President. − (HU) The next item is the report (A7-0231/2012) by Christofer Fjellner, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the proposal for a regulation setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (COM(2011)0704 - C7-0395/2011 - 2011/0310(COD)).
Christofer Fjellner, rapporteur. − (SV) Mr President, I shall not use all my speaking time now, but it is possible that I may wish to take the floor again at the end of the debate, if I may, to respond to any questions.
First and foremost, I would like to point out that the aim of this report is to adapt our legislation to the changes that entered into force when Parliament was given the power of codecision on trade matters through the new Treaty.
It is essentially a rather technical question to accelerate the procedure and ensure that we do not delay it for an uncommonly long time. In order to do this, the Commission has stated that we need delegated acts in order both to achieve predictability and to ensure that Parliament does not sit with long lists of products, going through them one at a time. Some of these questions should have been dealt with more quickly by experts in delegated acts; we should now be able to limit these.
The challenge here is that we must deal with this item rather quickly. If we do not, we will have old lists of so-called ‘dual-use items’ that only cover the system changes that have taken place up until 2010. We must deal with the item that we are discussing now rather quickly in order for us to be able to cover all of the changes that took place during 2011.
When we discussed the question in the committee, we unfortunately had a little too much conflict, and quite unnecessarily. A great many views were expressed that did not relate to the technical question of how we should work with delegated acts and achieve faster, more efficient processing, and on that point, I believe the shadow rapporteur and I essentially agree.
Many other questions have also been taken up and discussed. I understand from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, among others, that some further amendments will be tabled. This applies, for example, to the proposals on IT security, transparency, etc. I shall merely point out that I agree with several of them and think that several of them are relevant. I shall not, however, take them up here and risk delaying adoption of this document with reference to the amendments that the S&D Group, among others, has tabled.
Of course, we know that there will be a big overhaul of the entire system of dual-use items. The Commission is planning to submit some things in 2013, and there will be a legislative proposal in 2014. I therefore do not see any compelling reasons as to why we must implement the amendments that I know have been put forward by the S&D Group, among others.
I therefore hope that we can now take this technical item and ensure that we facilitate it so that we can then, at a later date, come back to many of the relevant views that my colleagues have had. I now hope that we can deal with this item quickly and efficiently in accordance with the committee’s proposal.
Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the proposal that we are debating today is about export control of dual-use items and technologies and it therefore, naturally, serves a dual purpose.
Firstly, this proposal is about our security. It aims to make the EU more efficient in preventing the risk of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of the military use of civilian items, while ensuring that we comply with our international commitments in this respect.
Secondly, the proposal is about our prosperity. It will help level the playing field vis-à-vis our competitors and therefore foster our competitiveness by making sure that our export controls do not hamper legitimate trade in critical sectors of our economy.
I believe that the objectives behind the proposal are shared by a large majority of Members of Parliament. It is vital to strike a fair balance between a strong defence of our security and the promotion of our trade concerns.
In order for the EU to achieve these objectives, it is proposed to delegate to the Commission the competence to update the so-called ‘EU control list’ – the list of controlled items – in the Regulation governing the European dual-use export control system. Updates of this list should be carried out frequently in order to comply with our international commitments, leading to quasi-automatic transposition of internationally-agreed controls into EU law. Currently, the legislative procedure is too heavy and not suitable for such a frequent and technical task.
Let me take a recent example: it took the EU more than two years to update the Common Control List. This has been widely criticised by EU economic operators, who sometimes cannot trade in certain goods while their competitors have the freedom to do so, since these products have already been removed from the control lists in other countries.
It is also proposed to empower the Commission to update Annex II of our dual-use export control system, which provides for facilitated controls of certain low-risk items to certain low-risk destinations. This is needed to take account of sometimes rapidly changing circumstances: here again, our security is at stake and the question is how long should it take for the EU to require enhanced controls on exports when the security situation deteriorates in a particular country? In such cases, clearly, time is of the essence and the proposal therefore will accelerate this process.
I have taken note of the different amendments tabled and would like to remind you of an ongoing and wide-ranging review the Commission has launched in relation to our EU export control regime, which offers the appropriate setting to discuss issues that are outside the scope of the proposed Regulation. As I have already explained, the purpose of the proposal we are debating today is simply to introduce a more efficient procedure to revise the EU control list which covers only dual-use items for weapons of mass destruction or military end-use. Thus, we will provide more security and a level playing field for our exporters. That is what is at stake now.
