President. The next item is questions to the Commission (B6-0009/2005).

We shall take a number of questions to the Commission.

Part I

Questions to Commissioner McCreevy

  President.

Question no 41 by Katerina Batzeli (H-0046/05)

Subject: Provision of services by construction companies in the context of proposal for a Directive COM(2004)0002/final

The services covered by the Commission's proposal for a directive on the harmonisation of services in the internal market include construction, technical and architectural services, and audiovisual services which are not covered by the multiannual Community audiovisual programme.

Given the importance of the country of origin in cases where cross-border services are provided without the provider being established in the Member State where the service is performed, and the directive's objective of establishing an open internal market and enforcing the principle of non-discrimination, can technical, architectural and construction companies provide services or take part in public works contracts in the country of establishment when they might also participate as shareholders in companies providing audiovisual services in the country of origin, which is not a reason for excluding them from providing services in the private sector?

  McCreevy, Member of the Commission. I wish to say at the outset that this is really a question on public procurement and not on the Services Directive.

The first point to note is that, as regards the participation in procedures for the award of public works contracts, it is not contrary to Community law that technical, architectural or construction companies holding shares in other companies which provide audiovisual services in one Member State, including the Member States of establishment, participate in such procedures in any of the Member States, including the one in which they are established.

Under Community public procurement law, there is an exhaustive list of criteria to exclude companies from public procurement contracts. Examples of these are when a company is being wound up, when its managers have been involved in proven misconduct, or when tax or social security obligations have not been fulfilled. Member States may not add criteria to this list. As regards the proposed directive on services, the Commission can confirm that all these services fall within its scope.

It is the case that certain Member States impose restrictions on multi-disciplinary activities that may restrict either the freedom of establishment or the cross-border provision of services. In order to deal with these kinds of potential barriers, Article 30 of the proposal stipulates that Member States shall ensure that providers are not made subject to requirements which oblige them to exercise a given activity exclusively, or in a manner which restricts the exercise of different activities either jointly or in partnership.

However, exceptions are made for regulated professions and providers of certification, accreditation, technical monitoring, and test or trial services. For activities where multidisciplinary activities are authorised, Member States shall ensure that conflicts of interest and incompatibilities between certain activities are prevented, that independence and impartiality – when required – are secured, and that rules on professional ethics and conduct for different activities are compatible. These requirements will be subject to mutual evaluation by the Member States and the Commission.

  Batzeli (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for the clear answer he has given to the question which I raised and to add that the restrictions imposed under Greek legislation on the basis of the basic shareholder will not only hit construction companies, as stated in my question; all economic service sectors, wherever they move and are proposed, will be affected by the Services Directive on the part of the Commission, such as food, advertising companies, the tourist industry, architectural firms, private individuals and companies. I therefore consider that the adjustment needs to be made in this direction. Thank you very much.

  McCreevy, Member of the Commission. I thank the honourable Member for her addition. What is in the Services Directive does not change in any way the problem to which the honourable Member has alluded, and the Commission is indeed aware of the relevant legal framework in Greece. The Commission is in contact with the authorities there and is currently examining the whole situation.

  President.

Question no 42 by Jacek Protasiewicz (H-0092/05)

Subject: Discrimination against Polish workers and companies in the EU internal market

On the EU internal market, there is unequal treatment of Polish companies and workers, who encounter unjustified barriers in carrying out their activities. Does the Commission know of examples of discrimination or of regulations which contravene the treaties (the Treaty of Accession, Annex XII, Freedom of movement for persons, paragraph 13, and in particular the transitional regulations on the freedom of movement of persons) found in the national laws of the EU Member States of Austria, the Netherlands and Italy, which allow such practices, or is it aware of any breaches by Germany of Article 49, first paragraph, of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 1 of Directive 96/71/EC(1) relating to the posting of temporary workers through temporary employment agencies? What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to address these?

  McCreevy, Member of the Commission. As far as the freedom to provide services is concerned, the Commission has been made aware of problems encountered by companies from the new Member States who post their workers to the Netherlands. A number of complaints have been received. The Commission is presently looking into the matter to ensure that the freedom to provide services as provided for under Article 49 of the Treaty is respected and any unjustified obstacles are removed.

The Commission is not aware of instances in which Polish firms operating in Italy, Germany or other Member States may have been discriminated against. No such complaints have been lodged with the Commission. However, the Commission is in the process of writing to the relevant Member States to request further information to establish whether breaches of EU rules may have taken place. In light of the information provided, the Commission will assess the situation in each Member State and decide upon the appropriate steps.

  Protasiewicz (PPE-DE).   (PL) Many thanks, Mr President, thank you, Commissioner. I should like to inform the Commissioner that according to the reports to which Poland has access, which include government reports, three EU Member States still have in place legislation that makes no allowance for enlargement of the EU that took place on 1 May 2004. Under this legislation, rules that were in force before that date continue to be applied to entrepreneurs from the new Member States. At the same time, seven other Member States employ practices that do not comply with principles such as the free movement of persons and services and the freedom of establishment on the common EU market for companies from the new Member States, including Poland. I would be more than happy to provide the Commissioner with relevant examples. I thank you.

  McCreevy, Member of the Commission. EU citizens and businesses must have confidence in the EU's legal framework if they are to maintain a positive view of the Community. The free movement provisions of the Treaty are fundamental to the EU and are amongst the major benefits of EU membership. Accordingly, the Commission places the highest priority on maintaining the integrity of the internal market and carefully investigates all complaints in exactly the same way, irrespective of where they come from or which Member State they concern.

The Commission is aware of the fact that some Member States have adopted national measures that do not conform with the transitional provisions relating to the free movement of workers under the Accession Treaty. The Commission is looking into these matters and will contact the Member States concerned in accordance with its role as guardian of the Treaties.

  Harbour (PPE-DE). – In the light of the question from our Polish colleague, I would like to ask Commissioner McCreevy whether he would agree with me that this is exactly the sort of problem that will be fully addressed by the proposal for a directive on the internal market for services. Perhaps he could take the opportunity to confirm something I read in an independent report this week: this directive will apparently reduce prices, raise output across the European Union, create 600 000 new jobs and increase the trade in services. Will the Commissioner therefore finally confirm his unequivocal support for this directive and his willingness to work with us in Parliament for its speedy and smooth transition?

  McCreevy, Member of the Commission. It is undoubtedly correct that any impulsion that could be given to the area of services in the EU would have a major economic impact. As Members are aware, approximately 70% of the Union's GDP comes from services. Therefore, any way of giving a major boost to this particular area would have a major impact in terms of jobs. The Services Directive is an attempt to open up this particular area and to achieve that major economic impact.

