end of this month, we will reflect on how best to ensure that all EU citizens have access to a basic bank account.

Finally, when buying financial services, consumers need to know that in the event of a problem they can have easy access to redress. While out-of-court dispute settlement bodies exist in many EU countries, not all of these are members of the Commission-run FIN-NET, the aim of which is to facilitate consumer access to redress in cross-border cases. With this in mind, we are working to ensure that all existing out-of-court dispute resolution bodies are part of FIN-NET.

We are also reflecting more generally on how to encourage the creation of alternative redress systems where these do not already exist. Those initiatives will not create confidence and empower consumers overnight, but they are a complement to the initiatives we are taking in other related areas, such as information and advice.


  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – Ich habe Respekt vor den Terminproblemen von Herrn McCreevy, aber andere Leute haben auch Termine. Ich möchte schlichtweg wissen, ob meine Frage an Frau Kuneva noch drankommt oder nicht, ob ich jetzt in die Fraktionssitzung gehen kann oder ob ich hier warten soll.


  President. − It is unlikely that we will get to your question. It is regrettable that we are in the situation we are in. Your question will almost certainly be answered in writing.


  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Commissioner, I want to ask you a little bit more about financial education, which is the new buzzword. I think you will agree that there is a real imbalance in power between financial institutions and consumers, not least because, firstly, consumers need access to credit, and, secondly, regardless of the level of financial education, how many people are going to read the 25-page document that accompanies, for example, their insurance policy, and refer to it every year?

You said that this issue needs to be addressed at local and regional level, but would you not agree there needs to be greater cooperation between the major stakeholders, such as financial regulators, governments, consumer organisations and financial complaints bodies so that, working together, they can highlight some of the problems and issues, and at least act as an early warning system for the consumer?


  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − What we have been attempting to do here in financial education is to get this on the agenda and to make everybody aware, particularly in Member States, that it would probably be a better investment than in lots of other areas if, from a very early stage in the school curriculum, some basic financial literacy was taught.

Because, going through life, whether one ends up as the chief financial controller of a major institution or whether one has a very ordinary job in one’s local area, you are definitely going to encounter – at some stage you are going to have to deal with – some major financial transaction such as the buying of a car, a house, a washing machine or whatever.

I think that from an early stage it would be far better if people had a little bit taught to them in the school curriculum programme so that they would know some basic information.

What Ms Harkin was speaking about goes on to a higher level as to what type of information should be given to a consumer, because she is correct: the amount of information that is given to them and the 48 pages that they get to read in very small writing is there for the sole purpose, in my view (and it has always been my view), of satisfying lawyers, so that if there is a case, they can charge bigger and bigger fees for telling you that you have either won or lost. I have absolutely no faith in that at all.

Some of that particular area is directly under my own responsibility. I often recall a particular case when I was in Scotland about two years or so ago, meeting with some of the financial educators who were talking about the Perspectives Directive in the UCITS area. They said there were 81 pages in the Perspectives Directive and 78 pages in the simplified perspectives to do with a particular product. So, in the Consumer Credit Directive, which I think is being dealt with at present in Parliament, Ms Kuneva will make some improvements as to what type of basic information consumers should be given. Ms Kuneva is dealing with those particular aspects. But in the whole area of financial education, the place where I have been trying to up the agenda is for Member States to include, from an early stage, some basic financial education as part of the core curriculum programme. I think everybody would be far better off doing it like that than having pages and pages of small type that no one ever reads.


  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – Herr Kommissar! Sie haben sicher recht, wenn Sie fordern, dass wir hier mit der schulischen Erziehung anfangen, um Verbraucher tatsächlich eher in die Lage zu setzen, a) ihre Rechte zu kennen und b) dann damit umzugehen.

Nun haben wir aber auf dem Sektor der Finanzdienstleistungen noch eine Generation oder mehrere Generationen, die anders denken, die gehört haben und im Bewusstsein agieren, dass gerade die Finanzleistungen und der Finanzmarkt starke staatliche Aufsicht haben und dass sie sich auf diese staatliche Aufsicht verlassen können. Hier ist nun in der letzten Zeit über den Aufbruch des Marktes sehr viel passiert. Kann man in dieser staatlichen Aufsichtsgeschichte vielleicht nicht doch das eine oder andere noch machen?


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Madam President, could I suggest to the Commissioner that, not only does the information satisfy lawyers, but it bamboozles consumers? And that is why it is there. Like a lot of information, it is like the instructions for the washing machine. We read it when it breaks down and it is too late.

Could I suggest you look at the role of credit unions in educating consumers, because I think that is an issue in Ireland in particular? And, can I gently remind you, as you mentioned redress, of the absolute lack of redress for Equitable Life policyholders. I am sure that Ms Wallis will support me on this and perhaps in a quiet moment you might come back to us with a written response as to what has happened since our report was voted on and supported by you.


  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − The first question relates to the regulated market and I think the questioner extrapolates from the recent difficulties – the difficulties of the past eight months or so – in the financial markets and relates this to the question of Ms Harkin. I do not think that there is necessarily a correlation there, but in all the studies and work that various bodies are doing, including us in the Commission, perhaps there would be a role for financial education.

I think the origins of the problems that created the financial turmoil come from irresponsible lending in a certain part of the world. That was the origins of the problem, but we are a long way down the road from that and it is the contagion effect that spread it to other areas. But the origins of the problem, in my view, probably relate to irresponsible lending by particular institutions.

Regarding Ms McGuinness’s question: education is a Member State competence and I would not see any difficulty in, say, a Member State, including the one we know best, taking up her suggestion. It would seem to be a reasonable idea that could be pursued at that particular level.

Regarding the Equitable Life question, yes I did support it. We are waiting for further information. As far as I know, the report of the UK Ombudsman is still the only real source for redress and that particular report is still outstanding. I will ask my Commission officials if they have any later news as to when that UK report is likely to be published. If I remember correctly this time last year it was hoped to have been reported by the end of 2007, I think November 2007; that has come and gone and maybe we might find some more information about it, but that is really going to be the next big date in that area.


  President. − Question No 42 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0970/07)

Subject: Markets in financial instruments

From 1 November 2007, the new European framework for the operation of markets in financial instruments entered into force.

Does the Commission have any information concerning the number of European investment companies and institutions likely to benefit from the new regulatory framework? Is any specific data available for Greece?

According to Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, the cost of capital is expected to fall in time. On what information is this prediction based? Is it possible for this prediction to be made more specific regarding individual sectors and the percentage of the anticipated decrease in each case?

Does the Commission have information concerning cross-border trading in shares and investment services? What are the current inward and outward figures for Greece in this sector?


  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − The Commission does not keep consolidated records of the number of European investment firms or the number of investment firms in Greece. However, Member States are required by MiFID to keep a record of all investment firms registered within their territory. The Hellenic Capital Market Commission should therefore be able to supply the data for Greek companies.

With MiFID, the trading monopolies for exchanges have been abolished, investment firms have better access to providing their services across the European Economic Area using the MiFID passport and consumer protection has been strengthened. This leads to increased competition across borders and between trading venues, which will in turn increase liquidity and the depth of the financial markets, for the benefit of both the industry and consumers.

Our expectation that cost of capital would decline is based on a rigorous study carried out by London Economics in 2002. This study modelled the impact of financial integration, of which MiFID is the cornerstone, in terms of its impact on the then EU-15. The main conclusions from the study were that financial integration would lead to a reduction in the cost of equity capital of an average of 50 basis points across the Member States, and a reduction in the cost of market debt for non-financial issuers of 40 basis points.

The study estimated that the combined effects of financial market integration to the EU economy would result in the following: an increase of EU-wide real GDP of 1.1% in the long run; an increase of 6% of the total business investment; an increase in private consumption of 0.8%; and an increase of 0.5% in total employment.

Figures compiled informally by the Committee of European Securities Regulators in the run-up to the implementation of MiFID suggest that only very limited numbers of firms were at that time making use of the passport for investment services under the then Investment Services Directive into or out of Greece. We expect this to change in the future as Greek markets open up as a result of MiFID, and as Greek firms see more opportunities in other Member States.

The Federation of European Securities Exchanges keeps statistics on foreign equity trading, as well as on the percentage of shares owned by investors. As of December 2005, 41% of the shares traded on the Athens exchange were held by foreign investors. In November 2007, the foreign equity trading turnover on the Athens exchange was EUR 970 million.


  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE-DE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ευχαριστώ τον κ. Επίτροπο για την απάντησή του, θα ήθελα να ρωτήσω συμπληρωματικά εάν η Επιτροπή διαθέτει στοιχεία για τον όγκο της χρηματοπιστωτικής intermediation στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και συγκεκριμένα τι ποσοστό του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ καταλαμβάνει αυτή η χρηματοπιστωτική intermediation.


  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − I do not have that information available to me. I am not certain whether my services have it either, but I will ask. If they have it, we will certainly forward it to the Member.


  President. − Question No 43 by Colm Burke (H-0972/07)

Subject: Irish county development plans

In June of this year the Commission requested information from Ireland in relation to certain Irish county development plans and the rules for granting of planning permission which could be judged as restrictive.

I understand that after the Irish Government was granted a one month extension, a response was sent to the Commission at the end of September.

Could the Commission comment on the current state of play of proceedings following the Irish Government's response?


  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − The Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Irish authorities following a complaint on 29 June 2007.

This letter requested information on restrictive conditions set out in a number of Irish county development plans. The Commission raised questions regarding the compatibility of certain requirements to obtain building permission with two principles of the Treaty, namely the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital.

Indirectly, such restrictions could also affect the free movement of workers, but this issue was not raised.

Following an agreed extension of one month to respond, the Irish authorities sent their response at the end of September. My services have been examining its content and are planning to contact the Irish authorities in order to hold a meeting at a technical level to further clarify and discuss the position of the Irish authorities.

Following these discussions, the Commission will be in a position to assess whether or not there are grounds to pursue this infringement procedure.


  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). – The response from the Irish Government was lodged on 28 September 2007. I understand that the response has not been made public. This is a very important issue which affects 22 local authorities in Ireland.

I am just wondering if the response can be released at this stage now that it is before the Commission and it has had time to consider it? Maybe the Commissioner might outline the timescale when a decision will be made by the Commission on this matter.


  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − It is not our practice to make responses available to the public, but then again those responses often end up in the public domain.

I can confirm that we received a response on 28 September 2007, as the Honourable Member has stated. As I said in my reply, we intend to have a meeting with the Irish authorities about this matter. We will see how we proceed from there.

I should point out, also, that Ireland is not the only Member State where there are difficulties like this.

My services are hoping to meet the Irish authorities in the very near future, and we will then have to consider what they say and take further steps, if these are required.


  Brian Crowley (UEN). – I should just like to ask the Commissioner – with regard to the rule of subsidiarity, and in particular the issue of planning permission – is this an area that the Commission should be involved in, when the operation of planning and the right to build a property is separate from the right to own property and exploit that property?


  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − That is a very good question, Mr Crowley, but when the Commission receives a complaint, we are duty bound to act upon it and have an investigation. The complaint concerns the free movement that I have spoken about under Articles 43 and 56 of the Treaty and this is what it relates to. Therefore, we are legally bound to investigate such matters when they appear to conflict with basic tenets of the Treaties. That is what we have to do in this particular instance. As I said in response to your colleague, Mr Burke, there are other complaints in other Member States which have a similar type of restrictions and these have to be pursued also.


  President. − Question No 44 by Gay Mitchell (H-0974/07)

Subject: Health insurance industry in Ireland

Will the Commission make a statement on the state of the health insurance sector in Ireland, especially in light of the recent reasoned opinion requesting Ireland to abolish the exemption in place for VHI from certain EU rules?


  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − On 17 November, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion requesting that Ireland abolish the exemption in place for the Irish Voluntary Health Insurance (VHI) from certain EU rules. These rules, notably the first non-life insurance directive of 1973, as subsequently amended, aim at harmonising certain requirements for the commencement and conduct of direct non-life insurance business, and therefore also pertain to private health insurance.

The first non-life insurance directive exempted the VHI, among other institutions, from its rules. However, this exemption is applicable only as long as the capacity of the exempted institution is not in any way amended by a change of its statutes or by any change in the relevant national law. Accordingly, upon extension or change of capacity, the institution becomes subject to the full set of rules of Community law which otherwise apply to non-life insurance.

These rules, for example, require insurance undertakings to seek official authorisation before taking up their business; to adopt a certain legal form; and to establish adequate protective provisions which have to be sufficiently matched by the undertaking’s assets in order to retain an adequate solvency margin. One of the main objectives of these provisions is to protect the rights of those who have subscribed to an insurance policy, thereby making sure that the exercise of freedom to provide services is not to the detriment of consumer protection. In addition, these rules guarantee a level playing field between insurers.

Given its initial exemption from the first directive, and as long as its capacity remained unchanged, the VHI did not have to comply with these rules. The Commission, however, takes the view that the VHI’s capacity has indeed changed. Several amendments to the relevant Irish law in 1996, 1998 and 2001 extended the VHI’s scope of business far beyond what it was when the VHI’s exemption was first granted. Therefore, VHI’s initial exemption from the EU’s rules for insurers is no longer applicable. The Commission expressed this view in the reasoned opinion that was sent to Ireland on 14 November. It has asked Ireland to take, within two months, the necessary steps to subject the VHI to those supervisory and prudential rules of Community law for which it formerly enjoyed the exemption.

The Commission considers that this reasoned opinion is a decisive step towards putting all competitors in the Irish private health insurance market on an equal footing under European insurance legislation. This serves the interests of policyholders as well as of fair competition. The Commission will closely monitor the steps taken by the Irish Government and will, failing appropriate action, pursue legal proceedings before the European Court of Justice.


  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Madam President, may I thank the Commissioner for taking the question. Could I ask him if he has any indication of the timescale involved in obtaining a reply from the Irish Government in relation to the VHI in particular? Could I ask him whether this will have any implications for equalisation? The VHI continues to dominate 75% of the market in Ireland, but they claim that they need risk equalisation to protect them from being left holding all the older, and therefore higher-liability, clients. Will the issue raised by the Commissioner have any implications for equalisation?


  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − A reasoned opinion was sent to Ireland on 14 November 2007. Ireland has two months to reply, which happens to be 14 January, which was yesterday. I understand that the reply was received yesterday evening. That reply is being studied by the Commission.

It is also necessary to point out that, as a result of correspondence that we had with the Irish Department of Health and the correspondence I had with the Irish Minister for Health over the past year, there was a proposed bill before the Houses of the Oireachtas before the election last May. That, of course, as Irish Members will know, fell when the election was called. We do not have institutional continuity in Ireland – which is a good thing, I think – but it was restored to the Order Paper when the new Government came into being. We have already suggested to the Irish authorities that some amendments to the bill as published are being considered.

So we will study the reply received yesterday evening (which I have not seen, but I understand it was received) and we will see what further changes have been proposed there. Dependent upon that, we will proceed to the next stage, or whatever.

But Mr Mitchell’s second question is very relevant. He said, has this any relevance to the risk equalisation debate? The answer is no. This is in the other areas for which I am directly responsible, like the Life Insurance Directive, which relates to solvency, and these matters which are in the public domain. Mr Mitchell is correct in saying that the VHI has about 75% of the market, in fact I think the figure is now 76% of the market. I understand that they have an even greater share of the market now than they had. They have gained a greater share and have gained a lot of extra people over the past year to 18 months or so, than they had previously. That is a fact. He is well-briefed on the matter. But my difficulty is to do with the non-life insurance directive and not with the rate of risk equalisation. But for completeness – as you would be aware, Mr Mitchell – there is a separate court action which is to be called before the Court in Luxembourg and taken by one of the competitors in the Irish market. That is before the Court of Justice, and I would assume that some time, maybe later this year, a decision on that will be given.


  President. − Question No 36 by Jim Higgins (H-0978/07)

Subject: Online airline ticket sales

Could the Commission state why instead of publishing the list of websites found to be in breach of Community legislation regarding the accurate advertising of websites it allowed their names to be covered up, indicating right of reply, to the detriment of the consumer who will unwittingly use a site that they could have avoided if the Commission had taken the step to publish the names in mid November?


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − The Commission uses all the instruments available to ensure the effective enforcement of consumer rights across Europe. A new consumer-enforcement network was established at the end of 2006 in the regulation on consumer protection cooperation. It provides a framework for joint market surveillance and enforcement exercises, such as the sweep on air ticket sales sites, carried out in September 2007.

That was the first ever exercise of its type. The Commission coordinated this exercise, and provided the results of the first phase of the investigation in November 2007. At this stage, the disclosure of the names of the sites on which certain irregularities were detected, as suggested by the honourable Member, would be premature and would not respect the legal framework in certain Member States.

I quite understand your impatience, because we would all like to get things done, and in the right way. However, the right of reply, which means the right to defend oneself, is recognised across the EU Member States. It is the competence of the national authorities and courts to apply that right, and we are awaiting the outcome of court decisions in some countries. The Commission will, therefore, present the outcome of the investigations and enforcement actions presently ongoing in the Member States once those proceedings have been completed. I have held talks with the authorities on the basis of the consumer enforcement network, and they are committed to going further and to providing this data, but court procedures – in at least two countries – prevent us from having a full picture and from announcing it publicly.


  Jim Higgins (PPE-DE). – I think last July we all applauded the Degutis report when at last we said we were going to have transparency in relation to charging, that all taxes and fees levied would be upfront in all advertisements. And then we read, in The European Voice on 31 October: ‘Air ticket sites faced EU shame: Commission threatens to reveal the names of the hundreds of websites which allegedly mislead consumers’.