Daniel Caspary, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to follow on from where Commissioner De Gucht left off. It must be in all our interests to have an effective control system to determine whether the wrong items are being exported from the European Union. However, we should also be clear about what this specific regulation is intended to achieve. It deals with items that are primarily used for civilian purposes: items which, fundamentally, are civilian in nature, such as computer keyboards, office chairs, and replacement parts for machinery and vehicles, all of which, in essence, are designed for use in non-military contexts.
The main point of contention between us this evening, notwithstanding the large measure of agreement on this issue, is the question of ex ante or ex post notification of an export. I would ask Members to give some further thought to what this draft regulation actually says. The point at issue in our discussion is this. Provided that the item and the country appear on the relevant lists, an exporter who is subject to this regulation would be legally authorised, under this regulation, to export his product. The only point at issue between us is whether, as a general principle and for statistical reasons, he should be required to provide notification of this export ex post or ex ante. The issue of ex post or ex ante does not relate to whether or not the product may be exported. It can be exported provided that the country and the product appear on the lists. The point is whether, with our export control regime, we are putting European countries at what I would regard as an unnecessary disadvantage in relation to their competitors. So I would ask fellow Members from the other groups to consider whether this is really what we want. In essence, we agree: we must create a more effective export control regime in the EU, and we need to be able to respond more quickly. That is why I fully support the Commission’s proposal. I also endorse the comments made by the rapporteur, namely that the lists must be updated as quickly as possible by the Commission so that we no longer have the untenable situation that we had in the past but instead have effective export controls.
Jörg Leichtfried, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have seen that as soon as dual-use items feature on the agenda, the telephones in the German Economics Ministry light up like Christmas trees. That is when the interventions start, along with the attempts to convince colleagues that they should not be in favour of ex ante controls. In any discussion of this issue, we must be absolutely clear what we are dealing with. We are not talking about office chairs, despite what the previous speaker claims. We are talking about civilian goods which can be used for military purposes. We are talking about dangerous chemicals, and we are also talking about software. Indeed, it was software exported from Europe which, one year ago – and perhaps even now – was used to kill people in the Middle East. It was used in neighbour countries on the opposite shore of the Mediterranean by those who committed human rights abuses and persecuted, tortured and in some cases murdered human rights activists.
With that in mind, surely we can discuss once again whether ex ante approval of these exports is possible. Does it really make a difference, in terms of the bureaucratic effort, whether notification takes place beforehand rather than 30 days later? That does not create more red tape, but it does create rather more security. By that, I mean more security for people who might otherwise suffer as a result of the export of these items and suffer simply so that a few European companies can increase their profits. I believe it is important to ensure, in this House, that Europe’s industry can export its products, but we need effective controls and above all, we need ex ante controls. These are the reasons why we Social Democrats are so keen to ensure that we move in the right direction.
I understand the Commission’s position and I also understand the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). You want a regime that is swift and problem-free. However, the problems that this will cause are serious enough to outweigh any of the concerns that have been expressed here.
Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, in the discussion around dual-use items I would like to focus on technologies. Technologies play an ever more important role in the lives of citizens, empowering the individual, breaking monopolies on information and power, and offering plenty of economic, social, cultural and other opportunities for development.
Technologies also impact human rights. People in Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Syria, China, Burma and many other countries, through the use of smart phones and internet access, are able to claim fundamental human rights such as free expression, press freedom, free assembly and access to information, and they can share documented human rights abuses. But those who fear losing control are striking back, increasingly repressing people with the help of technologies as well. Prisons all over the world are populated by dissidents, human rights defenders, journalists and citizens whose laptops, mobile phones, social media and email accounts have been compromised. In their cases, mass surveillance, mass censorship, tracking and tracing are not issues of statistics, Mr Caspary, but of life and death. Too often, the repressive technologies that are used to repress people have a label: ‘made in Europe’.
It is also important that we do not export technologies that can be used to attack the EU itself. Speed is indeed important, and we must stop the digital arms trade with more transparency and accountability, a level playing field in Europe and more flexibility for updates, so that the EU can play a leading role in an ever-changing world.
Franziska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, dual-use items often look harmless, but in the hands of authoritarian regimes they can be as lethal as machine guns or tanks. We undermine our foreign policy goals if we send surveillance technologies to authoritarian regimes which can then use them to monitor and suppress democracy movements. It was European mobile phone software produced by Nokia Siemens Networks which played into the hands of the Iranian security forces as they crushed the Green protest movement. Large numbers of protesters were abducted, imprisoned, tortured and sentenced to death. That is just one of many examples.