I am aware of the various studies carried out on the number of jobs that could be created. However, as the Member is also very much aware, the draft services directive has provoked a considerable amount of discussion within Member States and in all areas throughout the EU. As the Member is further aware, I am working with MEPs and I hope we can ensure that, when the Services Directive passes through its various processes, it will have a very positive economic impact, having taken on board the legitimate concerns of parliamentarians and others.

  Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the gist of my question is whether the Directive on the posting of workers actually applies to temp agencies which send clients on job placements or whether there is a danger here that sham contracts or contracts designed to circumvent obligations might be used in the future.

  McCreevy, Member of the Commission. The position that was agreed when the accession countries were joining must be adhered to. If some Member States are invoking other procedures which do not conform with the accession provisions, then the Commission will follow these up and action will be taken.

It is true that some Member States negotiated special provisions and if they are operating in accordance with those, there will be no difficulties but if others are not, action has to be taken.

  President.

Question no 43 by Johan Van Hecke (H-0050/05)

Subject: Dumping and irregular imports from Ukraine; fraud involving certificates of origin

PET (plastic) bottles are made from 'preforms'. In the European Union, a general import duty rate of 6.5% applies to such preforms. The EU grants certain countries, such as Ukraine, a preferential rate of 0% if a certificate of origin (Form A) can be produced for the preforms. In the case of Ukraine, the form means that the preforms have been made from material originating in Ukraine or at least elsewhere in Europe.

I have established that preforms are currently being imported into the European Union from Ukraine under cover of Form A (certificate of origin) at implausibly low prices, bearing in mind current European commodity prices. This must therefore involve dumping and/or fraud in the completion of the certificates of origin (material from Asia being used) in order to evade import duty, to the detriment of other suppliers. Is the Commission aware of this? Will it investigate the matter and take the necessary action? Will it raise the matter with the Ukraine authorities and, if appropriate, refer it to OLAF?

  Kovács, Commission. The information in the question could refer to at least three different possible problems, each of which has to be addressed differently. If there is circumvention via Ukraine of anti-dumping and/or anti-subsidy measures imposed in a number of third countries – such as Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia and several others – then Community producers should lodge a request to initiate anti-circumvention investigations in line with the relevant provisions of the basic anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulations.

If the product is of Ukrainian origin and is imported into the Community market at dumped prices thus causing injury to Community producers, the latter are encouraged to lodge a request for the initiation of a new anti-dumping investigation in line with the relevant provisions of the basic anti-dumping regulations.

The Commission's trade defence services are at the disposal of producers to explain the relevant requirements and procedures for anti-dumping measures to be exposed.

If it is a case of the falsification of certificates of origin, the customs authorities and the EU anti-fraud service – OLAF – should be called upon to act. OLAF's responsibility to protect the financial interests of the European Community include the investigation of irregularities and illegal trade in the framework of existing Community legislation. That would include any irregularities identified in the Community's anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation. I want to add that no investigations are ongoing in this field for the time being and OLAF does not have any records on this situation. However, OLAF has good working relations with the Ukrainian customs authorities.

In conclusion, I should like to reiterate that the Commission is grateful for the information provided by the honourable Member and it will examine any relevant information provided by European industry. On the basis of that information, it will take appropriate action.

  Van Hecke (ALDE). – (NL) Thank you, Mr President and thank you, Commissioner, for the very extensive response. Since submitting this question, I have indeed received confirmation from various quarters that this is fairly systematic practice to such an extent that European manufacturers of PET bottles suffer huge losses as a result. It does therefore seem important to me that the Commission should ask OLAF to launch an inquiry. I can, moreover, inform the Commissioner that the European manufacturers, in line with procedures, have submitted a request to review anti-dumping legislation. My question is therefore very specific, Commissioner. Are you, given the seriousness of the situation and the implications this may have for our industry, prepared to follow this up promptly?

  Kovács, Commission. As the honourable Member knows, that comes under Commissioner Mandelson's portfolio, so I cannot give a detailed answer to the supplementary question. However, I can promise that I will duly inform my colleague and, if he thinks it appropriate, then he will certainly start an investigation into the matter.

Part Two

Questions to Commissioner Kovacs

President. As the author is not present, Question 44 will not be taken.

Questions to Commissioner Barrot

  President.

Question no 45 by Bernd Posselt (H-0575/04)

Subject: Trans-European high-speed rail link

What measures does the Commission intend to take to promote the further development of the trans-European high-speed rail link from Paris via Strasbourg to Munich and Budapest?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) I would like to respond in the following way to this first question regarding the implementation of the trans-European high-speed rail link. I would like to answer Mr Posselt as follows. The Paris-Strasbourg-Munich-Budapest trans-European rail link is one of the thirty priority projects of the trans-European network decided upon by the European Parliament and the Council on 29 April 2004. In fact, it is priority project no 4 (Eastern high-speed rail link) and no 17 (Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Brastislava rail link). Some of the common interest projects on this line are at an advanced stage of preparation or implementation, in particular the Eastern high-speed train between Vaires and Baudrecourt, and the improvement of the Danube rail link between Salzburg and Vienna. Others, however, in particular the cross-border sections between Member States (France and Germany, Germany and Austria) are experiencing considerable delays, particularly for financial reasons.

Mr President, in order to better coordinate the efforts of the different national and regional, public and private partners involved in this project, the Commission intends to appoint a European coordinator. I dare to hope that I myself will be able to propose the nomination of this coordinator to the Commission very soon. For some years the Commission has already been making significant contributions to the funding of these projects. EUR 315 million have been allocated to the project on the trans-European link in Germany and Austria, under the budget heading for trans-European transport networks, an additional EUR 66 million are planned for 2005 and 2006 and, for the 2007-2013 period, the Commission has proposed raising the budget for the trans-European transport network to EUR 20 million.

Obviously, Mr President, the adoption of this proposal at budget level is the very minimum requirement in order to be able to speed up a project such as the trans-European rail link. I fervently hope that the financial perspectives as proposed by the Commission will be approved by our Member States.

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, let me begin by saying that I am glad the Commissioner has answered the question so explicitly and intends to have a coordinator appointed. This, I believe, is important, because this major link, which could subsequently be extended to Prague and other cities, would otherwise remain a mere pipe dream. In my opinion, we must press for the speedy implementation of this project.