I am at a loss to know why these big commercial operations are not named, why they are not shamed. They continue to flout the rules and regulations and the undertaking. They continue to mislead the consumer. Last week, for example, Ryanair – give them credit for what they have done – published this in all Irish newspapers: ‘Buy one flight, get a second absolutely free. Pay no fees, taxes, levies or charges’. So I booked my flight, and it cost me EUR 153. And then the one that was supposed to be free is as follows: credit card fee: EUR 12; taxes, fees and charges: EUR 39.96; insurance: EUR 14. Total price: free flight EUR 67. What more evidence do you want?


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − Cases like this one were the main reason to step up and to have this enforcement action.

But I must reiterate: in many Member States it is only possible to publish the names of the airlines after the investigations and enforcement actions are finished.

Since cases differ, the time needed to deal with them can take longer in some cases than in others. Currently the Commission is discussing with Member States how much time is needed to finish these actions and the Commission will publish – I already have this commitment – these names as soon as it is legally possible, otherwise the Commission could be sued.

If Member States can close the cases as originally foreseen, the names can be published in the coming months. Initially I thought that we would be able to do it in February, but after more detailed discussions, comparing the legal system and how much time it takes from the legal point of view, I believe there may be a delay of one and a half months.

But I think that you are absolutely right and, if you allow me, I will use your case as one more reason for the need to step up. We have, since the beginning of this year, unfair commercial practices and while trying not to go too much into cases, I think this is a good example of a breach of the unfair commercial practices legislation as well.


  Μανώλης Μαυρομμάτης (PPE-DE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, ήμουν από τους πρώτους, αν όχι ο πρώτος, που έχει κάνει την ερώτηση αυτή πριν ακόμη προκύψει το θέμα του Νοεμβρίου και πριν την ανακοίνωση.

Στην απάντησή σας μου είχατε πει ότι σε ένα εύλογο χρονικό διάστημα, περίπου δύο μηνών, θα είχαμε και τα ονόματα ή τα αποτελέσματα της έρευνάς σας. Μετά, σε κάποια συνέντευξή σας είδα ότι αναφερθήκατε σε 4 μήνες. Επίσης, όταν ανακοινώθηκε ή μάλλον γράφτηκε στις εφημερίδες -όπως πολύ σωστά είπε ο συνάδελφος Higgins- το όνομα της Ryan, δηλαδή ότι ήταν μία από τις εταιρείες, και σύμφωνα με την έρευνά σας υφίστανται 433 αεροπορικές εταιρείες και τουριστικά γραφεία που έχουν αυτού του είδους χαμηλά εισιτήρια, τελικά η Ryan είπε ότι δεν είναι η μόνη. Κάποιες άλλες μεγάλες και γνωστές εταιρείες χρησιμοποίησαν και το όνομά τους, που εγώ δεν θα ήθελα να χρησιμοποιήσω στο Κοινοβούλιο, και στο ζήτημα αυτό εσείς κλείσατε τα μάτια. Γι’ αυτό νομίζω και πιστεύω ότι θα ήταν καλό να δώσετε σύντομα τα ονόματα, ώστε να ηρεμήσει και η κοινή γνώμη και ο ανταγωνισμός μεταξύ των μικρών ή και μεγάλων εταιρειών.


  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − I will not deny that I have drawn inspiration from Parliament and its Members many times, so I am glad that in this case it is regarding the specific investigation on air tickets. We actually picked air tickets for our first sweep quite deliberately.

I do not want to sound defensive. I am doing what I am required by law. I have taken the advice of the Commission’s Legal Services and can go further before the Court procedures are over in certain Member States. If the procedure in one Member State takes four months, I cannot do anything. Acting before that procedure is concluded would be in breach of national legislation, and would endanger the reputation of the Commission. That is why I am waiting until these procedures are completed before the names are published.


  President. − Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).


  President. − I should like to thank Commissioner Kuneva for waiting.

That concludes Question Time.


  Brian Crowley (UEN). – Madam President, I apologise to you, and to the interpreters for delaying them further. I just wish to place on the record my objection to the way that Question Time again has been messed around. Those of us who use it as a political tool to try and get answers from the institutions are left without any words as regards how badly we are treated as Members of this House. I will be raising this matter at the Conference of Presidents, but I hope that the Bureau will take it on board as well and try and make sure the working of the Chamber on a day-to-day basis does not encroach every single time on our Question Time.


  President. − Thank you, Mr Crowley. I think you will be aware that today has been a difficult day for one reason and another. We have had almost an hour and a half, and we have done our best to accommodate everybody’s wishes. As you will know, we are also hoping to improve matters with the reform working group, but thank you for your comments, and thank you to our interpreters.

(The sitting was suspended at 19.45 and resumed at 21.00)




(1) OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4.

18. Edukazzjoni u taħriġ ta' l-adulti: Qatt m' huwa tard li titgħallem (dibattitu)

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Doris Pack, a nome della commissione per la cultura e l'istruzione, sull'istruzione e formazione degli adulti: non è mai troppo tardi per apprendere (2007/2114(INI)) (A6-0502/2007).


  Doris Pack, Berichterstatterin. − Herr Präsident, lieber Herr Kommissar! „Es ist nie zu spät zu lernen“, und „Man lernt nie aus“. Die beiden Titel der Mitteilung und des Aktionsplans der Kommission zum Thema Erwachsenenbildung sind ja überall ganz bekannte Sprüche, die aber, wenn man sie genau liest, in diesem Fall eigentlich auch ein Eingeständnis früherer Versäumnisse in der europäischen Bildungspolitik sind. Dennoch, wir sind froh, dass die Kommission mit diesem Kommunikations- und Aktionsplan in eine Zeit der wachsenden Erkenntnis der Notwendigkeit des lebenslangen Lernens stößt und in eine Zeit, die den neuen demographischen Herausforderungen gerecht werden muss.

Wirtschaftliche und soziale Veränderungen in der EU erfordern größere Anpassung von Qualifikationen und Fähigkeiten im Arbeitsleben. Den Herausforderungen des Arbeitsmarktes muss entsprochen werden, d. h. die Beschäftigungsfähigkeit des Einzelnen muss eines der wichtigsten Ziele in der Erwachsenenbildung sein.

Bildung, insbesondere Erwachsenenbildung, ist aber auch ein Faktor für die persönliche Weiterbildung, für die Selbstachtung, für aktive Bürgerschaft, für soziale Eingliederung und den interkulturellen Dialog. Mehrere Forschungsergebnisse haben gezeigt, dass der nichtwirtschaftliche Vorteil des Lernens einen wichtigen und positiven Effekt hat, z. B. für die eigene Gesundheit, für eine höhere Beteiligung aller Altersschichten am gesellschaftlichen Leben, und natürlich auch zur Senkung der Kriminalität beiträgt.

Daher ist meine politische Priorität, die Motivation für die Teilnahme am lebenslangen Lernen zu steigern. Medienkampagnen, Information und Beratungszentren, angepasste Kommunikation für benachteiligte Gruppen sind ganz wichtig. Auch spezielle Rufnummern und Webseiten haben sich bereits in einigen Ländern als sehr erfolgreich erwiesen.

In diesem Zusammenhang ist die Vereinbarung von Arbeitsleben, Familienleben und lebenslangem Lernen ebenfalls von großer Bedeutung. Ich will nur Stichworte nennen: Anpassung von Arbeitszeiten, Flexizeit, Fernkurse und informelle Wege des Lernens. Die Anwendung neuer Technologien muss ständig eingeübt werden, besonders beim Ausbau des Internetzugangs, um diese neuen Lernmethoden anzuregen. Weiterhin muss die Anzahl der öffentlichen und privaten Kindertagesstätten, der Betriebskinderbetreuungsstätten ausgeweitet werden.

Wichtig erscheint mir aber auch die Solidarität zwischen den Generationen und die interkulturelle Solidarität. Die Weitergabe von Wissen und Fachkönnen von Erwachsenen und Senioren an jüngere Erwachsene — gerade auch im Handwerks- und im Geschäftsbereich — kann unterstützend wirken. Es können Praxisanleitungen sein, sie müssen auch vernetzt werden können, und ich glaube, hier kann einer vom anderen lernen.

Es gibt aber auch einen Familienlernansatz. Eltern sind motiviert, zum Lernen zurückzukehren, damit sie ihren Kindern in der Schule helfen können. Und auch die ehrenamtliche Arbeit braucht die Erwachsenenbildung, damit von gemachten Erfahrungen und qualifizierten Bildungsangeboten auch diese Arbeit profitieren kann.

Den speziellen Bedürfnissen von Migranten muss ebenfalls Rechnung getragen werden. Ich will jetzt nur Sprachkurse erwähnen. Wir brauchen diese Sprachkurse für die Migranten, damit sie die Sprache des Gastlandes lernen. Wir brauchen aber auch Sprachkurse für die Erwachsenen, damit sie die Sprache des Nachbarlandes lernen oder noch eine andere Sprache, wie wir schon immer gesagt haben.

Der Zugang zu Hochschuleinrichtungen für Erwachsene mit praktischer Arbeitserfahrung muss ebenfalls erleichtert werden. Aber ganz wichtig ist eine bessere Qualität und Pädagogik in den bestehenden Einrichtungen der Erwachsenenbildung. Benötigt werden hochqualifizierte Erwachsenenbildungslehrer und auch spezifische Programme in diesem Bereich. In Deutschland, kann ich nur sagen, gibt es einen Universitätsabschluss, der zu einem Diplom in der Erwachsenenbildung führt. Ich glaube, wir müssen alle daran erinnern, dass die Finanzierung der vorgeschlagenen Maßnahmen z. B. über den Europäischen Sozialfonds oder über alle Strukturfonds erfolgen kann. Natürlich erwarte ich von der Kommission, dass sie das bestehende Programm „Lifelong Learning“ sowohl im Grundvig-Programm als auch im Leonardo-Programm anbietet, um eben den Aktionsplan auch von unserer Seite aus auf den Weg zu bringen.

Ich glaube, es gibt viele Möglichkeiten, hier Gutes zu tun, und wir sollten das ganz schnell tun.

Noch eines möchte ich unterstreichen: Die Resultate der Erwachsenenbildung müssen messbar werden, weil man ansonsten nicht weiß, wer was tut. Es gibt sehr viele Akteure in diesem Feld, und all diesen muss Rechnung getragen werden, den privaten, den universitären und auch den Bildungseinrichtungen der öffentlichen Art. Es gibt also vieles zu tun, und ich würde anregen, packen wir es an!


  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would very much like to show my appreciation of this report and to congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Pack for her commitment, efforts and contributions and also Mr Andersson from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and Ms Flasarová from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality.

I am very pleased that our two communications from 2006 and 2007 received a very concrete and strong response from the European Parliament. The first was on adult learning and the second, on the European action plan on this matter, adopted in September. As you have recognised, the importance of adult learning is clearly increasing. First of all, global competition is a reality. We need to invest in education at all stages of life and at all levels, and the skills and competences of adults need to be continuously upgraded. Secondly, demographic changes mean that people need to work at least some years longer and they need to maintain the relevance of their skills to do this. Thirdly, adult learning helps to combat social exclusion. Too many adults with low education levels risk being excluded from the labour market.

So adult learning has a vital role in lifelong learning strategies. I welcome your support for many reasons, particularly for improving the quality and accessibility of adult learning, including through better childcare and e-learning, and in particular for groups with special needs, as well as for speeding up the assessment of skills and valuing informal learning, for investing more in general and also for adapting to the needs of women, migrants and the ageing population. Last but not least, for developing reliable and comparable data to measure adult learning, as Ms Pack mentioned. We will follow up all these elements in implementing the European action plan.

As you suggest, these are all kinds of good practices in the Member States which we will use in our cooperation. We will support these best practices via peer learning activities and studies, through the Lifelong Learning Programme and the European Social Fund mentioned earlier, in order to share knowledge and experience. In implementing the action plan with the cooperation of Member States, we will analyse the effect of national reforms on adult learning, especially in the light of the recently adopted European Qualifications Framework. We will also develop standards for adult learning professionals and quality assurance mechanisms based on existing good practice. We want to encourage Member States to set targets for increasing the skill levels of adults and to speed up the process of assessing and recognising non-formal and informal learning for groups at risk. Last but not least, we will propose a set of core data to improve monitoring of the sector. I look forward to the debate but in particular to continuous support in this direction.


  Jan Andersson, föredragande av yttrande från utskottet för sysselsättning och sociala frågor. − Herr talman, herr kommissionär! Jag vill tacka föredraganden för ett utmärkt betänkande. Det anknyter ju till hela den strategi som vi har inom EU och hela Lissabonprocessen att utbildning är något centralt, inte bara för hur vi ska klara tillväxten och sysselsättningen i framtiden utan också för hur vi ska kunna bekämpa det sociala utanförskapet. För att EU-länderna ska kunna klara sig i den globala konkurrensen spelar utbildning och inte bara fler jobb utan även bättre jobb samt människor med hög kompetens en väldigt stor roll. Därför välkomnar vi detta betänkande.

Jag vill göra ytterligare några kommentarer. Det är viktigt att vi använder alla möjligheter som finns för att möjliggöra utbildning för olika grupper. Ett exempel är barnomsorg. Det måste vara möjligt för både män och kvinnor som är småbarnsföräldrar att kunna delta i utbildning. Därför måste det även finnas en strategi för barnomsorg. Det är viktigt att vi tittar på speciella grupper, t.ex. de äldre. Det finns väldigt få äldre i arbetskraften idag. Det beror till stor del på att de inte får tillgång till vidareutbildning och vuxenutbildning. Vi måste koncentrera oss på den gruppen. En annan grupp är de redan lågutbildade. Tittar vi på utbildningen idag, vidareutbildning och vuxenutbildning ser vi att det är de som redan har hög utbildning som får mest utbildning. Det är viktigt att vi har en jämlikhetsaspekt i utbildningen också. Eftersom min talartid är kort, vill jag slutligen bara påpeka att det är viktigt att ha ett gott samarbete och att arbetsmarknadens parter ingår i denna process.


  Věra Flasarová, Navrhovatelka Výboru pro práva žen a rovnost pohlaví. − Dámy a pánové, oceňuji zprávu kolegyně Pack a blahopřeji jí ke způsobu, jakým téma zpracovala. Chtěla bych zdůraznit potřebu věnovat pozornost vzdělávání žen, sociálně slabších, emigrantů a menšin. Zmíním ještě jeden aspekt vzdělání. Ve světě, ve kterém je většina věcí podřízena financím, obchodu, propagaci zboží, kariéře a soutěži na pracovních trzích, se vzdělání mnohdy jeví jen jako schodiště vedoucí nahoru k lepšímu společenskému uplatnění. Pokud má tento praktický význam a vede k tomu, že je člověk lépe připraven vykonávat práci a držet krok v konkurenčním prostředí, je to dobře. Díky vzdělání se ale stává především vnitřně bohatším a je i lépe připraven rozlišovat dobré a zlé. Společnost prožívá krizi hodnot. Místo tradic a autorit stojí individuální svoboda, o ní jsme usilovali celé moderní dějiny. Je to však zároveň svoboda vědět jako nevědět, svoboda být vidoucí a svoboda zůstávat slepý, svoboda utvářet si vlastní názor a svoboda přijmout názory cizí. Vzdělání samo o sobě nevyřeší problémy člověka, může mu ale pomoci o nich alespoň přemýšlet.


  Pál Schmitt, a PPE-DE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Köszönöm, elnök úr. Tisztelt biztos úr! Az európai demográfia helyzete szükségessé teszi a nyugdíjrendszerek átalakítását, a korhatár emelését, és egyre többet hallunk a szabályozott bevándorlás lehetőségéről, ahelyett hogy a saját 50 évesnél idősebb korosztályban rejlő potenciált használnánk ki.

A jól megszervezett felnőttoktatás lehetővé teszi, hogy a több évtizede dolgozó szakember felfrissítse tudását és adaptálódjon a megváltozott körülményekhez. Másrészt lehetővé teszi azt is, hogy a munkaerőpiacról kiszorult, de nem nyugdíjas korú felnőttek átképzése, nyelvi, számítástechnikai és egyéb szakmai felkészítése révén ezek az emberek újból bekapcsolódhassanak és munkát vállalhassanak. A felnőttoktatásnak e funkciója különösen aktuális a közép-kelet-európai országok térségeiben, ahol a foglalkoztatási mutatók jelentősen elmaradnak az Európai Unió 15-ének átlagától.

A munkaerő-piaci vonatkozások mellett a felnőttképzésnek van egy harmadik, szociális, személyi dimenziója is, mivel az időseknek szervezett internetes nyelvtanfolyamok, vagy akár tánctanfolyamok, vagy főzőtanfolyamok hozzájárulnak az ő életminőségük javulásához, javításához, az idős emberek jókedvéhez.

A hatékony felnőttképzéshez két dolgot tartok kiemelkedően fontosnak: egyrészt a tájékoztatás és hozzáférés javítását, a sikeres projektek bemutatását, a tapasztalatok megosztását az érintettekkel. Ne feledjük, hogy az új tagállamokban az idős emberek elenyésző hányada használja az internetet, az ő elérésükhöz konzervatív, hagyományos módszereket kell alkalmaznunk. Itt kiemelkedő szerep hárul az önkormányzatokra, amelyek részletesen ismerik a helyi viszonyokat és igényeket.

Másrészt fontos feladat az igényfelmérés, vagyis, hogy a tagállamok felnőttoktatási programjai kidolgozásakor egyeztessenek a gazdaság szereplőivel, a vállalkozásokkal, a munkaadókkal. Figyelembe kell venni az adott ország gazdaságának szükségleteit, hogy a felnőttképzésre fordított összeg ne feleslegesen kidobott pénz legyen, hanem kimutatható hasznot hozzon az egyénnek, a társadalomnak és a gazdaságnak egyaránt.

Gratulálok Doris Pack asszonynak a fontos és időszerű jelentéséhez. Köszönöm a figyelmet.