Furthermore, with its Action Plan for an innovative and competitive security industry, as it is called, the Commission is promoting these dubious dual-purpose items. Its stated aim is better exploitation of synergies between security and defence technologies. We are on the verge of selling out: selling out, quite literally, not only human rights but also our security interests in favour of an industrial policy of dubious worth. For that reason, I urge you to vote for the amendments tabled by our Group together with the Social Democrats and the ALDE.
William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, this matter of dual use items keeps on coming up. Its significance is that, in order to export anything on the dual use list, we in the UK need to get permission from the European Commission first. The EU justifies this by asserting that the dual use list prevents weapons falling into the hands of dictators. Given that EU companies sold Colonel Gaddafi the incredible sum of 300 million euros’ worth of arms in just five years, that assertion comes across as being on one level invalid and on another level hypocritical.
To be clear: the purpose of this proposal is to give yet more power to the Commission to designate what items should go on the dual use list. The UK is a global trading nation, and we as a nation [I thought it was a minute and half] find it wholly unacceptable that unelected bureaucrats should have the right to regulate Britain’s exporters and even veto hard-won export orders.
George Sabin Cutaş (S&D) . – (RO) Mr President, the control at European level of the export of dual-use items and technologies is essential to ensure non-proliferation and limit military use. At the same time, we need to find a balance between this requirement and legitimate trade in these products and technologies for civilian purposes.
I support the Commission’s proposal to simplify and accelerate existing procedures to prevent European security issues that may arise due to delays in implementing decisions on tightening controls.
In this regard, I believe that we must remain vigilant about products or technologies that can infringe human rights, democratic principles or the freedom of expression, especially through the use of intercepting technologies and devices for transferring digital information via mobile phones. Therefore, I support the amendment tabled by my political group, by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left.
Catch-the-eye procedure
Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I have requested leave to speak again because I wanted to respond to the Earl of Dartmouth’s comments, which were interesting in some ways but factually inaccurate. This regulation on dual-use items is not about Europe obstructing British exports. It is about ensuring that all our European exporters have the same chances. I know that the United Kingdom is a country that acts very fairly and keeps to the rules. However, there are others in Europe who do not keep to the rules all the time or keep a close eye on what is being exported. This regulation creates equal opportunities for those who respect the law. I believe the Earl of Dartmouth’s country to be one of those countries. That is why I would encourage him not to oppose everything that comes out of Europe on principle, but to look at the issue more closely. European action can benefit the United Kingdom as well, and I believe that is the case here. Do please reconsider and look at exactly what is at stake here.
Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, dual-use items are goods and technologies that can be used for both civilian and military purposes, such as computers, electronics and aerospace technology. If goods of this nature are exported, it is important to ensure that they are not put to undesirable military use. On the other hand, it is also important to ensure that legitimate trading activities are not unduly restricted. Due to today’s rapid technological development, it is only right and proper to safeguard the EU’s capacity to react swiftly and effectively. It damages the European economy if third countries can react more swiftly, thus putting themselves in a more advantageous position in global competition. Generally speaking, efficient implementation of the key parameters depends, firstly, on effective communication between Member States’ authorities, secondly, on effective cooperation between control agencies, and thirdly, on stringent sanctions for non-compliance.
(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)
Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I will be very brief. I just wanted to assure the European Parliament that we are committed to providing all relevant information and documents to the European Parliament when preparing delegated acts, so as to ensure appropriate scrutiny of delegated acts, in line with our institutional commitments.
Secondly, on what Mrs Schaake has been saying about software and so on, she should acknowledge that the EU has taken swift and robust action to prevent the export of telecommunications interception and internet monitoring equipment in violation of human rights. This was, in particular, the case with the adoption of sanctions against Syria and Iran. Having said this, what this proposal is about is speed: speed when something should be removed from the list; speed also when something should be put on the list. That is what we are asking the House’s agreement for.
Christofer Fjellner, rapporteur. − Mr President, first of all we do not disagree on the most substantial issues. These dual-use items could be used to oppress people and could be used for war, and therefore we have – or may I say we should have – the strongest legislation in the world to control these items. The problem is that we do not have this any more since, because of the Lisbon Treaty, our procedures for changing these lists are too cumbersome and take too long. As the world is changing, we have to be swift and effective in changing legislation. That is exactly why we need to swiftly adopt this legislation instead of pre-empting the whole debate over changing the legislation. That debate has been scheduled, so let us address that issue when we get there. But now we need to update this legislation on the basis of the Commission proposal. So each thing at its right time – now it is time to adopt this piece of legislation and not to pre-empt future debates.
President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place today.
(The session was suspended at 17.55 and resumed at 18.00.)