I also have two very specific supplementary questions for the Commissioner. Firstly, what is the present position regarding the plans for the Rhine bridge between Strasbourg and Kehl? As we all know, this is a single-track bridge, and its upgrading is a matter of the utmost priority – a small but crucial part of the project. Secondly, what can you tell us about the transverse axis from Brussels to Strasbourg via Luxembourg which is also under discussion?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) I thank the honourable Member for the relevance of his questions. When the guidelines were reviewed in April 2004, the sections of the Eastern part of the main line between Stuttgart, Munich, Salzburg, Vienna, Bratislava and Budapest were added, which were the Baudrecourt, Strasbourg and Stuttgart sections and the Kehl bridge over the Rhine, priority project no 17.

The work between Baudrecourt and Strasbourg should start around 2010. The Kehl bridge, which, as you pointed out, is planned between Strasbourg and Appenweier, is a major bottleneck, so the planning priorities for Germany and France were previously different. According to a joint declaration from the German and French Governments, it appears that at present plans could be made so that the project will be finished by 2010.

I hope that this major priority can be achieved in order to link the two Member States of France and Germany, and therefore many other Member States. The whole of Europe has an interest in this project, including, of course, Strasbourg.

  Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I ask you, Commissioner, whether you think that border crossings between Member States might be eligible for special support, and is there actually a need for this line to be constructed definitively as a high-speed link?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Certainly according to the financial resources that the Union receives, we will make interconnections a priority. I am not ruling out a much more favourable subsidy rate for this type of operation.

  Sonik (PPE-DE).   (PL) Commissioner, you mentioned the rail link from Paris to Budapest via Berlin, Bratislava and Prague. Are there plans for a similar rail link to eastern and northern Europe, from Paris via Berlin to Warsaw or a more distant location?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Of course the whole point of trans-European projects is that they are corridors. It is quite obvious that the reason why I wish to propose to the Commission that a coordinator be nominated is precisely in order to see how all the sections involved will be gradually dealt with along the corridor.

  President.

Question no 46 by John Purvis (H-0002/05)

Subject: Road transport accidents

Is there any evidence that drivers from left-hand-drive countries are more likely than residents to be involved in road accidents in right-hand-driving countries and similarly right-hand-drivers in left-hand-driving countries? Are European road accidents increased in number and severity because some countries drive on the right and others on the left?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) In answer to Mr John Purvis, I would first like to say that we do of course pay a great deal of attention to these problems of road accidents and that all of these problems, as we saw earlier when looking at the report on driving licences, are very important.

Having said that, neither the Commission, nor the Member State that is most affected, the United Kingdom, have statistics to directly prove a risk associated with driving on the left or the right. In general, the number of accidents involving continental drivers in the United Kingdom and vice-versa is too low for us to draw statistical lessons from it or draw any conclusions. This is my answer to Mr Purvis

  Purvis (PPE-DE). – Mr Commissioner, you may not have the statistics but I certainly see in my newspapers in my constituency of Scotland all too often that our tourist guests are killed and injured on our roads in Scotland, and most particularly on roads that convert regularly from two-lane to four-lane and back to two-lane.

Could not the Commissioner institute the gathering of statistics on this to see whether something should be done about it – possibly to encourage the Member State concerned to ensure that as many as possible of our main trunk routes are four-lane – for example, the Perth-to-Inverness trunk route? I should also like to know whether there is any plan to consider harmonising the side of the road on which we are to drive in Europe.

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) I have no hesitation in saying to Mr Purvis that this is a matter of subsidiarity, and it is really up to the Member State to see whether there need to be improvements to infrastructures. What I would like to say to Mr Purvis is that we have no intention of harmonising the side of the road on which we drive in the European Union, given the exorbitant cost and the major foreseeable increase in the number of accidents during the transitional phase.

However, making improvements as you have suggested makes sense, and I think that the Member State in question should make the effort to respond to that. Anything that provides additional information on the causes of accidents in Europe will in any case be welcomed by the Commission, which has set itself the task of proposing any measures that will help to halve the number of people killed on the road.

  Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to come back to the Commissioner’s answer to the last question from Mr Purvis.

We all know that every death on the roads is one death too many. Particularly because I come from a Member State where subsidiarity is writ large, I believe that, with regard to the uniform provisions that we need to govern road traffic, speed limits and the like, the question we really have to ask the Commission is this: are any discussions or studies being conducted with a view to assessing what action it would actually be wise to take?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mrs Schierhuber, we have a deadline. In other words, 2005 is the half-way point in the programme of ten years that the Union set itself to halve the number of deaths. Obviously this is going to be the year of general evaluation. At the moment we are in the process of collecting all the data, so that in the second phase we can step up our measures in order to achieve this ambitious but essential objective of halving the number of deaths on the Union’s roads. Thank you for sharing this concern, which everyone should be aware of.

  President.

Question no 47 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0006/05)

Subject: Proposal for a directive for port services

In its proposal for a directive on port services (COM(2004)0654/final), the Commission provides its clearest definition to date of the term and application of 'self-handling'. Despite this, major organisations, such as the European Transport Workers' Federation and the European Sea Ports Organisation, are concerned about the likelihood of social unrest in ports, the discouragement of potential investors and the ensuing decline in competitiveness. What is the Commission's response to the concerns of the trade unions and how does it intend to ensure that workers already registered with trade unions will not suffer any discrimination, resulting ultimately in a reduction in their employment prospects and income?

Furthermore, how does the Commission respond to the charge by the above trade union organisations that the 'self-handling' provision is incompatible with ILO Convention 137 on cargo handling in docks?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, I would like to say in response to Mr Papadimoulis that, with regard to the directive on port services, the text proposed by the Commission defines the expression ‘self-handling’ and its application in a more detailed way than had been previously done. But the debate has scarcely begun on this proposal for a directive on port services.

The hearing planned in June in the Committee on Transport and Tourism will be the perfect opportunity to look in more detail at the fundamental elements, including the social aspects, and to hear the opinions of all the parties involved. In the proposal, self-handling is subject to authorisation, the criteria for which cover salary and working conditions. The aim of introducing an authorisation is to ensure, among other things, that self-handling suppliers comply with the salary and working conditions that apply in a port.

Consequently, the Commission does not think that its proposal, and in particular the clauses on self-handling, will have negative consequences for the employment and income of people already employed in the port sector.

Moreover, the Commission considers that the application of the principles and rules listed in its proposal for a directive will result in a transfer of the volume of additional traffic towards maritime transport, which will inevitably create excess business and will result in jobs being created in European ports.

When it presented its proposal for a directive, the Commission invited the Member States to ratify the conventions adopted under the aegis of international organisations, and in particular the relevant conventions of the International Labour Office, including the ILO Convention on cargo handling in docks that you refer to in your question.