  Maria Badia i Cutchet, en nombre del Grupo PSE. – Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, señoras y señores diputados, en primer lugar quiero felicitar a la ponente, la señora Pack, por un excelente trabajo y también por su espíritu de colaboración respecto a nuestras sugerencias.

Quiero destacar la oportunidad de este informe en un momento en el que la dimensión en los cambios socioeconómicos, la rápida transición hacia una sociedad de la información, la tendencia demográfica asociada al envejecimiento de la población europea, todos estos cambios exigen esfuerzos importantes en el ámbito de la educación y de la formación de las personas adultas y del aprendizaje a lo largo de toda la vida. Son elementos clave para alcanzar lo que llamamos los objetivos de la Estrategia de Lisboa.

Del informe me gustaría destacar la necesidad de fomentar la motivación de las personas para el aprendizaje permanente. Pero pienso que, para ser efectiva, debería ir acompañada de políticas activas que favorezcan sobre todo la conciliación del aprendizaje con la vida familiar y laboral, especialmente necesario en el caso de las mujeres.

Estas medidas deberían concretarse en la concesión de incentivos para acceder a programas de formación y, sobre todo, en la ampliación de servicios públicos de cuidado y educación infantil, de atención a las personas mayores —los dependientes— con el fin de permitir liberar a las familias de estas cargas que, en muchos casos, siguen recayendo sobre las mujeres.

Por otra parte, estoy convencida de la conveniencia de fomentar una cultura del aprendizaje que reconozca el mérito y mejore efectivamente las perspectivas de empleo de personas con bajos niveles de cualificación y que contribuya a fortalecer la inclusión social y el propio desarrollo personal. Este enfoque es particularmente decisivo para los llamados grupos de riesgo.

Igualmente, considero esencial modernizar y flexibilizar los sistemas de educación superior para hacerlos más accesibles a las crecientes y diversas necesidades sociales de la población, al tiempo que se mejora la calidad educativa y se amplía su oferta.

Y por último, quiero mencionar la importancia de ampliar la oferta de formación digital para reducir la brecha digital que también existe en el interior de nuestras sociedades, entre sexos, entre generaciones y entre poblaciones de territorios distintos.

En definitiva, celebro la propuesta de la Comisión y espero que tenga en cuenta las propuestas de este Parlamento con el fin de contribuir conjuntamente a concienciar a los Estados miembros de la necesidad de actuar cuanto antes en este terreno, no sólo para suprimir obstáculos a la participación de las personas adultas en el aprendizaje, sino para incentivarlo, reconocer su valor económico, social, cultural, en el conjunto de países e intercambiar datos nacionales que permitan comparar y medir los progresos que se vayan realizando.


  Jolanta Dičkutė, ALDE frakcijos vardu. – Mokymasis visą gyvenimą įgauna vis svarbesnę reikšmę šiuolaikinės visuomenės gyvenime. Džiaugiuosi, kad suaugusiųjų tęstinio mokymo prasmė ir reikalingumas vis aktyviau nagrinėjamas ir pripažįstamas visose Europos Sąjungos šalyse bei pagrindinėse institucijose. Šiam komunikatui pasiūlymus aktyviai teikė ir Lietuvos suaugusiųjų švietimo srities ekspertai. Vyriausybės programoje yra numatyta savivaldybių švietimo įstaigose plėsti neformaliojo suaugusiųjų švietimo paslaugų pasiūlą, dėti pastangas, kad suaugusiųjų švietimo institucijų pastatai, mokymosi aplinka būtų modernūs ir patrauklūs, o centrai būtų aprūpinami šiuolaikinėmis mokymo priemonėmis. Noriu pabrėžti ir tai, jog norint pasiekti pažangos kokybinių pokyčių suaugusiųjų švietimo srityje reikalingas ir aktyvesnis suaugusiųjų švietėjų bei juos vienijančių organizacijų balsas, į kurį turi įsiklausyti ir palaikyti politikai. Būtina, kad esamos problemos būtų ne tik diskutuojamos, tačiau ir tinkamai sprendžiamos, mat tai nulems kaip artimiausiais metais bus plėtojamas suaugusiųjų švietimas.

Labai aktuali ir opi šiame kontekste problema Lietuvoje – pažeidžiamų visuomenės grupių ir ypač neįgaliųjų integracijos situacija. Taip pat iki šiol neišsprendžiamos suaugusiųjų, auginančių mažamečius vaikus, galimybės mokytis po darbo valandų. Tėvai dažnai tiesiog negali mokytis vien todėl, kad nėra kam palikti ir prižiūrėti mažylius. Lankstumo trūkumas pačioje suaugusiųjų mokymo sistemoje kartais pagal suaugusiųjų mokymo programas mokslus norėtų tęsti vidurinės mokyklos nebaigę, tačiau dar 18 metų nesulaukę, asmenys, tačiau jie to daryti negali nes toks mokymasis leidžiamas tik nuo 18 metų. Žinoma, svarbi problema ir nepakankamas finansavimas. Norėčiau pritarti Lietuvos Respublikos Prezidentui Valdui Adamkui, kuris yra pasakęs, jog vis daugiau žmonių Lietuvoje pradeda suvokti, jog mokymasis nėra vien jaunuomenės pareiga. Mokymasis visą gyvenimą mūsų valstybei, visiems jos žmonėms šiandien tampa iššūkiu, kurį būtina priimti, nes tik atvėrę galimybes ir kelius mokslui, sparčiai kintančiam pasauliui galėsime parodyti, kad Lietuva yra kūrybinga, atvira naujovėms ir nebijanti siekti ambicingų tikslų.


  Mikel Irujo Amezaga, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor Presidente, también quisiera comenzar agradeciendo y felicitando a la señora Pack por el informe ya que, dado su talante, la verdad es que gran parte de las enmiendas presentadas por nuestro Grupo también fueron incorporadas en el mismo. Me gustaría decir que la educación de adultos siempre ha sido una de las mejores formas para lograr el desarrollo económico y social de los pueblos y contribuir a un mejor reparto de la riqueza.

Ahora, en esta cambiante sociedad de la información, en la que hay que estar permanentemente actualizando los conocimientos, la educación básica de las personas adultas, primero, y su formación continua, después, constituye una necesidad de primer orden. Los adultos deben ajustarse al permanente cambio que fuerza la globalización y tomar decisiones para poder sobrevivir manteniendo una calidad de vida adecuada.

Sin embargo, la mayor parte de los sistemas educativos no dan respuesta de forma suficiente a las necesidades de educación que éstos tienen para poder dar adecuada réplica a la sociedad cambiante en la que viven. La educación, a diferencia de otras épocas, no ha de procurar enseñanzas para un mundo conocido, sino para un mundo caracterizado por un cambio permanente que puede dar lugar a situaciones imprevisibles.

Se trata, pues, de prever un sistema de educación que pueda dar respuesta a las necesidades de los adultos en una sociedad en cambio permanente. Se trataría en definitiva de una educación que preparara para la anticipación y la innovación y dejara de ocuparse de una educación para la adaptación.

Nos encontramos en el tránsito de una sociedad industrial a la postindustrial, siendo este tipo de sociedad al que nos dirigimos el que va a constituir el marco de la educación de adultos, y por eso he felicitado a la ponente y quisiera hacerlo también a la comisión, porque considero que el actual informe va en este sentido.


  Thomas Wise, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, lifelong learning is something the UK has always excelled at. Our Open University was the first establishment of its kind in the world, founded in the 1960s and based on a concept dating from the 1920s. Hundreds of thousands of so-called ‘mature students’ have graduated from the Open University, many of them graduates returning to their studies. Therefore I think the UK is fine when it comes to lifelong learning and, with respect, I do not think we need to accept any more interference from this place in education, which is still a national competence.

However, just making it available is never enough for this place. The next step, of course, is compulsion. After all, what is the point of providing something that is not used? But, then, you do have a history in this area of billions of euros and other currencies wasted by EU institutions, and nation states blithely following orders is par for the course.

But bringing this closer to home – specifically to bureaucrats and politicians in this House – it is now obvious to me that no matter how long you live, you simply do not learn! You do not even want to listen. You just carry on with the projects and to hell with anyone who might not agree or have a different point of view. I am reminded of the old saying, attributed to Sun Tzu but famously used by Kennedy: those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent protest inevitable. If you do not learn from your mistakes, you are doomed to repeat them.


  Milan Gaľa (PPE-DE). – Dovoľte mi v prvom rade poďakovať pani Doris Pack za energiu vynaloženú na vypracovanie tejto správy a zároveň chcem poďakovať zástupcom Európskej komisie za iniciatívy, ktoré vedú k zlepšeniu daného stavu.

Ako spravodajca vo Výbore pre kultúru a vzdelávanie k európskemu kvalifikačnému rámcu pokladám otázku celoživotného vzdelávania za veľmi dôležitú, hlavne z dvoch hľadísk. Prvým je zvyšovanie kvalifikácie, zvyšovanie schopnosti zamestnať sa, prekonať nesúlady na trhu práce, ako aj zlepšenie geografickej a profesijnej mobility. Druhým je snaha o celoživotný osobný rozvoj a začleňovanie sa do spoločnosti.

Účasť dospelých na vzdelávaní a odbornej príprave nie je dostatočná. Pozitívne vnímam fakt, že sa budeme orientovať na zlepšenie motivácie občanov k celoživotnému vzdelávaniu. Zásadné je, že v tomto procese budeme brať do úvahy zlepšenie podmienok na zosúladenie pracovného a rodinného života, solidaritu medzi generáciami a kultúrami, jazykové vzdelávanie a zlepšenie kvality a perspektív vzdelávania. Sympatické je uznávanie a validácia neformálneho a informálneho vzdelávania, dôležité je zvyšovanie kvalifikácie nízko vzdelaných pracovníkov, ktorí tvoria jednu tretinu európskej pracovnej sily, čo znamená až 72 miliónov ľudí, a vzdelávanie migrantov.

Ak chceme dosiahnuť do roku 2010 referenčný cieľ 12,5 % účasti dospelých na vzdelávaní, čo znamená zapojenie ďalších 4 miliónov ľudí, bude jednou z podmienok na jeho dosiahnutie prepojenie schém vzdelávania na európskej úrovni s národnými kvalifikačnými rámcami.


  Presidente. − Voglio tranquillizzare l'onorevole Pack ricordando che i ringraziamenti della Presidenza sono una testimonianza doverosa e istituzionale di rispetto per i relatori e le opinioni espresse, anche quando si è lontanissimi dal loro contenuto.


  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – Mr President, ‘a good priest learns until death’ says the Hungarian proverb. In these days not only the priest, but all adults should learn during their adult years. I welcome Ms Pack’s report and the Commission’s Adult Learning Action Plan as well. Of course, it is very sad that only 9.6% of our adult citizens participate in lifelong learning. It is not easy to start learning when you have grown up. The harmonisation of family life, working life and learning is a hard task, but in the longer term both the family and the professional career may benefit from adult learning.

In Europe we have millions of unemployed people and at the same time millions of empty jobs requiring skilled employees. The low level of qualifications implies a high risk of unemployment, but continuous training and learning may help both the person and the economy. I agree with Ms Pack that not only should lifelong learning be promoted, but economic tools are also needed to encourage employers to hire older workers. There is only one solution for the challenge of our ageing society: to respect older workers and provide proper jobs for the older generation as well. Of course, for these we need lifelong learning and also lifelong vocational training.


  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE). – Ştim că rolul educaţiei continue a adulţilor este recunoscut de statele membre ca fiind deosebit de important, contribuind la bunăstarea personală, încrederea în sine, participarea activă a cetăţenilor, integrarea socială şi dialogul intercultural. Cu toate acestea, accesul adulţilor la programele destinate educaţiei continue continuă să rămână limitat, în ciuda ambiţiilor Uniunii Europene ca până în 2010 să se atingă cota de participare de 12,5%.

Iată de ce implementarea şi promovarea de către statele membre a unor programe europene eficiente de educare şi formare a adulţilor, în special a persoanelor vârstnice, a celor cu handicap şi a migranţilor, ar putea avea ca rezultat o mai bună integrare a acestora în societate şi o sporire a mobilităţilor pe piaţa muncii.

Ca membru al Comisiei pentru educaţie şi cultură sunt de părere că dezvoltarea unor programe de voluntariat privind solidaritatea între generaţii, implicarea statelor, a întreprinderilor private şi a indivizilor reprezintă puncte cheie în confruntarea cu noile provocări legate de schimbările demografice, de sărăcie şi excludere socială.

În baza drepturilor omului la alfabetizare, educaţie, ca şi a obligaţiilor statelor membre de a garanta o pregătire de calitate a adulţilor, consider, domnule preşedinte, că şi noi suntem responsabili de elaborarea unor instrumente durabile, care să permită finanţarea şi susţinerea educaţiei şi formării pe toată durata vieţii.


  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, if the Commissioner were to ask people where they learn, they would tell him where they went to school. But most of the learning we do is outside this experience of formal education.

The challenge in lifelong learning is not only to offer opportunities to adults to gain new and more qualifications, but also to find a way to recognise and capitalise on the very valuable learning many adults have gained informally through life and work experience. A constituent of mine has pioneered the successful handling of some of the most difficult fish varieties and also the environmentally friendly fish-farming techniques that they require. He has no college degree, so when the Commission gives grants in this field, they do not go to him. Instead, the grants go to academics with no experience, who then come to him to find out how he does what he does. He is tired of this rip-off, and the fishing industry will be the poorer for this.

I urge the Commissioner to look at this as there has to be a better way.


  Tomáš Zatloukal (PPE-DE). – Vážený pane předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, největšími překážkami, které omezují zapojení dospělých do systému vzdělávání, je nedostatek času z pracovních nebo rodinných důvodů. Dalším negativním faktorem je nedostatečná informovanost a nedostatek motivace, protože převažuje přesvědčení, že vzdělání v pozdějším věku není dostatečně oceňováno a odměňováno. Důležitou roli ve vzdělávání dospělých hraje účinnost a spravedlnost této formy vzdělávání. Vzdělávací systémy členských zemí Evropské unie jsou zaměřeny zejména na vzdělávání a odbornou přípravu mladých lidí. Byl učiněn jen malý pokrok, který by tuto situaci významně změnil. Společnou snahou proto musí být optimální využití nejrůznějších poskytovatelů vzdělávání pro systém vzdělávání dospělých. Našim úkolem je zajistit přístup k dobrým a včasným informacím o možnostech vzdělávání pro dospělé, zohlednit vstupní požadavky na jejich vzdělávání, náklady, ale také jakou budou mít povahu výsledky takového vzdělávání.

Souhlasím s názorem zpravodajky, že členské země musí zavést kvalitní poradenské systémy, cílené finanční pobídky jednotlivců, podporovat budování místních partnerství. Současně je nezbytné zavést systém uznávání a ověřování výsledků vzdělávání v kontextu národních kvalifikací a s ohledem na evropský rámec kvalifikací. Přínosy investic do vzdělávání dospělých jsou potvrzeny i výzkumem OECD. Veřejné a soukromé benefity zahrnují vyšší zaměstnatelnost, zvýšenou produktivitu práce, nižší výdaje na podpory v nezaměstnanosti, sociální dávky a předčasné důchody. Tato zpráva nás vyzývá přetavit deklarované politické priority v oblasti vzdělávání dospělých do konkrétních kroků. Blahopřeji naší zpravodajce.


  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – Kallid kolleegid! 2004. aasta laienemine kergitas Euroopa Liidu majanduskasvu määral, mis viis õigustamatu kindlustunde tekkeni. Kuid täna tekitab majanduse jahtumine sotsiaalseid pingeid juba ka uutes liikmesriikides.

Räägin minu kodumaad Eestit hetkel lõhestavast töölepinguseaduse eelnõust. Koondamisi ette aimates katsuvad Eesti ettevõtjad töökohtade kadumise sotsiaalsed tagajärjed eeskätt koondatavate kanda jätta. Ehk nõrgemat poolt – töö kaotanud töövõtjat – veel kord ei tea mille eest karistada.

Tõhusate sammude puudumisel taanduvad nii turvaline paindlikkus kui elukestev õpe pelkadeks sõnakõlksudeks, mille varjus ühiskonna nõrgemad vajalikust toest ilma jäävad. Pensioniea nihkudes vastavalt keskmise eluea kasvule, on 45-aastasel töötajal läbitud vähem kui pool karjäärist. See tähendab uusi algusi keskeas.

Kuid ikka veel on ealine ja sooline diskrimineerimine vaieldamatu tõsiasi töökohtadel kogu maailmas, ka Euroopa Liidus. Laste sünnitamine järjest küpsemas eas tähendab, et naistel on kahekordselt raske naasta tööturule.

Elukestva õppe programm on võimalus vähemalt mingil määral korvata praegu valitsevat ebaõiglust. Tööandjaid tuleb igal võimalikul moel julgustada elukogenud inimestesse investeerima. Tööandjaid tuleb veenda, et teadmised ja oskused, mis on saadud muul elualal, olgu selleks kasvõi kodumajandus, on ülimalt väärtuslikud.

Ma tahan veel kord rõhutada, et elukestva õppe süsteem ainult täiendab sotsiaalseid tagatisi, mitte ei asenda neid. Kui kogenud ka autojuht ei oleks, turvavöö tuleb tal ikka kinnitada.

Tänan ja õnnitlen raportööri hea töö eest. Aitäh, Doris Pack!


  Ljudmila Novak (PPE-DE). – Človek je najbolj prilagodljivo bitje, zato so mnogi odrasli že sprejeli dejstvo, da se je potrebno v zrelih letih in tudi v starosti učiti. V prihodnosti bodo zagotovo imeli takšni ljudje, ki se nikoli niso nehali učiti, prednost v prilagajanju na hitre spremembe, s katerimi se vsak dan srečujemo.

