04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 1

TUESDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2007

IN THE CHAIR: MR BIELAN Vice-President

1. Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 09.00)

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

3. The Single Market Review (debate)

President. − The next item is the report by Jacques Toubon, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the Single Market Review: tackling barriers and inefficiencies through better implementation and enforcement (2007/2024(INI)) (A6-0295/2007).

Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is an own-initiative report suggested by our political group which, after several months' work, is supported by a very large majority in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I must welcome that very wide support, because if it is confirmed by Parliament in plenary we shall be able to participate fully in the work currently being done by the Commission on drawing up a communication for next autumn on internal market strategy for the twenty-first century, and to influence that work to the full. The internal market has been the main achievement of the European Union in over 50 years. It is at the heart of European integration and now the Lisbon Strategy. It is, however, a constantly evolving process and we need above all to approach it from a political standpoint. That is, in my opinion, the most original feature of the report I am submitting to you. Europe is going through a very unsettled period and it is important to realise that the internal market cannot be developed if it continues to face widespread scepticism and indeed hostility from the public, who often see the internal market and competition policy as the root causes of many of the social problems our citizens are experiencing. Any internal market strategy must therefore be aimed at turning that lack of belief and that hostility into confidence in the internal market, partly by drawing attention to its benefits and partly by, at the same time, pursuing the aims of openness and competition and of social cohesion with its various components: the environment, employment, culture, access for the vulnerable. In our report we have tried to strike that balance and I think that the reason it has received such wide support is that it has largely succeeded. That is the main recommendation we want to make to the Commission: the internal market cannot be extended and developed if our fellow citizens do not support the policy. So we have suggested three approaches: restoring confidence, reducing burdens and, finally, placing our internal market policy in an international context. That is why we have placed an emphasis on all the aspects, such as the environment and consumer protection, that affect the quality of life of our fellow citizens. We have asked that the national parliaments should be more closely involved in our work in that respect, that they should have a better understanding of the advantages of the single market. An important amendment that I have drawn up, which will, I think, meet with general approval, is the revised Amendment 12. In that amendment, which is based on the European Council decisions of 21 June on the mandate given to the Intergovernmental Conference with a view to including a paragraph on public services in the new amending Treaty, we call upon the Commission to clarify the position of the public services, SGIs and SGEIs, because we believe that those services play a very important part in a successful internal market that enjoys public support. We already realised that when we were discussing the directive on the internal market in services. 2 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

We have also placed a great deal of emphasis on SMEs and on vulnerable persons, especially the disabled. As regards the development of the right to consumption, we note that there is very little cross-border consumption, around 6%, which is obviously too little. We are naturally including energy policy and action against global warming in the internal market policies, as well as the opening up of network industries. One of the main – and controversial – proposals is to incorporate an Internal Market Test in any new legislation. That was all I wanted to say in my brief speech. If we are successful in combining the inherent strength of the internal market and the commitment of producers and consumers to this policy, I think that will be a real boost for prosperity, employment and preservation of the European social model and will, at the same time, give Europe a strong economic position in the world.

Pervenche Berès (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, it is my task to present the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and for once, if I may say so, with pleasure. The draftsman we had selected decided not to submit this report in his own name, because he did not agree with the fact that, as a result of the vote in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee , emphasis was laid on the tax conditions for a harmonious internal market. To put it plainly, the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee considers that, in order for an internal market to work harmoniously, certain initiatives are needed from the Commission to prevent tax distortions. I can only endorse the view expressed by the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. There are two other points that I think should be emphasised today. The first is the operation of competition policy. Recent events, especially those involving rating agencies, have again shown us, if we needed to be shown, that a single market needs a strict competition policy applicable to all sectors of the market.

The other aspect, which the rapporteur has mentioned, is the international dimension and the ability of the European Union, in the operation of its internal market, to make it a vehicle for international standardisation. That is even truer nowadays in the financial markets and I hope that, in that case too, the Commission will be able to take the initiative in proposing the international standardisation we need in order to make progress on supervision.

Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, since the Commission published its interim report in February, we have had some very productive discussions on the single market review. Now the work moves into top gear, with the Commission expecting to publish to its conclusions in November. I would like to thank the members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, particularly the rapporteur Jacques Toubon, for assembling an impressive package of recommendations and proposals. I would like to thank members of Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for their clear and constructive contribution to the report. The Commission is also grateful to the political groups, which have been closely engaged, and produced policy papers of high quality. As with all good reports, I also note that on some issues there are differences of opinion or emphasis. Let us briefly consider what is at stake. The single market is home to 500 million citizens and over 20 million businesses. Since its inception in 1992 the single market has raised Europe’s output by over 2% and created nearly three million new jobs. Europe’s prosperity and its external influence are great achievements. To sustain these we must keep moving the single market forward. It would be a mistake to take any of this for granted. We must maintain Europe’s competitive edge for Europe’s businesses and especially for its citizens. We cannot sustain a Europe which provides high-quality public services in health, education and social care without an economy which is fundamentally sound. So at this point let me spell out our central theme: the need for all of us – the Commission, Parliament and the Member States – to show leadership and courage in our reforms. The review of the single market is an essential part of the efforts of this Commission to deliver a Europe of tangible results and deliver its ‘citizens’ agenda’. Big challenges remain in the single market. Let me give some examples.