I hope that at the hearing in June, your examination of the proposal will be fruitful and that we will arrive at a balanced text that will enable us to revitalise the sector while, of course, preserving the working conditions which are personally very important to me.

  Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Allow me to insist, Commissioner. I am here, opposite you. Apart from the reactions of the trades union, in December 2004, when the Commission presented its proposal to the Council, several Member States voiced negative criticism. Of them, France, Germany, England, Sweden and Belgium criticised the Commission for failing to hold adequate consultations on the matter, for failing to investigate the consequences of application. Taking account of the negative prehistory, when the Commission tabled a proposal which was thrown out by the European Parliament, do you intend to re-examine the content of the proposal or do you propose to proceed despite the reactions?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr Papadimoulis, the proposal was rejected at the end of the legislative process when work had already been done. In view of that, the Commission did not completely rewrite the text, but it wanted to take account of the worries and concerns expressed during the discussions. I believe the Commission was right to take its time and give itself the opportunity to hear all the parties. I shall see to it personally that this debate is carried through with great care.

  President.

Question no 48 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0008/05)

Subject: Transport network in Southeast Europe

In view of the forthcoming accession of Bulgaria and Romania and the upgrading of relations between the Balkan countries and the EU to higher levels of cooperation (Stabilisation and Association Agreements, Pre-Accession Strategy) the question arises whether there are any plans to unify the Southeast Europe economic area, mainly from the point of view of road and railway infrastructures.

What specific initiatives has the Commission already taken, or does it intend to take in future, to establish vertical and horizontal crossborder (international) links and corresponding infrastructures to facilitate crossborder trade between Greece, the candidate countries and the other States of Southeast Europe which have their sights firmly fixed on Europe?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) I would like to say in answer to Mr Papastamkos that, during the accession negotiations and in agreement with the countries concerned, the Commission identified the future Trans-European networks, both road and rail, of Romania and Bulgaria, where the main connections will be with Greece.

In April 2004, the European Parliament and the Council decided on priority projects for Trans-European networks. There are two projects that will help to connect Greece with its northern neighbours and with Central Europe: the Athens-Sofia-Budapest motorway and the main Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nuremberg railway line. On 11 June 2004, the western Balkan countries and the Commission signed a protocol of agreement to promote the region’s strategic networks as previously identified in a Commission report in 2001. The Commission is therefore also actively involved in what the countries concerned are doing to develop the pan-European transport corridors, four of them in particular. Corridors 4, 8, 9 and 10 involve Greece and its links with the countries of Southwest Europe.

Recently, on my suggestion, Mr Papastamkos, the Commission set up a high-level group chaired by the former Commission Vice-President, Mrs Loyola de Palacio, which will by the end of 2005 identify the priority routes or projects connecting the enlarged European Union with its neighbours to the east and south. Greece’s links with its western Balkan neighbours are also being examined in this context. In the last few years, the Commission has allocated large amounts of money to road and rail projects relating to Greece’s main links with its northern neighbours from the Trans-European networks budget, the structural financial instruments or the Phare and Cards programmes. The Commission also intends increasing its efforts in the 2007-2013 financial perspectives with all the details I gave just now and do not want to repeat.

It is up to the countries concerned to take the initiative of preparing and proposing projects that could be supported financially by Community funds and European Investment Bank loans.

  Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for his detailed reply. My interest arises from the fact that the economic area in the region continues to be fragmented and isolated and its regional and European integration continues to be hampered.

My supplementary question is this: does the Commission really intend to place greater emphasis on those transport networks which, on the one hand, promote the unification of southern Europe and, on the other hand, by connecting them with the trans-European networks, help the interconnection of these countries – the countries of Southeast Europe – with the European Union and the integration of the economic area as a whole.

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr Papastamkos, it is true that it is a priority. We have enlarged Europe and with the imminent prospects of enlargement with Romania and Bulgaria, the neighbourhood policy is beginning to take shape. I therefore think that in this new context we shall have to give priority to those corridors and transport routes to which you have drawn our attention. I would also like to say that I am expecting much from Mrs Loyola de Palacio’s report; she is obviously putting a lot of thought into it and I am sure she will be consulting all the Member States.

  President.

Question no 49 by Ignasi Guardans Cambó (H-0016/05)

Subject: Rail transport liberalisation

The liberalisation of Spain’s railways, in accordance with European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/51/EC(2), entered into force on 1 January 2005. Opening the railways up to competition is very important in order to attain the Lisbon objectives and to guarantee competitiveness in Europe. However, certain measures can sometimes serve to hinder the process of full liberalisation. For example, this can happen as a result of a lack of harmonisation with regard to safety certificates.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that all the practical effects of liberalisation are addressed and to prevent certain Member States from setting up internal mechanisms that could hinder liberalisation?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr Guardans Cambó, the Commission is ensuring that the Member States implement the acquis communautaire in the area of rail transport.

By now, the Member States should have transposed the directives relating to the ‘railway infrastructure package’ and the directives on railway interoperability. So far as the opening up of the rail freight market is concerned, the Member States ought to have transposed the ‘infrastructure package’ directives, in particular Directive 2001/12, by 15 March 2003. The Commission brought infringement proceedings for non-communication of transposition measures, or at least some of them, against Germany, the United Kingdom, Greece and Luxembourg. The Court of Justice found against those countries in October-November 2004. Infringement proceedings for incomplete or incorrect transposition have been brought against the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain.

The Commission will continue to ensure that the Member States fully comply with their obligations to transpose Community law. It will do that in particular for the directive to which you refer, which must be transposed by 31 December 2005. The Commission is following the actual implementation of the new regulatory framework for railway infrastructure access very closely through a working group made up of the Member States and market participants’ representatives, who are invited to exchange their analyses and experience of the development of the competitive market with the Commission.

There are also other bodies whose task is to observe and evaluate non-discriminatory access to the market, such as the regulatory and consultative committee set up by Directive 2001/12 on the development of the Community’s railways, which I have already mentioned, and a large number of working groups, such as the railway regulators’ working group or those of the authorities that issue railway licences and safety certificates.

May I say to you, Mr Guardans Cambó, that I for my part believe this is a very important question because it is essential that we have a strong rail transport industry if we are to avoid Europe always having to use road transport; that would be harmful both to the environment and, by creating bottlenecks, to the European mobility we need if Europe is to be competitive; it would also be detrimental to the comfort of its citizens.

  Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, as you have said, a lot of hopes have been placed in this liberalisation of rail transport. As you know, however, as happened in their day for goods, it is the case that safety certificates in particular – to give you an example involving a country you perhaps know better than others – prevent genuine liberalisation. It is what, in goods transport, are called measures of equivalent effect, restrictions having an effect equivalent to genuine restrictions.