Tudi za boljše počutje starejših je pomembno, da lahko še naprej s svojim znanjem in izkušnjami sooblikujejo družbo. Ob tem čutijo zadovoljstvo, da so koristni in družbi potrebni. Zaradi staranja prebivalstva bo potrebno oblikovati tudi nove poklice, ki jih bomo za to potrebovali in za katere bodo prav starejše osebe najbolj primerne.

Neka moja prijateljica, ki ima deset otrok in nobene stare mame, da bi ji pomagala pri vzgoji, mi je rekla: "Ali veš, kje bi lahko kupila eno babico za moje otroke?" Večkrat pa se spomnim zgodbe, ko je zdravnik prosil upokojeno učiteljico, naj v bolnišnici uči hudo opečenega dečka, ki najbrž ne bo preživel. Zaradi vztrajnosti in potrpežljivosti ter izkušenj učiteljice se je deček začel odzivati na njena vprašanja. Začel je verjeti v življenje. Zakaj bi mu zdravniki poslali učiteljico, ki se z njim tako trudi, če ne bi tudi oni verjeli, da bo preživel? Znanje starejše osebe je rešilo mlado življenje.

Mladi ljudje imajo veliko sposobnosti in prednosti pri učenju, ki pa jih včasih ne izkoristijo v celoti, starejši pa morajo dobiti voljo in vzpodbudo, da za učenje ni nikoli prepozno in da še lahko nadoknadijo tisto, za kar morda v mladosti ni bilo časa in sredstev. Učiti se pomeni uživati življenje v polnejši meri.


  Rolf Berend (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Dass allgemeine und berufliche Bildung sich nicht mehr nur auf die Schule und die unmittelbaren Jahre danach beschränken kann, sondern über das gesamte Arbeitsleben hinweg aktualisiert und ausgeweitet werden muss, braucht in unserem Jahrhundert sicherlich keine Überzeugungsanstrengungen. Der demographische Wandel zum Beispiel spricht hier für sich.

Der ausgezeichnete Bericht der Kollegin Pack schlägt in diesem Zusammenhang ein positives Konglomerat von Anregungen vor und spricht in diesem Zusammenhang ganz gelungen von der Herbeiführung einer Lernkultur, insbesondere für Erwachsene. So nennt sie eine Reihe von Maßnahmen, die auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen getroffen werden sollten. Natürlich ist das vorrangig eine Aufgabe der Mitgliedstaaten. Daher können wir seitens der EU auch nicht verordnen, sondern müssen vielmehr Anregungen geben, die Mitgliedstaaten ersuchen, ermutigen, auffordern, im Bereich der Erwachsenenbildung Angebote zu unterbreiten, um mehr Menschen für diese zu gewinnen.

Ich bin wie die Berichterstatterin davon überzeugt – das sage ich jetzt als stellvertretender Vorsitzender des Regionalausschusses –, dass sich viele Mitgliedstaaten diesbezüglich der Bedeutung und Verwendung des Europäischen Sozialfonds und anderer Strukturfonds für die Erreichung dieses Ziels des lebenslangen Lernens nicht voll bewusst sind. Sie sollten die Strukturfonds dahingehend überwachen und auch sicherstellen, dass mehr Mittel für diejenigen bereitgestellt werden, die am meisten Bedarf an lebenslangem Lernen haben. Kurzum, der Bericht fordert klar eine aktive Nutzung auch des Europäischen Sozialfonds durch die Mitgliedstaaten und von der Kommission eine Verstärkung spezifischer Programme in diesem Bereich.


  Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono veramente felice di prendere la parola questa sera in un'Aula che, debbo dire, è abbastanza frequentata.

Per questo documento sull'educazione degli adulti "non è mai troppo tardi per apprendere" che così intelligentemente e con grande capacità come tutti conosciamo, l'onorevole Doris Pack ci ha oggi presentato. Mi fa piacere di avere i rappresentanti della Commissione, il Commissario Figel', che è tra i più attivi e il più entusiasta nello svolgere la propria attività, perché c'è veramente bisogno di impegno, perché questo soggetto – cioè l'insegnamento e l'apprendimento delle persone non più giovani o lavoratori o anziani – è qualcosa che può veramente avvicinare i cittadini all'Europa.

Voglio dire qualcosa riguardo ad una categoria di persone adulte che possono beneficiare di questo apprendimento: è perché ci sono gli adulti di primo grado, gli adulti di secondo grado, gli adulti di terzo grado. Io intendo per adulti di terzo grado coloro che hanno terminato l'attività lavorativa, cominciano la pensione e possono finalmente dedicarsi a studiare quella materia che hanno sempre desiderato, ma non hanno mai potuto studiare e approfondire. Io, ad esempio, studierei l'astronomia, qualcun altro la fisica, qualcuno la geografia.

Ecco, io credo che è bello e importante che l'Europa agevoli il passaggio dall'attività e dall'età lavorativa all'età non più lavorativa, in cui però si ha egualmente il diritto di imparare, di apprendere e di formarsi. Per questo io sono molto contento di questa relazione e di questa attività del Parlamento europeo per l'apprendimento anche delle persone anziane.


  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – Dámy a pánové, středobodem strategie pro boj s nezaměstnaností je vybavit zaměstnance schopnostmi pro vyšší adaptabilitu na trhu práce díky celoživotnímu odbornému vzdělávání. Cílem bylo, aby se do roku 2010 takových programů účastnilo nejméně 12 % lidí. Již víme, že cíl nebude splněn. Chci zde však upozornit, že jsou země, např. Holandsko či Rakousko, kde lisabonského cíle již dosáhli, a to díky výrazným pobídkám, jako je dělení nákladů časových i finančních mezi zaměstnance, podnik a stát. Také dánská zkušenost je cenná. Rozvoj kvalifikací tam umožnilo střídání pracovníků. Mezitím, kdy se zaměstnanec školí, na jeho místo nastupuje ten, kdo je v té době nezaměstnaný. Tyto i jiné země jsou dokladem, že to funguje, že pružnost pracovního trhu je cesta k inovacím, která vytváří nová pracovní místa. Výsledkem je nejnižší dlouhodobá nezaměstnanost, Dánsko má jen 0,8 %. Chci věřit, že i v nových zemích se situace zásadně změní díky příkladům a obrovským pobídkám, ty umožňuje Evropský sociální fond. Vítám sdělení Komise i zprávu paní Pack.


  Mihaela Popa (PPE-DE). – Într-adevăr, niciodată nu e prea târziu să înveţi. Doresc să o felicit pe doamna raportor pentru realizarea acestui raport pe o temă esenţială la nivel european şi nu numai. Din păcate, pentru mulţi cetăţeni încă mai primează conceptul învechit potrivit căruia educaţia se realizează doar în prima perioadă a vieţii omului.

Trebuie să încurajăm accesarea fondurilor europene disponibile pentru educaţia adulţilor, cu precădere în statele care au aderat recent la Uniunea Europeană. În aceste state, gradul de absorbţie a fondurilor este destul de scăzut, iar numărul persoanelor implicate în programe de reconversie profesională şi educaţie continuă este foarte mic.

Consider că este esenţială schimbarea mentalităţii tinerilor aflaţi încă în procesul educativ iniţial, pentru a-i pregăti pentru o Europă în mişcare. Trebuie să le inducem, prin noi programe dezvoltate la nivel european, ideea că formarea lor nu se termină odată cu obţinerea primei calificări. Este importantă conştientizarea faptului că, în orice moment, oricine poate dobândi noi aptitudini şi competenţe, indiferent de vârstă, etnie, gen, regiune geografică. Ţinând cont de acestea, reiese un percept fundamental, şi anume că trebuie să fim capabili să învăţăm.


  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – Vážení kolegovia, veľmi rýchle zmeny v štruktúre pracovného trhu si vyžadujú vysoko kvalifikovaných ľudí. Ľudia s nízkou kvalifikáciou ostávajú na okraji sociálneho a ekonomického pokroku.

Tvorivosť a inovačná schopnosť sú kľúčovými faktormi modernej doby. Čím je človek vynaliezavejší, tým je tvorivejším zdrojom pre ekonomiku. Ekonomiky, ktorým sa dobre darí, sú ekonomiky, ktoré investovali do ľudí, čiže do vzdelania, do základnej technologickej a jazykovej schopnosti pracovnej sily. Dôležité je celoživotným vzdelávaním prebudiť schopnosti, ktoré driemu v osobnosti človeka každého veku a čakajú na svoje uplatnenie.

Verím, že táto úžasná správa pani spravodajkyne Doris Pack – Na vzdelávanie sa nikdy nie je neskoro – nezostane iba pri slovách, ale dokážeme ju premeniť aj na činy. Pán komisár Figeľ, ďakujem Vám za Vašu osobnú zaangažovanosť v oblasti celoživotného vzdelávania.


  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – Cu siguranţă mă alătur şi eu celorlalţi colegi pentru a o felicita pe doamna Doris Pack în calitatea dumneaei de raportor. Subiectul este foarte important pentru Europa de astăzi şi mai ales pentru Europa de mâine.

Dezvoltarea unei societăţi, dar şi coeziunea socială, sunt indisolubil legate de educaţie, iar când vorbim de educaţie nu trebuie să ne referim strict la educaţia formală, ci trebuie să recunoaştem şi să încurajăm educaţia non-formală şi informală, puternic focalizate pe dezvoltarea individului.

Eu aş vrea să atrag atenţia asupra importanţei educaţiei emigranţilor. Cred că deja realitatea ne-a arătat că avem nevoie de educaţia emigranţilor pentru integrarea socială a acestora, de educaţia pentru toleranţă, pentru a construi solidaritatea, şi de educaţia pentru performanţă, pentru dezvoltarea Europei.


  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Gratuluję sprawozdawczyni – pani Pack – i również panu komisarzowi, który świetnie wykonuje swoją funkcję, także przy działaniu na rzecz Europejskiego Instytutu Technologicznego, ale dzisiaj mówimy o czymś innym. Ja chciałem zwrócić uwagę na jedną sprawę.

Na początku XX w. Europa zwalczała analfabetyzm, w drugiej połowie XX w. wszyscy Europejczycy potrafili pisać i czytać. Współczesnym analfabetyzmem jest brak umiejętności posługiwania się komputerem i brak dostępu do Internetu. Proponowałbym, aby jeszcze większy nacisk położyć na te sprawy.

Przepaść cyfrowa dotyczy także przepaści pokoleniowej. Chodzi o to, abyśmy wiedzieli za ile lat – za pięć czy za dziesięć – każdy Europejczyk będzie umiał posługiwać się komputerem, niezależnie od wieku, i będzie miał dostęp do Internetu. Mogą temu służyć np. wioski internetowe w bardzo odległych regionach Europy, gdzie w jednej sali można skupić kilka komputerów, z których korzystać będzie mógł każdy mieszkaniec tej miejscowości. To jest wyzwanie na XXI wiek.


  Ján Figeľ, člen Komisie. − Som presvedčený, že mnohé z tých príspevkov, ktoré odzneli, sú naozaj povzbudením pre angažovanosť v smere vzdelávania dospelých.

V tej línii alebo v tej filozofii, ako sme to aj naznačili, nikdy nie je neskoro učiť sa a druhý dokument hovorí o tom, že vždy je dobrý dôvod alebo dobrý čas učiť sa. Preto by som skôr povedal, že samotná správa Doris Pack, ale aj viaceré podnety, ktoré tu zazneli, vnímam ako komplement alebo doplnok k tomu, čo samotná Komisia navrhovala, a preto je to veľmi cenné a vítané. Hlavne by som spomenul niektoré z konkrétnych opatrení, lebo napomáhajú a vylepšujú to, čo je dôležité v celkovom prístupe: motivácia pre participáciu na vzdelávanie dospelých; potreba lepšieho zmierenia alebo zblíženia medzi pracovným časom a rodinným životom a celoživotným vzdelávaním; potreba medzigeneračnej a medzikultúrnej solidarity; dôležitosť jazykovej prípravy alebo vyučovania; rešpektovanie osobitných, špecifických potrieb ohrozených skupín a dôležitosť kvality učiteľov – o tom sme už diskutovali nedávno a je to jeden rozhodujúci faktor pre výsledky v štúdiu; lepší prístup k vyššiemu vzdelávaniu a vytvorenie porovnateľných štatistických údajov alebo informácií.

Komisia sa bude zaoberať aj tým, čo naznačujete vo výzve pre zhodnotenie perspektívy zamestnanosti vo vzdelávaní dospelých a takisto pri téme financovania vzdelávania dospelých, pretože sú to veľmi náročné otázky, a pritom sú, samozrejme, kompetenciou členských štátov.

Ak môžem zakončiť, tak jedným z takých výstupov nielen tejto správy, ale aj samotných dokumentov Komisie bude diskusia členských štátov a závery Rady ministrov v nasledujúcom mesiaci februári. Verím, že budú konkrétne a vážne pre dostupnosť a kvalitu vzdelávania dospelých. Ak môžem len jednu myšlienku na záver – nielen ocenenie a poďakovanie, ale aj to, čo zaznievalo ako ocenenie oduševnenia – ako komisár, ako politik i ako otec som presvedčený, že vzdelanie, to znamená dostupnosť a kvalita vzdelania, je rozhodujúcim faktorom pre politický, ekonomický, sociálny, kultúrny vývoj jednotlivcov aj spoločnosti, no a po druhé, že vzdelávanie je najdôležitejší ekvalizér, t. j. vyrovnávač toho, čo potrebujeme pre rovnosť všetkých. Ďakujem pekne a teším sa na spoluprácu.


  Doris Pack, Berichterstatterin. − Herr Präsident, lieber Herr Kommissar! Zunächst einmal danke ich allen Kolleginnen für die Blumen, die sie mir überreicht haben. Ich gebe gerne einige ab aus diesem Bouquet an Jan Figeľ. Nachdem ich seit 1993 für Erwachsenenbildung werbe, haben wir nach dem ersten Erfolg mit dem Grundvig-Programm nun den großen Erfolg, dass in allen Politikbereichen die Erwachsenenbildung als wichtig angesehen wird.

Es ist mir ein besonderes Anliegen, dass alle Anreize, die nur möglich sind, geschaffen werden, um Menschen zu motivieren, die Bildung im Erwachsenenalter aufzunehmen. Viele hatten nie die Chance, viele müssen dazu motiviert werden. Man muss ihnen auch die Scheu nehmen, die Barrieren wegräumen, damit man dort teilnehmen kann. Deswegen glaube ich auch, dass die vielen Volkshochschulen, Stiftungen und Wohlfahrtsverbände, die sich in dieser Arbeit ja heute schon hervortun, Unterstützung genießen sollen, und dass das hohe Niveau – meinethalben kann es auch noch höher werden – in diesen Bereichen gehalten werden muss. Wie ich vorhin schon gesagt habe, müssen wir dafür sorgen, dass die Qualität der Erwachsenenbildung noch besser wird.

Ich freue mich, dass ich gehört habe, dass jetzt schon eine Arbeitsgruppe gebildet wurde im Bereich Ihrer Kommission, Herr Figeľ. Ich freue mich, dass dies vielleicht auch mit Grundvig verknüpft werden kann, und wir so etwas wie eine Initialzündung für die nationalen Regierungen auslösen können.

Also fangen wir damit an. Es müssen jetzt wirklich den vielen schönen Worten Taten folgen, und wir müssen einfach das alte deutsche Sprichwort widerlegen: „Was Hänschen nicht lernt, lernt Hans nimmermehr“. Das ist so falsch, wie etwas nur falsch sein kann, und deswegen hoffe ich, dass wir mit unserer und mit Ihrer Hilfe jetzt versuchen können, die nationalen Regierungen auf das Pferd zu setzen, damit sie anfangen zu traben. Mit dem Galopp wird es noch ein bisschen dauern.


  Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 16 gennaio 2008, alle 12.00.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 142)


  Edit Herczog (PSE), írásban. – Szeretnék gratulálni a jelentéstevő és a szakbizottságok eredményes és kiemelkedően szociális hangvételű munkájához. Ugyanakkor sajnálattal tapasztaltam, hogy mindössze egyetlen utalás erejéig jelenik meg benne az információs és kommunikációs készségek fejlesztésének kérdése. Gondoljunk csak bele, hogy az elmúlt években hány olyan jogszabályt alkottunk, amely új jogokat ismer el az európai polgárok számára, és ezek közül hány esetben írtuk elő, hogy a munkavállaló, a fogyasztó, a nyugdíjas vagy éppen a turista interneten kapja meg a vonatkozó tájékoztatást, eljárási lehetőséget.

Mindezeknek akkor van értelmük, ha a kedvezményezettek hozzá is férnek az információhoz. Az „e-képességek” fejlesztése az életen át tartó tanulásban és az általános alapoktatásban is létfontosságúvá válik, mint az információs és tudásalapú társadalom alapköve. A tagállamok számára is kulcsfontosságú feladat a digitális esélyegyenlőség és az elektronikus befogadás elősegítése. Nagyon örülök annak, hogy ha sok másban nem is, de ebben például minden magyar párt egyetért.

A modern információs és kommunikációs technológiák önmagukban a történelem során példátlan lehetőséget nyújtanak a kohézió és az esélyegyenlőség tényleges előmozdítására, de ezzel a lehetőséggel csakis akkor élhetünk, ha mindenkinek biztosítjuk a beilleszkedés feltételeit, egész életükön át, így az „e-képességekre” is szükségszerűen igaz a Bizottság közleményének a címe: „Tanulni sohasem késő”. Köszönöm a figyelmet.


19. Miżuri li jużaw applikazzjonijiet ta' remote-sensing żviluppati fi ħdan il-qafas tal-PAK (dibattitu)

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, a nome della commissione per l'agricoltura e lo sviluppo rurale, sulla proposta di regolamento del Consiglio relativo alle relazioni che la Commissione dovrà intraprendere per il periodo 2008-2013 mediante applicazione di telerilevamento messe a punto nel quadro della politica agricola comune (COM(2007)0383 - C6-0273/2007 - 2007/0132(CNS)) (A6-0508/2007).