I would therefore like the Commission to check not just that liberalisation as such has been implemented, as a principle, but also to ensure that there are no concrete obstacles to its actually being put into effect on the ground.

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr Guardans Cambó, I can tell you that I fully share your concern. We must see to it that there are indeed no more or less hidden barriers to this opening up of the rail market. You mention safety certificates in particular. There is clearly a need for an independent authority that is able to issue safety certificates on a completely objective basis. You also refer to a number of Member States which I know well. Let me assure you that I ask just as much of them, and you will see that presently.

  President.

Question no 50 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (H-0036/05)

Subject: Proposal for a directive on mandatory daytime running lights

Different provisions exist across the EU for the use of headlights during the daytime, and in some Member States daytime running lights are mandatory on all roads, Sweden for example. The experience from these countries illustrates the great safety benefits these provisions deliver. Studies have found up to 24% reduction in daytime road fatalities due to mandatory daytime running lights(3).

I understand the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council wishes to oversee progress on a directive on daytime running lights and has therefore requested the Commission to adopt a proposal that has been in preparation. However, suggestions have been made that the Commission would prefer to delay adopting this proposal until publication of the mid-term review of the third road safety programme due in June.

Can the Commission confirm that it is preparing such a proposal and that it will adopt it with the utmost urgency rather than awaiting completion of another dossier?

Waiting a further six months, when mandatory daytime running lights are known to be very effective in saving lives and have a low cost, and the Council Presidency wants progress, would not be fulfilling the Commission’s own approach to road safety of accepting a shared responsibility.

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Thank you for also coming to ask me about one of the important questions which will, I hope, enable us to improve road safety in Europe.

The Commission confirms that it is looking into the feasibility of an initiative to introduce daytime use of dipped headlights on all motor vehicles. As you point out, this measure appears in several national highway codes and has in any case been recommended in other Member States. If the examination proves positive, the Commission intends submitting its proposal after the publication of the mid-term review of the European road safety programme I mentioned just now and which is expected in the second half of this year. We shall see how to respond to this suggestion.

In the meantime, the Commission will continue its consultations with the circles concerned, in particular the motor industry. We need, for example, to look at the possibility of introducing, for new vehicles, special lights that would be switched on automatically when moving off. These new lights will use less power than dipped headlights, because one of the objections made to us is about the energy used by having them on during the day. When we come to update the road safety programme, we will try to answer this question in the light of all the experience and of all the lessons drawn from that experience.

  Hedkvist Petersen (PSE). (SV) Thank you very much for your answer, which I found encouraging. We must make use of every option for promoting road safety: all the various existing options and those which are becoming available in the different Member States. There is naturally concern about having to wait for a review and about not being able to take initiatives. I should like to ask the Commissioner whether he thinks that the Commission will present more than one proposal for a directive following the mid-term review, because that possibility was in actual fact mentioned in the road safety programme we have now.

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, I do not intend to delay the taking of decisions. I believe the technical documents will be available in the next few months and then of course the Commission will have to shoulder its responsibilities and make proposals. I would like to thank you in advance for your support because this is an area where, as you know, some Member States will always have reasons for rejecting certain measures even though we know they will cut the number of road deaths in Europe.

  Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Could I ask the Commissioner if he would circulate the research that has been done to show that cars running with daytime lights significantly reduces road accidents. Can I also ask his view in relation to this being an issue best applied by Member States? If the Commissioner is interested in the issue of safety there are many areas in which the Commission could involve itself – for example, I note that in France, taxi drivers do not have to wear seatbelts but once they cross into Germany, they do. Is this not a matter best left to Member States?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) There are already Member States where the use of dipped headlights is compulsory: the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Hungary and Sweden. France introduced them as a recommendation during the winter of 2004/2005. We will be able to begin talks with the motor industry to get new vehicles fitted with devices that automatically switch dipped headlights on as soon as the engine is started. Then we will see how to introduce the use of dipped headlights during the day on all motor vehicles.

As you pointed out following Mrs Hedkvist’s question, a recent study has shown that using dipped headlights during the day will help to reduce the number of road accidents appreciably: by between 5 and 15%. There was also a problem with motorcycle drivers, but I think all these problems are being resolved.

That is what I can say with things as they are at present. I am asking Parliament to be a little patient so that we can really prepare this package of additional measures for improved safety on Europe’s roads.

  President.

Question no 51 by Marta Vincenzi (H-0070/05)

Subject: 2004/TREN/052

The Commission’s work programme refers to the ‘Commission Communication on the rights of users in the transport sector’ 2004/TREN/052.

To what extent is the Commission willing to include in this Communication, and explicitly support, the right to safety for passengers and goods using road infrastructure, by making it compulsory for maintenance work to take into account the needs of users and ensuring better designed road access and protection from the dangers of the road network in the Member States?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) First, let me go back a bit: the Commission is making the study on dipped headlights available to you. I did not have the information, but the study is available to you.

Now I will answer Mrs Vincenzi’s question. As set out in its White Paper, in its Communication of 16 February on strengthening the rights of passengers, the Commission promised that in 2005 it would look at the best way of improving and guaranteeing passengers’ rights in the different modes of transport. This Communication approaches the question of passengers’ rights in the road sector from the point of view of international coach services.

So far as road safety is concerned, Mr President, and we have already spoken about it at some length, the 2001 White Paper proposed cutting the number of casualties by half by the year 2010. In the countries of the present Union, the Union of 25 Member States, 50 000 people were killed in 2001; there must be no more than 25 000 in 2010. The European Parliament and the Council have adopted this ambitious target. In 2003, the Commission adopted an action plan concerning the vehicle, user behaviour and the road infrastructure: three aspects. Well, this year we are going to publish a review of the efforts made to reach that target.

As I said, and I want to stress this, we will have to make new legislative proposals, one of which will be concerned in particular with road infrastructure audits and inspections. I would nevertheless like to add, for Parliament’s information, that motorists’ behaviour will also have to be taken into account, and we shall have to see what we can do to bring some harmonisation to the rules in force throughout the Union in this field as well.

  Vincenzi (PSE). – (IT) Thank you, Commissioner. I would, however, ask you to be more explicit about the interpretation of Article 16 of the EC Treaty, from which it seems to me that one can infer that users have a right to mobility and hence to having minimum safety standards drawn up in the field of services.

I ask you, therefore, whether we can begin to class motorways, or at least toll motorways, as a service in the public interest. The reason would be, in part, to prevent the legitimate call for safety – which has resulted in the Charter of Passengers’ Rights being drawn up for the airline sector and also in future for the railways – from making such carriers less competitive in comparison with the motorways. I believe that putting all those involved on a level playing field and increasing safety for everyone should be an explicit objective.

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) What we must do is draw up rules for the road that will apply along the length of the major routes, rather as we have done for air and rail transport. So far as possible, we are in fact going to demand that the same rules be applied for Trans-European networks. As you know, we are touching here on problems that come under the third package of Justice and Home Affairs measures. It is the whole problem of sanctions; it is the whole problem of controls and offences. Clearly, all this now needs to be harmonised; it will no doubt be rather difficult to achieve, but it is necessary. In any case, so far as Trans-European networks are concerned, we are very definite that we want this improvement. We are thinking of presenting a proposal for a directive on greater security and safety in Trans-European transport networks before the end of 2005.

  President.

Question no 52 by Richard Howitt (H-0074/05)

Subject: The rights of passengers with reduced mobility when travelling by air

Could the Commission explain the lengthy delay in tabling the ‘Regulation on the rights of passengers with reduced mobility when travelling by air’, which was originally scheduled for submission in the first quarter of 2004? Will the Commission undertake to defend a final version of the Regulation which does not contain an opt-out clause for airlines?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) I would like to thank Mr Howitt for his question. Thank you Mr Howitt, because this gives me the opportunity to reiterate how important the Commission believes it is for persons with reduced mobility to be able to count on being treated fairly by being guaranteed appropriate assistance so that they can travel throughout the European Union with confidence.

Only three months after taking office as Commission Vice-President responsible for transport, I submitted to the College a regulation which gives real and tangible rights to persons with reduced mobility travelling by plane. It seeks to ensure them fair treatment by preventing carriers or tour operators from refusing to carry them because of their reduced mobility except for justified safety reasons. The proposed regulation therefore asks airport managers to provide the necessary assistance at airports free of charge and asks carriers to make the necessary assistance available on board aircraft, also free of charge. The regulation would apply to cases of departure, arrival or transit in airports located in Member States.

It goes without saying, Mr Howitt, that I am very much counting on Parliament’s support and I am confident that, with the Council, you will work on this dossier diligently so that it can be adopted quickly. The contacts I have had with disabled persons’ organisations have enabled me to gauge the hope to which this regulation, which is the start of a policy of non-discrimination towards the disabled, gives rise. I can tell you that I will continue to treat this as an essential concern, since I am convinced that guaranteeing accessibility and mobility for all is for us a European ideal.

That is the reply I wanted to give you, Mr Howitt. You are right, there has undoubtedly been some delay, but today we are hard at work and we must now press on resolutely.

  Howitt (PSE). – Commissioner, you can count on my support, and, I hope, that of Parliament. We criticise the Commission when we need to, but you have put forward an excellent regulation and I hope it will be passed swiftly. I hope you will be pleased to hear that one low-cost operator, Easyjet, which serves Luton airport in my constituency, has said that prices need not go up because of this draft regulation. That comment removes some of the scare stories about the regulation.

Could the Commissioner answer one question which was put to me: why, if this is right for air travel, should it not apply to other modes of transport?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) In its communication, the Commission gave an undertaking, in accordance with the White Paper, that during 2005 it would examine the need for legislation to extend the rules on the protection of passengers with reduced mobility to other modes of transport, in particular shipping and international coach transport.

Having said that, Mr Howitt, you have clearly understood, so far as rail transport is concerned, that the third railway package contains a legislative proposal introducing minimum rules for assistance to persons with reduced mobility. I know that Parliament feels strongly about this third railway package and that it does not want the package’s various measures to be broken up. I believe this is very important and that the measure concerning persons with reduced mobility will be added to those that came into force on 17 February 2005, that is last Thursday, on denied boarding, cancellation and major delays to a flight. All this has shown Europe’s citizens that the Union, its Parliament, its Council and its Commission are also there to make everyone’s daily life easier and to make things safer for everyone. In any case, I thank you for having underlined the importance that should be attached to persons with reduced mobility.

  President. Questions 53 and 54 will be answered in writing.

Questions to Commissioner Fischer Boel

  President.

Question no 55 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0576/04)

Subject: Less-Favoured Areas

The Less-Favoured Areas (LFA) system is an important mechanism providing funding for the regions concerned. In the case of Ireland € 230 million is paid out to 100 000 farmers under the regime.

Given that in the future national handicaps, as opposed to socio-economic criteria, will be used to define LFAs, can the Commission guarantee that the same level of payments will continue to be made to those farmers currently in receipt of LFA funding?

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. One of the main issues in the proposed Council regulation laying down general provisions of support for rural development from the EU rural development fund is the review of intermediate less-favoured areas.

The Commission proposed a revision of the existing classification based, to a large extent, on socio-economic criteria which change over time. It seems that, decades after their designation, some of these areas would not qualify as LFAs due to the evolution of their socio-economic features. This was the reason for the critical observations made both by the Court of Auditors in its special report on Less-Favoured Areas, and by the European Parliament.

Our own evaluation studies also confirmed these observations. The Commission cannot ignore these observations and this explains its proposal. From the new period onwards, LFAs should be addressed on the basis of objective natural criteria which do not change over time, thereby corresponding to a permanent handicap, such as low soil productivity or poor climate conditions.

As a result of the application of the new criteria, areas may no longer qualify for LFA status and farmers located in these areas may no longer be eligible for the intermediate LFA payment. The level of compensation is a distinct issue from the delimitation of a Less-Favoured Area. Support is granted per hectare and should compensate farmers for the additional costs incurred and income foregone due to the handicap to agricultural production in the areas concerned.

In its proposal for the next programming period, the Commission will introduce a distinction between mountain areas and other Less-Favoured Areas with regard to the maximum compensation payable. Since mountain areas are affected by the most severe handicaps, the Commission proposes setting the maximum amount to EUR 250 per hectare, while the maximum amount for other categories is set at EUR 150 per hectare.

  McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for your very direct and clear answer. There will probably be no winners, but there will certainly be losers.

Could you outline when people will know whether their area will receive less, or more, funding under the reclassification?

  Fischer Boel, Commission. We are now working on the conditions for the new less-favoured areas. We will settle upon them very soon – during the first half of March. You are right, there will be losers, but I am quite sure there will be winners as well.