  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, before going into the content of the report, I first of all want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, for the work that they have been doing on the evaluation of the Commission’s proposal.

I would first like to make a few more general remarks to place the Commission’s proposal in the right context. The Commission’s proposal concerns the agro-meteorological system utilised to prepare the crop yields forecast and to monitor the development of crops within the European Union. This system was developed throughout the 1990s and has been fully operational since 1998. I must say that I consider this to be a very useful tool.

This system provides the Commission’s services with accurate information on the situation in the crop sector and also assists the Commission in taking timely decisions in the framework of the common agricultural policy, and therefore I find that it is quite natural that it is financed by the guidance funding.

Let me say the following on some of the proposals in the Committee on Agriculture report. You have concerns about the use of the data that are collected. I want to be very clear on this. Control is not the aim of this system and it cannot and will not be used for any control of farmers within the European Union.

When we look at it from a technical point of view, the resolution of the remote-sensing images generated by the system is far too low to allow any controls, and this system – it must be clear as well – has nothing to do with our Integrated Administration and Control (IACS) System.

The rapporteur also states that there is no consensus that the proposed system actually works. Work to develop the system started in the late 1980s and, as I said, since 1998, when it became operational, the system has actually provided yield forecasts on a regular basis to the Commission services. We use this information on a daily basis, for example in our analysis of supply and price developments within the cereal sector.

Last year, in September 2007, the Commission provided an assessment of the system in a report to the European Parliament and to the Council that actually demonstrated the usefulness of the system. The system is also implemented at national level in several Member States, and other countries are using or developing similar tools, so on this point I am not totally in line with you.

Finally, I welcome the principle of setting up an inventory of projects and initiatives in the field of space and remote-sensing. However, this proposal is not the right place for this. This would indeed fall under the European initiative of Global Monitoring for Environment and Security. So we are not exactly on the same page, but I look forward to listening to the comments of the Honourable Members.


  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Berichterstatter. − Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Wir haben im Koordinationsausschuss des Agrarausschusses überlegt: Machen wir zu dieser Angelegenheit einen Bericht oder lassen wir es ohne Bericht durchlaufen? Ich hatte die Aufgabe, das noch einmal zu durchleuchten, und wir sind dann zu dem Ergebnis gekommen, doch einen Bericht zu machen, was auch dazu führt, dass wir beide uns heute Abend wieder unterhalten können, was auch einen Wert an sich hat.

Aber es sind uns einige Punkte aufgestoßen, die wir dann auch in den Änderungsanträgen niedergeschrieben haben. Erstens wurde im Bericht der Kommission gesagt, dass das ziemlich unstrittig sei, auch im Rat. Nach unseren Erkundungen gibt es aber einige Länder, vor allem im Norden Europas, die mit diesen Satellitendaten wenig anfangen können, weil dann, wenn sie aufgenommen werden, noch alles mit Schnee bedeckt ist.

Zweitens werden die Daten von privaten Unternehmen gesammelt, die der Kommission die Daten zur Verfügung stellen, und diese privaten Unternehmen sind im Wesentlichen für Kunden tätig, die aus dem Gas- und Ölgeschäft kommen, also einem Geschäft, das bis in die Spekulation geht. Wofür wir Sorge tragen und wofür wir das Parlament als Kontrollinstanz in Ansatz bringen wollen, ist, dass mit diesen gesammelten Daten tatsächlich keine spekulativen privaten Ambitionen verbunden sind, sondern dass sie tatsächlich nur – wie Sie sagen – für die Erntevorausschätzungen und Ertragsvorausschätzungen gebraucht werden. Aber Sie wissen auch, dass an den Börsen mit Warentermingeschäften heute genau damit spekuliert wird, und diese Vorausschau könnte dafür gebraucht werden.

Ich will das gemeinsame Interesse von Kommission und Parlament gerne vorausschicken und unterstreichen, aber das Parlament hat hier eine Kontrollaufgabe, und deswegen ist es sinnvoll, dass wir das hier zur Sprache bringen und dass wir von der Kommission Berichte fordern, in denen deutlich wird, was mit diesen Daten passiert ist, wie sie aufgenommen werden und welchen Nutzen sie haben. Im Wesentlichen geht es darum, von Ihnen in den nächsten Jahren Rechenschaft zu fordern.

Dann waren wir natürlich etwas verblüfft, dass jetzt bei der Fortsetzung dieser Datensammlung plötzlich die Finanzgrundlage geändert werden sollte. Bislang hatten wir im Haushalt eine eigene Linie, bei der um die Erhöhung oder die Beibehaltung der Mittelansätze jeweils diskutiert werden musste. Jetzt sollen diese Tätigkeiten in den Garantiefonds übertragen werden, d. h. in einen Fonds, wo die Möglichkeit der Kontrolle durch das Parlament nicht mehr so stark gegeben ist. Nun können wir davon ausgehen, dass der Garantiefonds, wenn der Vertrag in Kraft ist, Anfang 2009, nicht mehr existiert, dass wir also auch diese Bereiche voll in die Haushaltshoheit des Parlaments nehmen werden. Aber immerhin wurde dieser Ansatz vorgeschlagen, und als wir den Bericht übernommen haben, war noch nicht klar, wann der Vertrag kommen wird. Also haben wir gesagt: Nein, wir wollen das jetzt gar nicht mehr umändern, es soll so bleiben, wie es war, nämlich in einer Haushaltslinie, die dann vom Parlament, was die Ausgaben betrifft, auch kontrolliert werden kann.

Insgesamt, Frau Kommissarin, glaube ich, dass wir zur Zeit sicherlich wichtigere Probleme zu besprechen und zu entscheiden haben, die den health check angehen, als das, was wir heute Abend hier zu verhandeln haben. Aber die Bäuerinnen und Bauern sind sehr empfindlich, wenn es darum geht, ob sie ausspioniert werden. Sie haben deutlich gemacht, es geht hier nicht um Kontrollen, es geht nicht um Ausspionieren. Das will ich auch gerne so weitergeben, aber Sie müssen uns verstehen. Als Parlament müssen wir auch Sorge dafür tragen. Wir haben das besprochen, wir haben darauf hingewiesen, um unseren Wählerinnen und Wählern Rechenschaft geben zu können.


  Esther Herranz García, en nombre del Grupo PPE-DE. – Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, buenas noches, y una noche más hablando de agricultura. Tal y como señala en su informe la comisión, la teledetección ha demostrado en los últimos años la capacidad para atender correctamente las necesidades de gestión de la política agrícola común. Porque los sistemas clásicos de estadísticas y previsiones agrícolas están empezando a quedarse obsoletos frente a esa nueva tecnología que nos invade en todos los aspectos de nuestra vida.

También ha permitido aumentar la precisión, la objetividad, la rapidez y la frecuencia de las observaciones, además de procurar un ahorro en los gastos de seguimiento y control de los gastos agrícolas. Bienvenida sea, por tanto, la teledetección en la política agrícola común.

El proyecto de informe que será sometido mañana a votación da la razón en términos generales a la Comisión Europea, salvo en un punto que considero importante, como es el relativo a la financiación de esta medida. Ya en la propia Comisión de Agricultura apoyé la propuesta del ponente para crear un presupuesto específico para la teledetección de 9,2 millones de euros fuera del Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Garantía, para así garantizar en el futuro apoyo comunitario al desarrollo de la teledetección en todos los Estados miembros.

Me congratulo, por tanto, del resultado de la votación en la Comisión de Agricultura, cuyo informe recoge, además, la necesidad de utilizar el sitio informático del Centro Común de Investigación en Ispra para recopilar los datos espaciales, en vez de la idea de crear una nueva infraestructura informática como propone la Comisión Europea.

Racionalicemos, por tanto, tanto las infraestructuras como el presupuesto financiero y, por tanto, apoyemos desde la Cámara el texto que será sometido mañana a votación.




  Lily Jacobs, namens de PSE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, de techniek staat voor niets. Voor ons ligt een voorstel van de Europese Commissie ter verlenging van het programma dat gebruik maakt van de meest moderne technologieën om onze Europese landbouw te monitoren. Na jarenlang onderzoek kunnen de betrokken wetenschappers zich met recht op de borst kloppen.

Met behulp van satellieten kunnen onder meer gebruik en conditie van de bodem in de gaten worden gehouden, de gevolgen van de klimaatverandering onderzocht en zelfs een voorspelling worden gedaan van onze oogsten. Zo kunnen we een vinger aan de pols houden en tijdig problemen, zoals de mislukte graanoogst van dit jaar, voorspellen en bijsturen.

Voorzitter, ik ben van huis uit ingenieur en van dit soort praktische toepassingen van hoogstaande technologie ten behoeve van ons welzijn gaat mijn hart sneller kloppen. Een TomTom-systeem voor de landbouw. Wie had dat ooit gedacht? Nu ligt voor ons de vraag of wij als Parlement instemmen met de voortzetting van het onderzoek naar en het gebruik van deze toepassing. Hoe zouden we daarop ontkennend kunnen antwoorden?

Ik geef mijn collega's van de Socialistische Fractie het advies om vóór deze richtlijn te stemmen, maar ik wil wel graag een paar kanttekeningen meegeven aan de commissaris die ons hier op dit late tijdstip vergezelt.

Ten eerste heb ik mijn twijfels bij het opnemen van het budget en het programma in het Landbouwgarantiefonds. Tot nu toe had dit project een eigen begrotingslijn dankzij welke het Parlement een vinger aan de pols kon houden en ook regelmatig werd geïnformeerd. Ondanks het bewezen nut van het programma duurt het onderzoek nog steeds voort. Ik zou het bijzonder jammer vinden als de Commissie niet meer aan ons zou rapporteren over de vorderingen en de resultaten van dit programma, evenals over het kostenplaatje. Als volksvertegenwoordiger en als geïnteresseerde zou ik erop aan willen dringen de aparte begrotingslijn te behouden om zo ook in de toekomst op de hoogte te worden gehouden en mee te kunnen denken.

Ten tweede zou ik graag zien dat alle onderzoeksresultaten vrij en op toegankelijke wijze ter beschikking worden gesteld aan andere belanghebbenden, zoals universiteiten en onderzoeksinstituten. Vooral op het gebied van klimaatonderzoek kunnen de gegevens die dankzij MARS en LUCAS op tafel komen van enorm nut zijn.

Voorzitter, commissaris, met deze oproep tot transparantie op meerdere niveaus wil ik mijn maiden speach in deze plenaire zaal graag afsluiten. Ik hoop op een positieve reactie van mevrouw Fischer Boel.


  Samuli Pohjamo, ALDE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, haluan ensiksi kiittää esittelijä Graefe zu Baringdorfia hyvästä asian valmistelusta. Hän on tehnyt paljon työtä ja tuonut esille myös kaukokartoitustoimintaan liittyvät puutteet ja ongelmat.

Varovainen lähestymistapa, avoimuuden korostaminen ja soveltamisalan tarkka määrittäminen on paikallaan. Parhaimmillaan kaukokartoituksella saadaan nopeasti tietoa viljelmien tilasta, sadon määrästä ja kasvuolosuhteista. Näitä tietoja voidaan sitten käyttää mm. tutkimustoiminnassa, maatalouden markkinoinnin suunnittelussa ja yhteisen maatalouspolitiikan hallinnoinnissa.

Menetelmiin liittyy kuitenkin vielä monia puutteita kuten esittelijä huomauttaa. Olosuhteet vaihtelevat jäsenvaltioissa eivätkä jäsenvaltioiden tiedot ole täysin vertailukelpoisia. Esimerkiksi kotimaassani Suomessa lumen peitossa olevat viljelylohkot ovat usein niin pieniä, että pinta-alueiden määrittäminen satelliittikuvilta ei aina onnistu. Tämän vuoksi tarkistus jonka mukaan saatuja tietoja käytetään yksinomaan tuoton arviointiin eikä valvontaan, on paikallaan.

Viljelijöitä rasittaa tänä päivänä monimutkainen paperisota, alituinen raportointi ja jatkuva valvonta. Puutteellisesta neuvonnasta johtuvista tahattomista virheistä seuraa vielä kohtuuttoman kovia sanktioita. Kaukokartoitusmenetelmien kehittyessä olisi toivottavaa, että ne vähentäisivät viljelijöitä ahdistavaa byrokratiaa.

Ensiksi on kuitenkin saatava tarkempia tutkimustuloksia siitä, että menetelmät ovat todella luotettavia ja että ne kohtelevat kaikkia viljelijöitä tasapuolisesti. Uusia menetelmiä käyttöönotettaessa on myös varmistettava viljelijöiden yksityisyyden suoja ja koko prosessin avoimuus.


  Bogdan Golik (PSE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Aby prowadzić wspólną politykę rolną w sposób odpowiedzialny, potrzebujemy przede wszystkim dokładnych, rzetelnych danych.

Techniki teledetekcyjne umożliwiają między innymi monitorowanie upraw czy prognozowanie plonów. Ich znaczenie dodatkowo wzrasta w kontekście postępujących zmian klimatycznych. Dzięki teledetekcji możemy wcześniej zidentyfikować warunki niekorzystne dla rozwoju roślin, a przez to lepiej i szybciej przewidzieć obszary zagrożone suszą. Techniki te dostarczają danych do modeli ekonometrycznych, które często wykorzystujemy, badając skutki wprowadzenia zmian do funkcjonowania wspólnej polityki rolnej. Dzięki dokładniejszym danym początkowym zmniejszamy prawdopodobieństwo błędów przewidywanych scenariuszy.

Dlatego uważam, że konieczne jest kontynuowanie projektu MARS. Źródła finansowania projektu powinny jednak pozostać niezmienione, czyli w ramach oddzielnej linii budżetowej, a nie ze środków Europejskiego Funduszu Gwarancji Rolnej. Jako że projekt finansowany jest ze środków wspólnotowych, czyli z podatków naszych obywateli, uważam, że należy przeprowadzić analizę efektywności projektu MARS i potencjalnych możliwości jego zastosowania, które jeszcze nie są wykorzystane.

W pełni zgadzam się z kolegą sprawozdawcą, jak zwykle gratulując mu świetnego sprawozdania, iż musimy zadbać o to, by system był bardziej skonsolidowany, a przede wszystkim bardziej wydajny i większej użyteczności.

Ostatnią sprawą, do której chciałbym się odnieść, jest dostęp do danych. Każdy powinien mieć prawo skorzystania z tego źródła informacji, nie tylko decydenci na poziomie unijnym, ale także państwa członkowskie czy instytuty badawcze i naukowe. Dane te mogą znaleźć wykorzystanie nawet na poziomie gospodarstwa, przykładowo rolnictwo precyzyjne uwzględnia informacje pozyskiwane z teledetekcji do optymalizacji zabiegów agrotechnicznych.


  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chcę wesprzeć stanowisko sprawozdawcy, podkreślające fakt, że techniki teledetekcji mogą służyć Komisji Europejskiej: po pierwsze, do wspomagania zarządzania rynkami rolnymi, po drugie, umożliwiania monitorowania warunków upraw, pozwalając jednocześnie na prognozowanie zbiorów, po trzecie wreszcie, prognozowanie to z kolei powinno mieć wpływ na kształtowanie się cen surowców rolnych – co będzie szczególnie ważne w najbliższych latach w sytuacji rosnących ciągle cen żywności.

Spełnianie chociażby niektórych z wyżej wymienionych celów pozwala na to, aby uznać teledetekcję za metodę dostarczającą ważnych informacji, pozwalających na odpowiednie kształtowanie zarządzania rynkami poszczególnych produktów rolnych.

Oceniając pozytywnie tę metodę, chcę jednocześnie podzielić pogląd sprawozdawcy, że przedsięwzięcia w tej dziedzinie powinny być finansowane jednak ze specjalnej linii budżetowej, a nie z Funduszu Gwarancji Rolnych.


  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Ich war unlängst bei einem Rotary-Club eingeladen und da hat sich eine sehr interessante Debatte ergeben: Ein sehr europakritischer Rotarier hat nämlich bemängelt, dass es in Europa sehr viel Betrug gibt, dass hier nicht kontrolliert wird und dass wir gerade im Agrarbereich viele Probleme haben. Interessant war, dass sich wenige Minuten später ein Landwirt zu Wort gemeldet hat, der gesagt hat, er habe gerade eine Kontrolle hinter sich, die sehr penibel und sehr genau war, und er kenne keine bessere Kontrolle als im Landwirtschaftsbereich.

Ich glaube, das zeigt sehr deutlich, was bei den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern gefragt ist, nämlich die Aufklärung darüber, was tatsächlich geschieht. Daher sind best practice und Bench Marking ganz wesentliche Voraussetzungen, um der europäischen Bevölkerung zu erklären, wie wichtig die Agrarpolitik für uns ist.


  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, Monsieur le rapporteur, cette proposition de règlement qui vise à instituer une télédétection par satellite est intéressante. Dès les années 90, ici même, Michel Debatisse, qui était le patron des agriculteurs français, avait présenté un projet de télédétection, mais pour les élevages. Il s'agissait de mettre des puces électroniques à l'oreille des bovins et des ovins, notamment pour contrôler l'attribution des primes et éviter les fraudes dans certains départements du sud de la France. On avait même envisagé des capsules électroniques que les bovins auraient avalées, qui se seraient fixées dans une des poches de leur tube digestif et qui auraient permis de les trier par satellite.

Aujourd'hui, il s'agit de quelque chose de différent, une histoire vieille de sept ans déjà, avec ses projets pilotes MARS ou LUCAS. Il s'agit de fournir des informations sur l'utilisation des terres, l'état des sols ou l'état des cultures pour prévoir les rendements et, du même coup, gérer les marchés agricoles et fabriquer des modèles économétriques.