  Aylward (UEN). – How can the Commissioner justify bringing forward these proposed changes at a time when there has been a major review of the common agricultural policy? In my country, Ireland, where we have just introduced full decoupling from 1 January 2005, Irish farmers feel that they face a very uncertain future as regards their income. Furthermore, would she consider postponing decisions until people have had an opportunity to find their feet under the new system?

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. This is part of the ongoing political discussions in the Council and Parliament on the new regulation for rural development policy. To take out the discussion on less-favoured areas and keep it for another decision would, in my view, be out of the question. However, you will have every opportunity to make your statements during the discussion here in Parliament on the new legislation for the rural development policy.

  Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I very much welcome the Commissioner’s honest answer to Mrs McGuiness’ question. Nevertheless, Commissioner, continuity of regional development, including the development of mountain areas and less-favoured areas, is in your interests too, because it enables these areas to go on sharing in the general prosperity and social development of the European Union, which is why there must be no abrupt cessation of these compensatory payments in any cases where they are due to expire.

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. One of the reasons why this discussion is on the table now is that the Court of Auditors has pointed out the difficulties of maintaining the present situation. Things have changed over the last few decades, and those areas that were less-favoured areas 20 or 25 years ago may no longer be fulfilling the same criteria. That is why things are going to be changed.

  President.

Question no 56 by Michl Ebner (H-0013/05)

Subject: Definition of mountain areas and mountain forests

Article 18 of Regulation (EC) 1257/99(4) provides a definition of mountain areas with a view to their receiving aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) under the heading of support for rural development.

However, since that definition is not sufficiently comprehensive, calls have been made for many years now for mountain areas to be redefined.

In September 2002, I was informed that a revision would be carried out. Since then, however, nothing has changed.

Can the Commission indicate when the revision of the definition of mountain areas and mountain forests will be carried out and published?

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. The definition of mountain areas is based exclusively on natural handicaps such as altitude and slopes or a combination of the two. Unlike the delineation of other less-favoured areas, the delineation criteria for mountain areas have not been contested in the recent special report of the European Court of Auditors on support for less-favoured areas, which I mentioned in my previous answer.

Evaluations of rural development programmes show the relevance of support for the less-favoured areas to maintain mountain-farming populations and for the land management in mountain areas, including landscape and environmental protection. Under these circumstances, the Commission did not propose to modify the classification criteria for this section of the less-favoured areas.

In its proposal for a Council regulation on support for rural development for the next programming period, the Commission introduces a distinction between mountain areas and other less-favoured areas as regards the maximum amount of compensation. Since mountain areas are affected by the most severe handicaps, it is proposed to increase the maximum amount for those areas from EUR 200 to EUR 250 per hectare.

  Ebner (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your clear answer and for letting us know that the Commission is introducing this distinction for the next programming period. Something else that would interest me is whether it would not make sense – and whether you could not examine this option – to introduce parameters for mountain areas which would define them as areas above a certain altitude and with a certain degree of steepness, in other words to lay down objective criteria that would prevent overlapping and concurrent support.

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. I understand your great interest in this very specific area because it is so important to keep rural areas populated.

I have listened to your proposal. For the time being it is not in the recommendation and I think it would be difficult to include it. I understand that you would regulate based on the steepness of the mountains. I think regulation in this way would be extremely difficult and would encounter many problems in the Court of Auditors, because definition of these mountain areas would be open to interpretation.

  President.

Question no 57 by Liam Aylward (H-0026/05)

Subject: Irish sugar factories

The Commission will be aware that, on 12 January 2005, the closure of one of only two remaining sugar factories in Ireland was announced. It is highly likely that this move is the result of the negative scenarios that have been circulating about the future of the sugar industry.

Does the Commission accept that this closure will have a profound effect on the local economy of the catchment area concerned, and, furthermore, will it clearly state that it will not allow – under any circumstances – the transfer of national sugar quotas under the new regime, since that would, in effect, cause the total destruction of the sugar industry in a Member State, as would be the case in Ireland?

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. The common organisation of markets in the sugar sector fixes sugar production quotas by Community region. The authorities of the Member States allocate these quotas to their sugar-producing undertakings. It is for each undertaking to decide and organise its production between one or more processing plants according to its own criteria.

The fact that an undertaking closes one of its factories and concentrates its production in only one processing plant – as is the case in Ireland – does not modify its quota or decrease its total production. Irish farmers will therefore be able to continue producing the same quantities of sugar beet as before the closure.

Concentration and rationalisation of production is a common feature of industrial restructuring and, for sugar, reflects the trend over the last ten years, where the number of factories almost halved within the EU of 15.

The quota transfer across Member States was presented by the Commission's communication on the sugar reform in July 2004 to increase the competitiveness of the European sugar sector. It would allow the more competitive undertakings to acquire the quotas of those undertakings that decide to close after the reform, and thus to adjust to the lower price in the market.

The inefficient producers would be able to sell the quotas and thereby reap some of the value of the quotas. If nobody is interested in buying the quotas in the same Member State or other Member States, the undertaking can apply for conversion aid, which should help to cover the costs of restoring good environmental conditions for the factory site and of redeploying the labour force.

Discussions in the Council and Parliament show very strong concern on the part of a number of Member States and stakeholders with regard to the possibility of trans-national quota transfer. In this connection, the Commission needs to underline that the competitiveness of the European sugar industry has to be increased in order to ensure a sustainable, long-term basis for sugar production within the European Union. Transferring quotas between Member States is one way of ensuring this. Alternative and complementary solutions are not to be ruled out and are also being analysed.

  Aylward (UEN). – Thank you for your reply, Commissioner. Unfortunately, since my last exchange with you, my worst fears have been realised with the closure of one of our two sugar factories in Ireland and the loss of the jobs that the factory provided.

Can I ask you for one assurance, one guarantee at least, that when your proposals finally come before us, you will not allow the sale of quotas across national borders? It has never been allowed before, and it would certainly mean the end of the Irish sugar industry.

Secondly, in formulating these proposals, have you also looked at the use of alternative industry or energy, particularly with respect to the use of sugar beet in biofuels/bioenergy? If not, would you give an undertaking to look at it?

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Concerning the question of the transfer of quotas, at this stage we are discussing a new sugar reform. It is, therefore, much too early to start this discussion in Parliament. We will have many opportunities later on to discuss in detail the different tools in the sugar proposal. It is obviously not possible for me to give you the guarantee that you want today.

On your other question concerning bio-ethanol, yesterday I decided to form a core group to discuss the possibilities of growing renewable energy crops in European fields. It is an interesting area and we need to dig deeper into the substance of the matter to see what the possibilities for them are.

Thank you for your advice in this important area.

  Westlund (PSE). (SV) The EU’s agricultural aid does cause great damage to the world’s poorest countries. Sugar is also one of the most crucial export products for many of those same poor countries. That is why the recently implemented sugar reform we are now talking about is extremely important, even if I think it should have gone still further.

I think, in actual fact, that it is quite embarrassing that the EU, which otherwise has free competition as its motto, should go to such lengths to favour its own agriculture. I want therefore to ask the Commission what further measures it intends to take to reduce the EU’s agricultural aid and thus make it possible for the world’s poor countries to do something themselves about their at present very difficult situation.

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Thank you for the question. The reason why we are now talking about sugar is that we have been making progress and undertaking reforms in many different sectors of agriculture, but sugar has been untouched for the last 40 years. Therefore, we must reform the sugar industry.

We must do so also because we are now granting access to the EU market to the 49 poorest countries in the world through the 'Everything But Arms' Agreement. From 2006 to 2009, these countries will have progressive access to the European market at a price higher than the world market price. In that way they will have a special chance to escape from poverty. This is also an element of our proposal on sugar.

  McGuinness (PPE-DE). – In general, the suffering of poor people in the Third World is not always eradicated by free trade – sometimes quite the opposite.

For example, Brazil has huge concerns about the proposals because the poor and landless there will suffer if sugar production expands massively, as is predicted. I should like the Commission's view on that.

Secondly, if greater efficiency is to be achieved by freeing up the movement of the beet quota, what are your intentions for the milk quota?

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. We are now leaving the original question on sugar production in Ireland. However, I would like to give you ...

(The President interrupted the speaker)

  President. Commissioner, let me interrupt you. This supplementary question is not on the same topic.

  Crowley (UEN). – Just to refer to the Commissioner's response to Mr Aylward's original question with regard to the transferability of sugar quotas. The reason we are discussing this now is because the issue is part of a Commission proposal, and not because it is something that Member States were looking for. The difficulty and danger is that once you transfer the right and entitlement to a quota, then all production stops and sugar production is amalgamated into big multinational interests, rather than into individual national interests as at present. These ensure a solid product growth that allows competition and ensures the diversity of supply and production afterwards.

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. I will not enter into a deep technical discussion on the sugar proposal. I will just say that I am very much aware of the different opinions on this matter. I can assure you that I am listening to all stakeholders at this stage.

There are different opinions on how far and how fast we are moving with the new sugar proposal. However, I am happy to say that all members of the Council, and the Members of the European Parliament, realise that something has to happen with regard to sugar. If we sit on our hands and do nothing, we will spoil the opportunity for European sugar production to be competitive in the future, and that is not the way to go.

  President.

Question no 58 by Åsa Westlund (H-0035/05)

Subject: Measures in support of the forestry industry

It is estimated that forest to a value of a little over € 8 billion has been destroyed in the severe storm which recently swept through northern Europe. Employment in the timber, forestry and farming industries is threatened as well as future forestry.

Forest is crucially important in the EU's strategy for biological diversity, Natura 2000 and in the EU's work to promote renewable energy and reduce the greenhouse effect. Work is also currently in progress on drafting a common forestry policy for the Union.

Will the Commission assist the forestry industry in this difficult situation and ensure that no unnecessary red tape stands in the way of measures to make use, as far as possible, of the trees which have been blown to the ground?

Given the forestry industry's great economic, social and environmental importance, what measures will the Commission take in support of that industry in those areas of Sweden affected by the storm?

  Fischer Boel, Commission. (DA) First of all, I want to state that I completely agree with the honourable Member that forestry is of crucial socio-economic and environmental importance in the EU, especially in rural districts. The Commission has just completed an analysis of the measures taken as part of the European forestry strategy over the last five years, and we shall shortly present the results of this analysis, both to the European Parliament and to the Council.

The investigation has been carried out in close cooperation with the relevant interested parties and the Member States, and statements have been collected, for example via an Internet-based forum. In my view, the Council Resolution of 15 December on a forestry strategy for the European Union forms a suitable basis for the forestry-related measures and initiatives in the EU.

With regard to the damage that occurred in connection with the latest storm, which also caused a lot of damage in other northern European countries too, I should like, in this House too, to express my sincere sympathy with those who were affected by this disaster. We are ready as quickly as possible to look into what we can do to remedy the consequences. Within EU legislation, there are various possible ways of providing aid.

At the request of a country affected by a disaster, the Community action programme for coordinated civil protection in the event of a disaster can form the basis for both facilitating and coordinating aid for other Member States. On 1 February, the Swedish authorities also asked for aid from other Member States in the form of electricity generators for use in the hardest hit parts of the country. It was, in actual fact, possible to comply with the wish within a time frame of less than two days, and both Germany and the Czech Republic in actual fact sent 170 generators to Sweden.

Aid can also be provided from the EU’s Solidarity Fund, which contributes to the initial emergency measures. Aid from the structural funds can be provided within the framework of the current programmes and, if the production potential both of agriculture and of forestry has been damaged, aid can also be provided for re-establishing and introducing preventive measures within the framework of what is possible in terms of rural district policy.

I can tell you that my department is already in contact with the Swedish authorities and is very sympathetic to the possibility of investigating whether the proposals presented by the Swedish authorities can be implemented in practice. If the Swedish authorities wish to request aid from the Solidarity Fund, I would recommend them to approach my colleague, Commissioner Hübner, who deals with this specific area.

  Westlund (PSE). (SV) Thank you very much for your detailed answer. As you said, a lot has happened since I put that question, and I just want to express my gratitude to the Commission for showing such great understanding and for having been so accommodating towards both Sweden and the Baltic countries, which have been hit hard in the way described. I would say a big thank you for taking the action you have described.

  Martin, David (PSE). – I look forward to receiving the report the Commissioner talked about on the development of our forestries. In the meantime, can she give us an assurance that the single farm payments that are going to come about as a result of decoupling, and which we know will have an environmental element, will have a strong tree-planting element as well? Will she ensure that these payments are used to encourage farmers to continue to plant trees – and a variety of trees, not just one species? This does not solve the forestry problem, but it would increase the number of trees across the European Union and bring the environmental benefits to which she has referred.

  Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. I completely agree that it is very important to ensure that the number of hectares covered by forest increases. Within the rural development policy, there are different possibilities currently under discussion on sustaining or supporting the possibility of planting new forests.

It must be said that it is ultimately up to the Member States to decide whether they want to use the different tools and the cofinancing in the rural development policy.

  President. As the time allocated to Commission Question Time is at an end, Questions 59 to 103 will be answered in writing(5).

(The sitting was suspended at 7.10 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President