Cet objectif visant à recueillir des informations, à alimenter des statistiques, à faire des prévisions, à faire même un site informatique comporte évidemment un risque - j'allais dire un risque d'initié par télédétection, car il ne sera accessible qu'aux gros agriculteurs ou aux régions très riches et, du même coup, il ne permettra pas à tous d'anticiper les cours, notamment quand le cours des céréales est en train d'augmenter; le fait de pouvoir anticiper les cours plusieurs mois à l'avance en prévoyant ce que sera la récolte suscite évidemment un grand intérêt sur les marchés boursiers de Chicago ou d'ailleurs.

C'est avec beaucoup d'intérêt, si j'ose dire, que notre rapporteur, Graefe zu Baringdorf, pose précisément la question de l'intérêt, d'autant que cette position n'est pas gratuite – j'ai compris qu'il en allait d'une dizaine de millions, même si c'est sur cinq ou six ans et que, surtout, ces montants seront pris non pas sur une ligne autonome mais sur un fonds de garantie agricole. Ça vaut la peine, Madame la Commissaire, de faire l'expérience ou de la poursuivre.


  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, it is true that we sometimes have the opportunity to sit here late in the evening and discuss agricultural issues, but I must say that I enjoyed, no matter how late it is, having an opportunity to exchange views on this – for those of us present here tonight, anyway – very interesting topic.

Firstly, it is clear that, in situations where the areas are covered with snow, it is not possible – and this applies to our Finnish friends – to collect the data on the crops, but it is possible to collect the meteorological data, which will be available no matter what the weather conditions are. As this is also closely linked to the development that we are seeing in the discussions on climate change, I think that this information is also valid and important. There have been some concerns about the availability of the data, and I can only say that the data is available no matter where you come from. It is available either through the Member States or on the internet, so there is no secret about the data collected in the different areas.

Concerning the budget, I think that it is important, in a situation where we have a limited budget for agriculture, that we take care to spend the money in the most appropriate way and that (I refer to Mr Martinez) we can defend how we spend the money and ensure that no fraud is taking place. I think that we have also been quite successful in explaining to the European Parliament how we spend the money and how the control is carried out. However, it is equally important for me to say again tonight that the technology used in the system to register the field crops does not make it possible to use the same system for control purposes. The technology is completely different and the picture is simply unusable for control purposes, so please do not make this link, because it is completely inappropriate. However, I still believe that the money that we will spend in the future on this system is justified. It will be approximately between EUR 1.5 million and EUR 1.7 million every year. Especially in a situation where we have seen dramatic changes in the price fluctuations in the agricultural sector, it is important that we have valid data on which to base our forecasts.


  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Berichterstatter. − Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Nach dem neuen System hat der Berichterstatter das letzte Wort — Sie sehen das Selbstverständnis des Europäischen Parlaments gegenüber der Kommission. Wir sind uns ja über die Fortsetzung der Sache nicht uneins. Ich schlage nicht vor, das System abzubrechen, ich habe nur einige Verbesserungsvorschläge gemacht — ich will sie nicht wiederholen —, die die Kontrolle des Parlaments verstärken.

In der Frage der Daten, die für Klimaangelegenheiten genutzt werden können, haben wir darauf hingewiesen, dass es zwei Pilotprojekte gibt, nämlich LUCAS und MARS. Das macht aber auch deutlich, dass die Daten, die erfasst werden, ja über den landwirtschaftlichen Bereich hinausgehen. Deshalb wird in der Begründung gefordert, dass eine eigene Haushaltslinie bestehen bleibt.

Zum Schluss eine kleine Anekdote, damit Sie sehen, womit wir uns beschäftigen müssen: Ein Betrieb in der Nachbarschaft erhielt Besuch von der Ordnungsbehörde, weil diese über das Satellitensystem einen verbotenen Gully, also ein Abwassersystem, entdeckt haben wollte. Sie sagten, da und da muss er liegen, das hat das System angezeigt. Der Landwirt meinte aber, er habe nichts gemacht. Und was war passiert? Es war eine Plastikfußmatte in das Gras eingewachsen — was ja auch nicht passieren soll —, und das hatte das Satellitensystem wahrgenommen. Und nun war die Ordnungsbehörde da und wollte ihn an den Kanthaken kriegen.

Mit solchen kleinen Geschichten — davon haben wir Politiker vor Ort sicher mehr, aber Sie haben so etwas sicher auch schon mitbekommen — haben wir zu tun. Und die Sorge, dass hier auf eine Weise kontrolliert wird, die dann nicht mehr von der Öffentlichkeit nachvollzogen und nicht mehr vom Parlament überprüft wird, die ist eben da. Deswegen haben Sie bitte Verständnis dafür, dass wir einen solchen Bericht auch durch das Parlament gehen lassen und diskutieren müssen und dass wir auch in Zukunft aufmerksam sein müssen! Ansonsten wollen wir uns auch gegenseitig in dieser Arbeit unterstützen.


  Przewodniczący. − Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w środę 16 stycznia 2008 r.


20. Statut tal-Membri tal-Parlament Ewropew eletti fil-Polonja (dibattitu)

  Przewodniczący. − Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata nad pytaniem ustnym do Komisji dotyczącym statusu posłów do Parlamentu Europejskiego wybranych w Polsce skierowanym przez Giuseppe Garganiego w imieniu Komisji Prawnej (O-0082/2007 – B6-0002/2008).


  Giuseppe Gargani, Autore. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la questione oggetto della discussione stasera ha avuto un approfondimento, più di una volta per la verità, nella commissione giustizia che mi onoro di presiedere e la stessa commissione, ha incaricato me, attraverso questa interrogazione, di poter avere una discussione, di poter avere un confronto con la Commissione.

Si tratta dello status dei parlamentari europei eletti in Polonia, che hanno un'eccezione rispetto alle elezioni e a tutte le norme che riguardano le elezioni degli altri parlamenti negli altri Stati membri. Le elezioni del Parlamento europeo in Polonia, infatti, sono disciplinate dall'atto del 23 gennaio 2004 che all'articolo 9 prevede i requisiti per la eleggibilità: 21 anni per poter candidarsi fino al giorno della votazione, non aver avuto condanne per reati compiuti intenzionalmente, la residenza in Polonia e una serie di altri requisiti.

Al capitolo 17 della stessa legge si prevedono le circostanze in cui il deputato europeo in Polonia può perdere il suo seggio: la revoca dell'eleggibilità, i requisiti dell'eleggibilità al giorno della votazione, quindi la possibilità di revoca se quella eleggibilità non c'era, e una serie di altre questioni che ometto di citare per arrivare al dunque e alla posizione che voglio evidenziare qui.

Sulla base di una serie di combinati disposti, come usiamo dire noi giuristi, un deputato europeo perde il suo seggio automaticamente – cioè un deputato decade automaticamente – nel caso in cui sia oggetto di una sentenza penale che è passata in giudicato, ma per quanto riguarda i membri del parlamento polacco la legge del 12 aprile 2001 – sia per le elezioni del Sejm sia per le elezioni al Senato della Repubblica – non prevede una disposizione di questo tipo, per cui ci troviamo di fronte ad una disciplina che riguarda in maniera particolare il deputato europeo polacco e non il deputato nazionale in Polonia.

Per questa ragione, noi abbiamo discusso e ci siamo posti un interrogativo, fra l'altro un interrogativo che ha la ricaduta rispetto alla richiesta di immunità, come lei sa, noi abbiamo – e come il Commissario Frattini sa meglio di me – la competenza per poter decidere questa questione. Evidentemente, se un deputato rispetto ad una fattispecie per la quale l'immunità non può essere difesa decade automaticamente, è evidente che c'è un problema in più, una perplessità in più.

Per questa ragione, chiediamo, io chiedo a nome della commissione, al Commissario se non ritiene che la legislazione polacca in materia di elezione al parlamento nazionale violi l'articolo 10 del protocollo sui privilegi e sulle immunità, il quale dispone che per la durata delle sessioni al Parlamento europeo i membri beneficiano sul territorio nazionale delle immunità riconosciute ai membri del parlamento del loro paese. E quindi c'è un'evidente contraddizione, là dove si prevede quindi la perdita del seggio di deputato da parte di un parlamentare polacco, senza prevedere analogo trattamento per i deputati al parlamento nazionale.

Ma chiedo anche alla Commissione se non intende fare un ricorso alla Corte di giustizia, perché la Polonia modifichi questa legislazione e applichi correttamente il trattato, perché noi vediamo una diversità e una contraddizione rispetto al trattato. Allora, siccome si tratta di un'eccezione, siccome l'omogeneità e l'uguale trattamento ai deputati di tutti i paesi membri portano a questa eccezione nel membro dello Stato polacco in misura diametralmente contraria a quello che si può prevedere e si prevede per tutti gli altri deputati degli Stati membri, io chiedo queste due cose alla Commissione e evidenzio questo dato al Parlamento e chiedo al Commissario se può rispondere rispetto a questi due quesiti e se potrà trovare un rimedio rispetto ai quesiti da me indicati.


  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli parlamentari, ma certamente il tema posto dal presidente Gargani è un tema rilevante: è un tema rilevante perché qui sono in gioco due principi che sono a mio avviso entrambi rilevanti ed entrambi importanti.

Il primo principio è certamente quello richiamato dell'articolo 10 del protocollo sulle immunità e sulla condizione dei componenti del Parlamento europeo, in cui si dice che negli Stati di appartenenza ai membri del Parlamento europeo debbono essere accordate le stesse prerogative di status che sono riconosciute ai membri del Parlamento nazionale di quel paese.

C'è però un'altra disciplina che viene in gioco – un'altra disciplina ugualmente rilevante a mio avviso – è quella dell'articolo 13 dell'atto europeo del 1976 che riguarda l'elezione dei membri del Parlamento. In questo articolo è detto con grande chiarezza che quando uno Stato membro introduce una disciplina nazionale relativa proprio al caso che ci interessa, alla perdita dello status della qualità, cioè alla perdita della posizione di membro del Parlamento europeo, la fine del mandato parlamentare europeo in quel paese è soggetta alla legge nazionale.

In altri termini c'è un'apparente contraddizione, perché da un lato la normativa contenuta nel protocollo sui privilegi, quella citata dal presidente Gargani, parla di eguaglianza di prerogative tra membri del Parlamento polacco e membri del Parlamento europeo eletti in Polonia, ma contemporaneamente l'atto europeo del 1976 sull'elezione dei membri del Parlamento europeo e sulla perdita della qualità di membro del Parlamento europeo, apparentemente – anzi direi esplicitamente – disciplina la perdita della qualità di parlamentare europeo e stabilisce che la perdita della qualità di parlamentare europeo è regolata dalla legge nazionale.

A mio avviso qui, c'è piuttosto un problema di violazione di un terzo principio quadro per l'Unione europea, che è il principio di eguaglianza di trattamento operato dalla legislazione interna polacca. Quello che nella legislazione costituzionale di tutti i paesi europei è il principio che stabilisce che si debbono trattare situazioni analoghe in modo analogo. Allora è piuttosto questo principio generale che viene in gioco ed è un principio generale che però non consente alla Commissione europea di stabilire in quale direzione l'ordinamento polacco dovrebbe cambiare la sua normativa, perché siccome la materia è devoluta alla legge nazionale, se la legge nazionale volesse disciplinare non la perdita della qualità di parlamentare europea ma la perdita della qualità di parlamentare nazionale polacco in modo diverso, lo potrebbe fare, l'importante è che equipari la disciplina dell'uno alla disciplina all'altro.

Questa è la mia personale opinione nel senso che la Commissione non può oggi dire "noi ci rivolgiamo alla Corte per stabilire che la norma nazionale polacca deve essere emendata in una determinata direzione", ma credo che si possa ricavare un principio generale. Il principio generale è che l'ordinamento polacco deve intervenire per emendare questa differenza di trattamento, ma questo, credo, lo debba fare il legislatore polacco. Siccome è una questione che non si è mai posta ed è una questione troppo delicata per essere affrontata in poche battute, io credo che si debba fare in primo luogo una ricognizione: se il legislatore polacco, come io credo, debba rimuovere questa differenza di trattamento, questa è materia che spetta al Parlamento della Polonia.

Secondo: vi è o non vi è conformità della legislazione polacca rispetto alle previsioni di quell'atto europeo del 1976 che ho appena citato? Posso dirle, presidente Gargani, che ho avviato uno studio comparativo per i 12 nuovi Stati membri, proprio per vedere se la legislazione, non solo della Polonia, ma degli altri 11 che sono entrati nell'Unione europea tra il 2004 e il 2007, se in quegli Stati membri la legislazione nazionale è conforme alle disposizioni dell'atto europeo del 1976.

In conclusione, due sono le attività da compiere. Primo: effettuare, e lo stiamo facendo, questa verifica di conformità della legge nazionale della Polonia e non solo della Polonia, perché il caso che il presidente Gargani pone parte dalla Polonia ma non si esclude che in altri Stati membri la situazione sia analoga. Io ritengo che lo dobbiamo fare per tutti.

La seconda attività è valutare se il Parlamento polacco, con una sua attività di legislazione, possa rimuovere questa che è oggettivamente un'apparente contraddizione, perché è un'apparente discriminazione tra lo status regolato con legge dei parlamentari europei eletti in Polonia e dei parlamentari polacchi. Vi è un'apparente contraddizione e l'unica cosa che io credo difficile da potersi ammettere è che sia la Commissione europea a chiedere alla Corte di giustizia in quale direzione il legislatore polacco deve agire.

Noi potremmo limitarci se il Parlamento concorderà con questa posizione a segnalare che esiste in Polonia un'apparente discriminazione tra lo status di due categorie di parlamentare. Questo è un esercizio del tutto nuovo e con spirito collaborativo cerchiamo di condurlo avanti insieme.


  Tadeusz Zwiefka, w imieniu grupy PPE-DE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pan przewodniczący Gargani bardzo dokładnie zobrazował sytuację posłów do Parlamentu Europejskiego w kontekście prawa polskiego i nierównego traktowania w tymże samym kontekście w odniesieniu do posłów krajowych, a także do senatorów. Zgadzam się z tezą pana komisarza Frattiniego, że łamie to zasadę równego traktowania posłów wobec prawa.

Chcę poinformować państwa, iż aktualnie rządząca w Polsce koalicja Platformy Obywatelskiej i Polskiego Stronnictwa Ludowego już rozpoczęła przygotowania do zmiany tego prawa, tak aby zrównać prawa posłów do Parlamentu Europejskiego z prawami posłów krajowych i senatorów. Ta zmiana będzie szła w kierunku takiego samego zapisu, jaki jest w ordynacji wyborczej do Parlamentu Europejskiego, aby ta sama zasada obowiązywała także w stosunku do posłów i senatorów krajowych.

Ale w tym kontekście, ponieważ pan przewodniczący Gargani powiedział, że rozpoczynamy tu pewnego rodzaju dyskusję nad problemem, który być może jest szerszy, zastanawiam się, czy nie byłoby warto zastanowić się nad wspólną ordynacją wyborczą, przynajmniej zakreśloną w generaliach, wspólną ordynacją wyborczą do Parlamentu Europejskiego dla wszystkich państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej, dlatego, że dzisiaj mamy bardzo różną sytuację we wszystkich 27 krajach członkowskich. Trudno jest nie zgodzić się – oczywiście ja przyjmuję wszelkiego rodzaju obostrzenia prawne w stosunku do posłów, ale trudno jest mi zgodzić się z sytuacją, kiedy jest się karanym nawet grzywną, ale w postępowaniu za przestępstwo umyślne z oskarżenia publicznego i automatycznie tracić mandat posła do Parlamentu Europejskiego, a także w sytuacji, kiedy może się być pociągniętym do odpowiedzialności.


  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, w imieniu grupy PSE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Dzisiejsza debata podnosi problem nierównego traktowania polskich posłów do Parlamentu Europejskiego i posłów na Sejm w kwestii kryteriów wybieralności, a także utraty mandatu.

W art. 9. ustawy z dnia 23 stycznia 2004 r. dotyczącej ordynacji wyborczej do Parlamentu Europejskiego czytamy, iż prawo wybieralności do tejże instytucji przysługuje osobie, która między innymi nie była karana za przestępstwo popełnione umyślnie lub ścigana z oskarżenia publicznego, a art. 142. mówi, iż utrata mandatu może nastąpić z powodu unieważnienia wyboru posła do Parlamentu Europejskiego, w rezultacie czego skazanie posła (jak już to było mówione – Parlamentu Europejskiego) prawomocnym wyrokiem za przestępstwo popełnione umyślnie jest równoznaczne z automatyczną utratą przez niego mandatu, podczas gdy w przypadku posłów na Sejm nie jest to ani przeszkodą do udziału w wyborach, ani nie powoduje utraty mandatu.

W kwestii uprawnień posłów do Parlamentu Europejskiego Regulamin Parlamentu Europejskiego w art. 5. pkt 1. stwierdza, iż „posłom do Parlamentu Europejskiego przysługują przywileje oraz immunitety przewidziane w Protokole w sprawie przywilejów i immunitetów Wspólnot Europejskich”, ten zaś w preambule określa, iż reguluje materię przywilejów i immunitetów niezbędnych do wykonywania zadań Wspólnot Europejskich, a w art. 10a stwierdza, iż „podczas sesji zgromadzenia jego członkowie korzystają na terytorium swojego państwa z immunitetów przyznawanych członkom parlamentu ich państwa”, zatem posłów na Sejm i do Parlamentu Europejskiego chroni identyczny immunitet. Zgodnie z art. 11. cytowanego protokołu „przedstawiciele państw członkowskich biorący udział w pracach instytucji Wspólnot, ich doradcy i eksperci techniczni korzystają w czasie wykonywania swoich funkcji, w czasie podróży do i z miejsca obrad ze zwyczajowych przywilejów, immunitetów i udogodnień”.

Nie ulega wątpliwości, że poseł do Parlamentu Europejskiego jest przedstawicielem państwa członkowskiego biorącym udział w pracach instytucji Wspólnot. Skoro posłowie do Parlamentu Europejskiego i do Sejmu powinni korzystać z tych samych immunitetów i przywilejów, to warunki ich wybieralności i utraty mandatu także powinny być takie same.

Przystępując do Unii Europejskiej Polska przyjęła obowiązek respektowania obowiązującego w Unii prawa, zwłaszcza wywierającego bezpośrednie skutki w wewnętrznym obrocie prawnym państwa członkowskiego. Postuluję zatem o jak najszybsze ujednolicenie prawodawstwa związanego ze statusem posłów na Sejm i do Parlamentu Europejskiego w Polsce, zgadzając się w pełni z opinią komisarza Frattiniego w tym względzie.


  Jens-Peter Bonde, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, the Polish electoral law on elections to the European Parliament is truly unfair and undemocratic compared to the law on elections to the national parliament. The forfeiture of a seat of a deputy to the European Parliament by laws of eligibility is an easy way to put pressure on political opponents and gives the opportunity to settle an account politically with those who have more authority.

Unfortunately, although being in the European Union, the law is still abused in many former Communist countries. This is the case for Mr Tomczak as well. As Members of the European Parliament, Polish MEPs represent not only the Poles but also all Europeans.

It is unacceptable that these people’s representatives are discriminated against by maintaining different legislation with regard to Members of the Polish Parliament. A Polish MEP, if convicted, will be punished not only by Polish law but will also lose his seat as a Member of the European Parliament. That fact clearly shows the discrimination of Polish Members of the European Parliament in comparison to members of national parliaments. That situation is unacceptable and shows clearly how unjust and unfair the Polish electoral law is.

May I urge Poland to change its electoral law?


  Aloyzas Sakalas (PSE). – Mr President, this oral question is a consequence of the debates in the Committee on Legal Affairs on the immunity of Mr Tomczak.

The immunity of Mr Tomczak was raised by Parliament a few years ago. Recently the Committee on Legal Affairs received a request from Mr Tomczak to defend his immunity. The committee discussed this request and a draft decision has been prepared. Nevertheless, the adoption of the final decision was postponed as the committee received information that, in the event of his immunity being waived, the legal consequences for Members of the European Parliament from Poland and Members of the Polish Parliament would be different.

According to the Polish Act of 23 January 2004, a Member of the European Parliament from Poland will lose his or her seat automatically in the event of criminal conviction. For Members of the Polish Parliament this provision is not applicable. Such a difference is in breach of European Community law, by maintaining different legislation with regard to members of the national parliament and Polish Members of the European Parliament. This discrepancy between Polish and European Community laws needs to be clarified.

Therefore, I fully support the formulation of an oral question to the Commission. I hope Mr Frattini will use all his influence to aim to eliminate this discrepancy between Polish and European Community laws.


  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar Frattini, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Ich glaube, die Demokratie in Europa ist ständig weiterzuentwickeln, und wir haben sehr viele Angriffe von außerhalb Europas auf unser demokratisches System. Natürlich entscheiden die Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments über sehr viele Fragen, die die europäischen Bürger direkt und unmittelbar betreffen. Die Abgeordneten entscheiden nicht für sich selbst, sondern sie vertreten ihre Wähler.

Deshalb darf es für die Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments keine Schlechterstellung gegenüber den nationalen Abgeordneten geben, und umgekehrt sollten die nationalen Abgeordneten nicht schlechter gestellt werden, als diejenigen des Europäischen Parlaments.

Deshalb glaube ich, dass die Kommission prüfen sollte, wie sich das neue Statut, das ab dem Jahr 2009 gilt, für die Abgeordneten aus Polen auswirkt, welche Änderungen es hier gibt und ob nicht die Möglichkeit besteht, diese Grundsätze auch in diesem Bereich umzusetzen.


  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – Señor Presidente, el Comisario Frattini, como de costumbre, ha hecho un fino análisis jurídico. Como él ha dicho, en las circunstancias actuales no parece que proceda ir directamente al Tribunal de Justicia.

Pero después de escuchar al señor Zwiefka, que nos habla de una propuesta del actual Gobierno polaco de una modificación de la legislación, le pregunto al Comisario si cree que la Comisión podría, simplemente, dirigirse al Gobierno polaco, sobre la base del debate que hemos tenido en este momento en el Parlamento, para ver si, en efecto, el Gobierno polaco se propone modificar la legislación al objeto de armonizar la situación del parlamentario europeo con la del parlamentario nacional.


  Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (UEN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Propozycja, którą przedstawił pan poseł Zwiefka, aby zrównać status posłów do Parlamentu Europejskiego oraz posłów do polskiego sejmu, nie jest rozwiązaniem problemu. Uważam, że najlepszym rozwiązaniem byłoby, co jest zresztą zapisane w prawie polskim, aby w sytuacji, kiedy ktoś został skazany za przestępstwo popełnione z winy umyślnej, aby sąd dodatkowo orzekał pozbawienie praw publicznych polegające na tym, iż dana osoba nie może kandydować.

Takie rozwiązanie istnieje np. we Francji. Proszę państwa, podam konkretny przykład: nasz kolega, pan poseł Onesta, wiceprzewodniczący Parlamentu Europejskiego, kilka miesięcy temu został skazany przez sąd francuski na kilka miesięcy pozbawienia wolności w zawieszeniu za czyn taki, za który według prawa polskiego polski poseł do Parlamentu europejskiego automatycznie traciłby swój mandat. Uważam to za absolutnie niewłaściwą sytuację, jaka obecnie istnieje. Raczej należy iść w tym kierunku, aby przyjąć to rozwiązanie, które zaproponował pan Frattini.


  Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, solo per ulteriori, rapide osservazioni: io sono soddisfatto che il dibattito complessivamente ha riconosciuto che è un problema importante e un problema delicato. In particolare, voglio ringraziare il Commissario Frattini, che da par suo, da giurista qual'è, è andato oltre e ha approfondito ulteriormente una questione, che naturalmente non vale solo per la Polonia, ha ragione Frattini. Vale, come principio generale e quindi mi sta molto bene, come sta bene alla commissione, che lei possa fare un'indagine complessiva per verificare aderenze e verificare legislazioni che possono essere armoniche rispetto alle due questioni nazionali ed europee.

Però, devo dirle che resta un dato di fatto, non è un'apparente contraddizione, ma la legge polacca è contraria al trattato per quanto riguarda le guarentigie, perché se un deputato polacco decadesse, evidentemente l'articolo del trattato che stabilisce che c'è la possibilità di poter durante le sessioni partecipare verrebbe meno. E allora, personalmente alla commissione, come lei ha sentito nel dibattito per ultimo da Medina, come da me personalmente, non interessa che ci sia un ricorso, ma che si segua la questione per risolverla. Se il collega polacco, l'on. Zwiefka, dichiara che già in Polonia questo problema lo si è posto, questo può già dare soddisfazione.

Noi vogliamo che ci sia un'omogeneità, perché l'omogeneità fa dell'Europa una garanzia di unità di Stati che concorrono complessivamente, la cittadinanza e i diritti uguali sul piano della libertà e sul piano dello status di ognuno.


  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Właściwie już w uzupełnieniu głosów, z którymi się w większości zgadzam, uważam, że oczywiście powinniśmy ujednolicić w jak najszybszym tempie przepisy. Aby pokazać, jak to bardzo jest konieczne, zwrócę uwagę na historię naszego kolegi, europosła, który jest tutaj na sali – pana Tomczaka, który dzisiaj w Polsce od wielu lat przechodzi sprawę karną, która dzisiaj się ma ku końcowi i może zaważyć tutaj na losie jego jako posła. Sprawa, która ma małą szkodliwość czynu, w której świadkowie zaprzeczają danemu zdarzeniu. Sprawa, która kiedyś była zamknięta, która w domyśle może przy jakimś politycznym zawirowaniu znów wróciła i dzisiaj poseł Tomczak, który dwukrotnie już przechodził demokratyczny wybór społeczny (w 2005 r. został posłem, w 2004 r. europosłem, naszym kolegą), dzisiaj może być podważony jego immunitet i jego mandat. Jest to rzecz nieprawdopodobna, szkodliwa i która powinna być jak najszybciej tu przecięta i odsunięta z tego forum.


  Franco Frattini, Vicepresidente della Commissione. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli parlamentari, credo che il dibattito di stasera abbia dimostrato due cose: la prima che c'è una diffusa opinione, direi condivisa da tutti coloro che sono intervenuti – e che anche io ritengo sia l'opinione preferibile – che si debba rimuovere questa distinzione di trattamento per due categorie di deputati europei eletti in Polonia e nazionali polacchi e che quest'analisi vada estesa a tutti gli altri nuovi paesi membri dell'Unione europea per i quali una verifica di compatibilità rispetto all'atto europeo del 1976 non è stata ancora fatta.

La seconda conclusione, e mi riferisco alla proposta dell'onorevole Medina Ortega, che condivido, è di segnalare l'esito di questo dibattito alle autorità competenti del governo polacco e la necessità di rimuovere con legge nazionale la disparità di trattamento. Questo io lo farò. Posso dirvi che prenderò certamente contatti in via formale con il ministro della Giustizia del governo polacco al fine di trasmettergli una diffusa opinione di questo Parlamento – che io condivido – nel senso che ferma la sovranità del legislatore nazionale polacco sul modo in cui si può arrivare al risultato di eliminare la disparità di trattamento, l'obiettivo di rimuovere la disparità di trattamento deve essere perseguito.

Ecco la mia opinione espressa nell'introduzione: io non ritengo di poter indicare al legislatore polacco in quale direzione egli si debba muovere, ma ritengo di poter indicare l'obiettivo e cioè l'obiettivo è rimuovere la disparità di trattamento tra lo status del parlamentare polacco nazionale e lo status del parlamentare europeo eletto in Polonia.

Questa segnalazione certamente io la farò e vi aggiungo che renderò ovviamente note a questo Parlamento, visto l'interesse del presidente Gargani e della commissione giuridica, l'analisi relativa agli altri 11 nuovi Stati membri in modo che sia possibile eventualmente rivolgere analoga segnalazione ai governi degli altri paesi che fossero interessati.


  Przewodniczący. − Zamykam debatę.


21. Spjegazzjonijiet tal-vot

  Przewodniczący. − Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego są wyjaśnienia dotyczące sposobu głosowania.


  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte darum bitten, dass man die Temperatur im Saal auf menschenwürdige Grade einstellt. Es ist teilweise so kalt hier drinnen, dass es bald notwendig wird, einen Mantel anzuziehen. Ich bitte die Verwaltung, für eine angemessene Temperatur zu sorgen. Danke!


  Przewodniczący. − Apeluję do służb odpowiadających za temperaturę na sali o to, żeby ją zwiększyć. Być może zresztą zwiększy się ona podczas tego punktu obrad.

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


- Sprawozdanie: Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (A6-0494/2007)


  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – Pane předsedo, vítám, že jsme dali zelenou modernímu rámci pro další vývoj automobilového průmyslu v Evropě a že jsme odhlasovali cíle, které jsou realistické, které zohledňují jak růst cen ropy, tak naše vysoké ambice ohledně bezpečnosti a ochrany životního prostředí a jsou ještě únosné s ohledem na evropskou konkurenceschopnost. Zvyšování nároků na stále bezpečnější konstrukci aut a výkonné motory, které však budou emitovat o třetinu méně skleníkových plynů, to jsou cíle, které zvyšují cenu i provoz už dnes a víme, že samy příliš nemotivují hlavně střední a méně zámožné vrstvy obměňovat častěji vozový park. Eliminace starých aut z evropských silnic, to je tedy zásadní podmínka pro to, aby se síle CARS 21 opravdu projevily. Klíčem k tomu je změna motivace spotřebitelů. Daně a fiskální politiky však nejsou svěřeny Evropské unii, takže na členských státech nyní bude ležet odpovědnost za to, jak nastaví parametry, a zda či kdy zvítězí na našich silnicích bezpečnější a ekologičtější auta nad těmi starými, a tím také zjistíme skutečnou účinnost CARS 21.


Pisemne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


- Sprawozdanie: Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (A6-0517/2007)


  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport de mon collègue polonais Jacek Saryusz-Wolski qui propose un avis favorable du Parlement européen à la modification du règlement du Conseil de 2004 relatif à l'établissement de partenariats dans le cadre du processus de stabilisation et d'association. Il s'agit de modifier le nom du partenariat de l'Ancienne République yougoslave de Macédoine de "partenariat européen" en "partenariat pour l'adhésion", afin de l'aligner sur le nom des partenariats établis avec les deux autres pays candidats: la Croatie et la Turquie. Par ailleurs, il convenait de tenir compte de l'indépendance du Monténégro. Au moment d'écrire ces lignes, j'ai une pensée pour le Kosovo en espérant une solution pacifique et européenne de cette difficile situation.


  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), schriftelijk. − In december 2005 heeft de Raad aan de voormalige Joegoslavische Republiek Macedonië de status van kandidaat-lidstaat toegekend en in juni 2006 is Montenegro erkend als onafhankelijke staat. In een spoedprocedure zonder debat wordt nu in artikel 1 van de verordening voorgesteld om aan Albanië, Bosnië en Herzegovina, Montenegro en Servië, inclusief Kosovo, een Europees partnerschap toe te kennen en in artikel 1 bis om aan Kroatië en Macedonië een toetredingspartnerschap toe te kennen. De definities van beide constructies zijn vrijwel gelijk. De rapporteur ondersteunt het voorstel van de Europese Commissie en vraagt de Raad om het Parlement opnieuw te raadplegen ingeval hij van dit voorstel wil afwijken. De kans dat die afwijking plaatsvindt lijkt mij reëel. Niet geregeld is hoe de erkenning van de onafhankelijkheid van Kosovo, die binnen enkele weken verwacht wordt, hierin moet worden verwerkt.

Evenmin is duidelijk of dit betekent dat Macedonië langer moet wachten op de start van toetredingsonderhandelingen, en of aan Servië met voorrang een toetredingsperspectief in het vooruitzicht wordt gesteld. Zoals bekend verzetten Nederland en België zich tegen dat laatste zolang oorlogsmisdadiger Ratko Mladić niet is uitgeleverd aan het Joegoslavië Tribunaal (ICTY) in Den Haag. Ik verwacht dit punt dus terug op de agenda, maar stem niet tegen.


- Sprawozdanie: Bogusław Liberadzki (A6-0506/2007)


  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), na piśmie. − Głosuję za przyjęciem sprawozdania pana posła Bogusława Liberadzkiego w sprawie wniosku dotyczącego dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady zmieniającej dyrektywę 95/50/WE w odniesieniu do uprawnień wykonawczych przyznanych Komisji.

Poseł Liberadzki przygotował bardzo dobre sprawozdanie. Zgadzam się z panem posłem sprawozdawcą, który odnosi się przychylnie o wniosku Komisji proponując także, aby wniosek został przyjęty bez poprawek.

Dyrektywa 95/50/WE określa procedury kontroli przeprowadzanych przez państwa członkowskie w zakresie drogowego transportu towarów niebezpiecznych. Do celów kontroli zaproponowano wykaz naruszeń w związku z którymi pojazdy mogą zostać unieruchomione i wezwane do dostosowania do zasad przed podjęciem dalszej podróży. Ponadto ważne jest, aby każde państwo członkowskie przekazywało sprawozdanie z wdrażania dyrektywy za każdy rok kalendarzowy.


- Sprawozdanie: Paolo Costa (A6-0513/2007)


  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. Die unter dem Deckmantel der Verkehrsverlagerung eingeführten Lkw-Mauten konnten, wie absehbar, den Bahntransport nicht attraktiver machen, sondern wurden auf den Konsumenten umgewälzt. Vor allem auf den Hauptverkehrsrouten und in den Ballungsgebieten wird die Konzentration auf den Verkehrsträger Straße die vorhandenen Probleme wie Stau, Lärm, Umweltverschmutzung und Feinstaubbelastung verschärfen.

Bedenklich ist auch die Sorglosigkeit, mit der manche Transporte durchgeführt werden. Wöchentliche Lkw-Schwerpunktkontrollen haben in Österreich zu deutlich mehr Sicherheit bei Lkw-Transporten geführt und sollten in diesem Sinne EU-weit zum Standard werden. Wenn der Europäischen Union die Gesundheit ihrer Bevölkerung und der Umweltschutz am Herzen liegt, gilt es, sehr rasch Hauptverursacher von Schadstoffemissionen, wie gewerbliche Nutzfahrzeuge mit alternden Dieselmotoren, zu ersetzen, rollende Landstraßen ökonomisch attraktiv zu machen und für eine Umsetzung der Alpenschutzkonvention zu sorgen.


  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), na piśmie. − Sprawozdawca Paolo Costa pokazuje istotę zniesienia dyskryminacji w stawkach i warunkach transportu. Rzeczywiście w krótkim czasie można osiągnąć znaczne korzyści dzięki stosunkowo niewielkim zmianom w istniejącym prawodawstwie.

Jako shadow rapporteur zauważam, że wypracowane zostało zgodne stanowisko pomiędzy Radą, Komisją i Parlamentem.


- Sprawozdanie: Ulrich Stockmann (A6-0497/2007)


  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), par écrit. – J’ai voté la résolution législative sur la proposition de directive du parlement européen et du conseil qui établit des principes communs pour la perception des redevances aéroportuaires dans les aéroports communautaires en suivant le rapport de mon collègue Allemand Ulrich Stockmann.

Au moment ou les aéroports européens, principalement détenus par la sphère publique, se privatisent, où les usagers n’ont pas toujours une exacte appréciation de leur consommation de services et où les compagnies évoluent dans un contexte avec de nombreuses variable, il était normal d’encadrer la fixation des redevances aéroportuaires.

Je salue la création des autorités de régulation nationales indépendantes pour surveiller ce marché en formant les vœux qu’une coordination européenne s’établisse rapidement et que, à terme, émerge un régulateur européen indépendant.


  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. − Kommissionens förslag innehåller en lång rad detaljerade regler om hur flygplatsavgifter ska regleras. Det hör till kommissionens kompetens att kontrollera att gemenskapens konkurrenslagstiftning efterlevs. De aktuella förslagen innebär dock en överdriven byråkratisering och detaljreglering, vilken är negativ för de medlemsstater som har valt att avreglera flygsektorn.

Europaparlamentet förordar att de gemensamma principerna om flygplatsavgifter endast ska gälla för flygplatser med över fem miljoner passagerarrörelser per år, eller där den årliga trafiken uppgår till över 15 procent av antalet passagerarrörelser i den aktuella medlemsstaten. Detta ställningstagande är att föredra framför kommissionens förslag, vilket inkluderar även mindre regionala flygplatser. Vi ställs ofta inför avvägningen av i vilken mån det är motiverat att stödja gemensamma EU-regler, i syfte att uppnå en likabehandling av samtliga aktörer som verkar på den inre marknaden. I detta fall är det uppenbart att kommissionens linje innebär en omotiverad byråkratisering.

Vi har utifrån ovanstående argumentation röstat ja till Europaparlamentets förslag, men sagt nej till den lagstiftningsresolutionen vid slutomröstningen.


  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Apesar de conter alguns aspectos que melhoram a proposta da Comissão, o relatório não deixa de estar imbuído e de ser parte integrante do processo de liberalização dos transportes aéreos na UE.

Sem dúvida que uma melhoria em matéria de transparência e de metodologia de cálculo das taxas aeroportuárias será de valorizar. No entanto, discordamos de toda uma política que procura liberalizar e privatizar um serviço público estratégico, como é o transporte aéreo, promovendo, neste caso, "um verdadeiro mercado aeroportuário concorrencial" ou a integração de princípios como o do "utilizador-pagador" e o da rendibilidade num serviço que deveria ser público. Aliás, procura-se mesmo subtrair da esfera pública até o seu denominado "papel regulador", criando para o efeito as "entidades reguladoras independentes".

As experiências de privatização ocorridas no sector não têm gerado mais-valia nos serviços prestados, fomentam a destruição de postos de trabalho e a degradação dos direitos dos trabalhadores e, em alguns casos, problemas técnicos e operacionais.

Lamentamos a rejeição das nossas propostas que visavam incluir na directiva o reconhecimento dos constrangimentos a que estão sujeitas as regiões que sofrem de desvantagens geográficas e naturais permanentes, como as regiões ultraperiféricas, estabelecendo-se por isso as adequadas excepções para o cumprimento das obrigações de serviço público universal.


  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservatives are very much in favour of larger airports being subject to extra scrutiny where they hold a dominant market position. However, we already have a strong regulatory system in the United Kingdom and we therefore feel that this is an unnecessary interference which could have an adverse effect on regional airports, which have a vital impact on local economies.

We have tried to improve the measure in order to maintain an 'opt out' on a national basis or at least to lift the threshold so that most regional airports are excluded, and although these attempts have not yet been successful, we will return to them at Second Reading. In the meantime we will reserve our position.


  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), schriftlich. Ich habe diesem Bericht betreffend die Richtlinie zu Flughafenentgelten nicht zugestimmt, weil das, was hier vorgeschlagen wird, zu einer unannehmbaren Diskriminierung des Flughafens Luxemburg führen wird. So kann man mit einem kleinen Land nicht umgehen. Die Anwendung der Richtlinie auf den Flughafen Luxemburg mit 1,6 Millionen Passagieren pro Jahr und die Nichtanwendung auf die direkten Konkurrenzflughäfen Frankfurt-Hahn oder Brüssel-Charleroi, welche über 3 Millionen Passagiere abfertigen, ist eine im Binnenmarkt unzumutbare Diskriminierung, nur weil eine nationale Grenze dazwischen liegt.

Nicht nationale Grenzen dürfen in diesem Fall ausschlaggebend sein, sondern objektive Kriterien, wenn es Zweck der Richtlinie sein soll, den eventuellen Missbrauch einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung von Flughäfen zu unterbinden.

Bei kleineren Flughäfen, auch wenn sie der einzige eines Landes sind, ist ein solches Missbrauchsrisiko nicht gegeben, zumal die erwähnten Konkurrenzflughäfen, wo sich auch noch Billigflieger etabliert haben, in bequemer Reichweite liegen. Luxemburg ist so klein, dass man nach 30 Minuten Autofahrt in drei benachbarten Ländern ist.

Bei diesem Vorschlag handelt es sich um eine auferlegte Verletzung des Proportionalitätsprinzips, die so nicht hingenommen werden kann. Deshalb lehne ich diesen Vorschlag unter Protest ab.


  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome the report and what it seeks to achieve. Through the introduction of greater transparency in the way airport charges are calculated I feel it creates a level playing field and stimulates competition in the sector. The plans will help Scotland’s airports in competing with its British counterparts, especially by reducing the dominant position occupied by major travel hubs like London.


  Luca Romagnoli (NI), per iscritto. − Gentile Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in qualità di membro della commissione per i trasporti esprimo il mio parere favorevole alla relazione Stockmann sulla proposta di direttiva del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sui diritti aeroportuali.

Tuttavia ritengo opportuno operare alcuni distinguo, in particolare in merito alla connessione dei diritti aeroportuali con i costi dei servizi offerti. In materia, le delegazioni di Francia ed Olanda, con il sostegno italiano, chiedevano un chiaro riferimento ai costi. Sul tema, si precisa che la normativa interna italiana prevede comunque una specifica relazione tra costi dei servizi erogati e tariffe applicate dal gestore. La disposizione del paragrafo 5 rende maggiormente coerente il sistema italiano con l’impianto della direttiva, consentendo di mantenere le attuali procedure, purché siano riunite nella medesima autorità l’organismo indipendente di supervisione previsto all’articolo 10, che vigila sulla corretta applicazione delle tariffe, e l’organismo che approva a livello nazionale i livelli tariffari. Va rilevato che l’indipendenza di tale organismo dovrà essere garantita sia rispetto ai gestori che alle compagnie aeree.


  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. − While this report has a number of good ideas on making airport charges more transparent and bringing environmental considerations into the calculation for the first time, we must, as ever, be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. In my constituency, Scotland, we have dozens of small airports, and air travel is not a luxury – it is a necessity serving fragile communities. I have therefore supported amendments to exempt airports in the outermost regions from the new regime, and look forward to the production of a framework that takes account of the fragile nature of many communities.


  Lars Wohlin (PPE-DE), skriftlig. − Främst de stora flygbolagen har varit pådrivande för att få till stånd en specifik EU-reglering för flygplatsernas uttag av flygplatsavgifter. De menar att flygplatserna utgör lokala monopol och utnyttjar sin monopolställning för att ta ut oskäliga avgifter. Luftfartsverket och de mindre flygbolagen har dock varit tveksamma till en ny lagstiftning. För de mindre flygbolagen är en ny lagstiftning och harmonisering snarare ett hot, eftersom de ofta valt att flyga på konkurrerande flygplatser som har lägre avgifter.

Jag har röstat mot direktivet av flera olika skäl. Flygplatser regleras redan idag av nationella myndigheter, och deras agerande begränsas av existerande konkurrenslagstiftning inom EU. De länder som väljer en affärsmodell som leder till högre flygplatsavgifter till följd av exempelvis investeringar eller utförsäljningar måste tillåtas göra det så länge avgifterna inte strider mot existerande lagstiftning. Det är sedan upp till medlemsstaterna att bedöma om deras avgifter är konkurrenskraftiga eller inte.

Europaparlamentet har reducerat direktivets omfattning, Jag har bl.a. röstat för de förändringar som innebär att direktivet begränsas till 67 flygplatser (i jämförelse med ca 150 flygplatser som skulle beröras innan). Prisreglering på EU-nivå kan jag dock inte stödja.


- Sprawozdanie: Johannes Blokland (A6-0406/2007)


  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), par écrit. – J’ai voté, en 1ère lecture de la procédure de codécision, une résolution législative sur la proposition de règlement concernant les exportations et importations de produits chimiques dangereux sur la base du rapport de mon collègue Néerlandais Johannes Blokland.

Je me réjouis qu’un compromis ait eu lieu car il y a une certaine urgence à régulariser la situation juridique issue de l’annulation du précédent règlement de 2003 par la cour de justice tout améliorant cette réglementation pour tenir compte des évolutions depuis cette date.


  Liam Aylward (UEN), in writing. − I have voted in favour of the compromise amendments agreed by the vast majority of the political groups, which are intended to promote joint responsibility between parties with regard to international trade in hazardous chemicals.

Rules adopted at EU level are vital for the provision of a high level of protection of the environment and public health, and we aspire to these rules being extended internationally.

Awareness of risks is paramount for exporters and importers. Countries, by virtue of exchange of information and best practice and compulsory national decision-making on the acceptability of chemicals, can heighten such awareness while also making legislators and stakeholders aware of such risks.

The proposed legislation implements the Rotterdam Convention, the underlying principle being to help participating countries learn more about the characteristics of potentially hazardous chemicals and pesticides. This provides countries with the information and the means to stop unwanted imports of toxic chemicals, putting the requirement and onus on the exporter/exporting country to comply with the laws of the importing country. I very much welcome and support this legislation and the European Parliament’s compromise package.


  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), per iscritto. − Saluto l'attuazione della convenzione di Rotterdam come un'importante presa di coscienza dell'Europa dei suoi impegni in materia di tutela ambientale e della salute verso i paesi terzi e, soprattutto, dei paesi in via di sviluppo. A partire da oggi non si potranno più esportare prodotti chimici pericolosi verso paesi extraeuropei senza un'autorizzazione preventiva degli Stati riceventi (detta PIC – prior informed consent procedure).

Dovevamo porre fine alla discrasia che si era creata secondo la quale una sostanza era rigidamente regolamentata nel mercato europeo per tutelare l'ambiente e la salute dei cittadini europei e, d'altro canto poteva essere liberamente smerciata nei paesi terzi senza precauzioni né alcun obbligo di informazione sui rischi. Una misura di civiltà e di solidarietà soprattutto verso paesi meno provvisti di mezzi di informazione e di analisi del rischio dell'Unione europea.


  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. A Convenção de Roterdão relativa ao Procedimento de Prévia Informação e Consentimento para determinados Produtos Químicos e Pesticidas Perigosos no Comércio Internacional foi aprovada em Setembro de 1998 e entrou em vigor em 24 de Fevereiro de 2004. O Regulamento (CE) nº 304/2003 relativo à exportação e importação de produtos químicos perigosos dá aplicação à Convenção de Roterdão.

A Comissão considerou ser necessário interpor uma acção contra o Conselho e o Parlamento Europeu junto do Tribunal de Justiça por não estar de acordo com a modificação da base jurídica (ambiente em vez de política comercial comum). No seu Acórdão de 10 de Janeiro de 2006, o Tribunal de Justiça anulou o Regulamento, porque este deveria ter uma dupla base jurídica: o artigo 133º e o nº 1 do artigo 175º do Tratado e determinou que os efeitos desse Regulamento serão mantidos até à adopção de um novo regulamento assente nas bases jurídicas adequadas.

A Comissão Europeia apresentou uma nova proposta de regulamento baseado na dupla base jurídica acima referida. Na votação de hoje, em primeira leitura, o Parlamento Europeu aprovou um conjunto de alterações à proposta da Comissão Europeia que irão agora ser negociadas com o Conselho. Daí o nosso voto favorável.


  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Je salue l'accord en première lecture qui a pu être trouvé pour ce règlement. On compte 75 000 produits chimiques différents sur le marché, et 1 500 autres s’y ajoutent chaque année. Il est donc difficile pour les gouvernements de suivre et de gérer les nombreuses substances potentiellement dangereuses qui franchissent quotidiennement nos frontières.

Le règlement contribuera à une utilisation plus rationnelle de ces produits chimiques dangereux en facilitant l'échange d'informations sur leurs caractéristiques. Les pays importateurs auront ainsi les outils et les informations dont ils ont besoin pour identifier les dangers potentiels et exclure les produits chimiques qu'ils ne sont pas en mesure de gérer en toute sécurité.

Il faut bien reconnaître les difficultés qu'éprouvent parfois les pays exportateurs à obtenir un consentement explicite de la part des pays importateurs. Mais les dérogations accordées aux pays exportateurs en attente d'un consentement ne devront désormais pas être valables plus de 12 mois. Je suis satisfaite de l'adoption de cette mesure qui vise à éviter les importations incontrôlées de produits chimiques dangereux dans les pays tiers.

Ce règlement permettra ainsi d'éviter de nombreuses erreurs qui ont été commises auparavant et qui ont causé des dommages à l'environnement et à la santé publique.


  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), na piśmie. − Sprawozdawca Johannes Blokland słusznie zauważa, że na poziomie międzynarodowym i europejskim należy wprowadzić odpowiednie uregulowania mające na celu zwiększenie ochrony środowiska naturalnego oraz zdrowia publicznego.

Wypracowanie specyficznej infrastruktury w krajach mniej rozwiniętych zdecydowanie przeciwstawi się nieodpowiedzialnemu stosowaniu substancji chemicznych mogących mieć szkodliwe oddziaływanie na środowisko naturalne, gospodarkę i warunki pracy.


  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report. I see the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) as a positive step in this policy area. Ensuring that prior consent is given from third countries receiving dangerous substances helps ensure that developing countries do not fall victim to the dumping of restricted chemicals in their backyard without their agreement. Though this is an encouraging move in the right direction, the implementation of the measures needs to be closely followed by the Commission.


  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. Skrupellose Geschäftemacher versuchen, die besonderen Auflagen, die für den Transport von Chemikalien und anderem Gefahrengut gelten, wie Spezialausbildung der Fahrer, Kennzeichnung und Co., zu umgehen. In Kleinbussen von Paketdiensten finden sich hochgiftige Säuren, explosive Flüssigkeiten oder Munition – oft sogar ohne Wissen des Fahrers. Wenn weder eine Kennzeichnung erfolgt, noch aus den Beförderungspapieren hervorgeht, worum es sich wirklich handelt, besteht bei Unfällen für die Einsatzkräfte teilweise Lebensgefahr. Ein Feuer hätte gar unabsehbare Konsequenzen, nicht nur in Form bleibender Gesundheitsschäden, sondern bis hin zur Verseuchung der Umwelt.

Es ist sinnvoll, die Vorgaben für den Gefahrenguttransport zu vereinfachen, bei gleich bleibender Sicherheit. Es gilt auch zu überlegen, wie man die Verwendung von Doppelhüllentankschiffen forcieren kann, um Umweltkatastrophen zu verringern. Vor allem aber braucht es EU-weit verstärkte LKW-Schwerpunktkontrollen, um schwarze Schafe, die mit ungesicherter, ungekennzeichneter, gefährlicher Ladung, defekten Bremsen und Co. unterwegs sind, aus dem Verkehr zu ziehen.


  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE), na piśmie. − Głosowałem za przyjęciem sprawozdania posła Johannesa Bloklanda w sprawie wniosku dotyczącego rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady dotyczącego wywozu i przywozu niebezpiecznych chemikaliów.

W sprawozdaniu podniesiona jest kwestia zezwolenia na transport bez wyraźnej zgody. Z ekonomicznego punktu widzenia obecna sytuacja jest niekorzystna dla europejskich eksporterów chemikaliów, jeżeli nie uzyskają oni zgody na przywóz wymienionych w załączniku substancji. Na skutek takich uregulowań europejscy eksporterzy, którzy podlegają w Europie dużym ograniczeniom, mogą w łatwy sposób wywozić chemikalia poza teren Unii Europejskiej. Wprowadzenie elastycznej zmiany może spowodować, że szczególnie kraje mniej rozwinięte nie będą miały żadnej ochrony przed wwiezieniem na ich obszar substancji chemicznych. W celu uniknięcia niekontrolowanego wywozu substancji niebezpiecznych do krajów trzecich oraz w celu ochrony krajów, które mogą w mniejszym stopniu lub w ogóle nie mogą ocenić niebezpiecznych chemikaliów, okres milczącej zgody powinien być krótszy.

Ważne jest, że wniosek Komisji odnosi się do kwestii wprowadzenia narzędzi ułatwiających organom celnym egzekwowanie przepisów rozporządzenia. Dla skutecznego i prawidłowego funkcjonowania mechanizmów proponowanych nowym rozporządzeniem konieczna jest ścisła współpraca pomiędzy urzędami celnymi a wyznaczonymi organami krajowymi. Wdrożenie nowych przepisów powinno być poprzedzone opracowaniem wytycznych dotyczących stosowania produktów i dokumentacji informacyjnej oraz przeprowadzeniem szkoleń według standardów wspólnotowych, szczególnie dla nowych państw członkowskich.


- Sprawozdanie: Csaba Őry (A6-0515/2007)


  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), par écrit. – J’ai voté la résolution législative modifiant en 1ère lecture de la procédure de codécision, la proposition de la commission européenne modifiant le règlement (CEE) n° 1408/71 du Conseil relatif à l'application des régimes de sécurité sociale aux travailleurs salariés, non salariés et aux membres de leur famille qui se déplacent à l'intérieur de la communauté européenne et,ce, sur la base du rapport de mon excellent collègue Hongrois Csaba Ory qui apporte des modifications d’ordre technique à la proposition de la commission européenne en vue de clarifier ou d’améliorer la lisibilité du règlement.

Il est heureux que cette réglementation vise à donner une image correcte de l'évolution de la situation juridique des régimes nationaux de sécurité sociale et, donc, à garantir une coordination adéquate, au niveau communautaire.