On postal services we are moving towards a final package for full market opening. In the field of energy policy, Commissioner Piebalgs will shortly present proposals to build a single European energy market. Commissioner Kuneva is leading a wide-ranging review of Europe’s consumer protection laws. We are working with you and the Member States to create a framework for a European patent. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 3

Piece by piece each single market reform matters, but taken in the round their importance is even greater. The single market of today – this vast, dynamic, open market – is the product of all these difficult reforms, all these difficult decisions we have made. In short, the continued success of the single market – its potential to improve the living standards and social conditions of all Europe’s citizens – requires us to show leadership and courage not just in setting a vision of the future, but in making the very real, and often difficult, policy choices facing us today. But let me return to the review itself and pick out a few highlights: first, on how we work – how we deliver single market policy – and, second, on our shared policy priorities. In terms of how we work, we all know – and your draft report makes this clear – that we must strengthen partnership and ownership. So Parliament’s call for stronger networks of cooperation is music to my ears. The single market is a joint undertaking and we must work together to deliver it, always conscious of the needs of citizens. This means building on successful projects such as SOLVIT and offering citizens better assistance in solving the cross-border problems that they encounter. It also means pressing ahead with new tools such as the Internal Market Information System to strengthen cooperation between the Member States. I firmly believe – as you do – that close partnerships will be the key to our success. Let me welcome an interesting suggestion in your report – the idea of an ‘internal market test’ for all new measures. This is an element that is strongly present in our ‘better regulation’ mechanisms, the importance of which cannot but be underlined. If we find that new proposals will actually hinder the flow of people, goods, services and capital – and thereby jeopardise the single market – then we must acknowledge this and ask whether we need to change course, before anyone gets hurt! Now let me move on to our shared policy priorities for the single market. In its interim report to the Spring European Council, the Commission highlighted a number of directions for the future single market. Let me choose examples among the areas which I know best. Your report rightly points to retail financial services as an area where the single market can go further. I believe Europe can help citizens to get a better deal across the board: in mortgages, insurance, payment cards, bank accounts and elsewhere. On 19 September, the Commission will host a hearing in Brussels to find out more about the priorities of all stakeholders. I invite all of you who are interested to attend. Let me also introduce a new issue to the debate, and one which should feature in the Single Market Review, which is e-government. All Member States are delivering more services electronically, reducing costs and making them easier for citizens to access. But while this creates opportunities, there are challenges we need to confront. Let me give a couple of examples. Firstly, on e-procurement. We must ensure that national authorities, in adopting technologies and security standards, do not create purely national e-procurement markets. Similarly, in preparing for the implementation of the Services Directive, Member States must have common systems so as to be able to exchange information securely. A final word on the international dimension, which, I was delighted to see, is prominent in your report. This Commission is committed to maximising Europe’s global influence and building strong ties. So, as well as broadening and deepening our dialogues with the United States and Japan, we are also holding summits with China, India, Russia and Brazil. These global dialogues allow us to learn more about our partners, to advocate our values and standards and to resolve issues of bilateral interest and create new commercial opportunities for Europe’s firms. In short, the external dimension is a vital part of our internal market policy. So to sum up, I am in the happy position of agreeing with you on the priorities for the Single Market Review – both on how we deliver the single market, and on the policy areas that will most benefit citizens.

And of course I would be delighted to return here once we have adopted the Single Market Review to present our conclusions and discuss with you the way forward.

Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, it gives me great pleasure to welcome Mr Toubon’s report this morning, not just on behalf of my group, as coordinator, but also on behalf of my 4 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

colleague, our Vice-Chairman Mrs Thyssen, who sadly is not able to be with us this morning because she has had to rush back to Belgium, where her parents are not at all well. I welcome this report on behalf of all the Members of our group. One of the most important aspects of Mr Toubon’s excellent work is the way that he has taken a very all-embracing and very comprehensive view of the single market, as he identified in his speech. In a real sense, the single market touches the lives of every citizen in the European Union. The problem is, that single market and its success and its future development are far too often taken for granted. As Mr Toubon said, it is absolutely right to issue a strong call to all of us and particularly to the Commission in its work on a new strategy to come up with some radical, new ideas and particularly to raise the whole political profile of the single market and its importance to all of us. It needs the Member States and the Prime Ministers at their summit in March, when they will look at this document, really to take advantage of that. The second point – and I am pleased that you reinforced this, Commissioner – is the whole global dimension. It is absolutely clear that a fully functioning single market is a massive competitive advantage for Europe in the global economy. It is the responsibility of all of us, all colleagues, to maintain that decisive competitive advantage on behalf of all our citizens. We are only going to achieve that by clear, far-sighted advocacy of the benefits and of the policies to keep moving the single market forward on behalf of all our citizens, as is done so well in this report.

Robert Goebbels, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the PSE Group has just adopted an important contribution on revision of the internal market. I shall be pleased to let Commissioner McCreevy have a copy later on.

We see the internal market as the greatest economic achievement of the Union, together with the euro, but, unlike the Commissioner, we are not market fanatics. The market has been the natural place for trade between human beings since they moved on from the gatherer stage. The market is useful, it even has its virtues, but it is not in itself a model for society. The market economy is fine, as long as we do not end up with a society where everything is for sale, where human needs like education, culture, social welfare and health are entirely dependent on market forces. What we are advocating is a social market economy in which the necessary competition is still subject to rules, consumers are protected and efficient public services make up for the shortcomings of the market. In the United States, the health sector accounts for over 15% of GDP, twice the European average, but 44 million American workers do not have health insurance. To avoid two-speed healthcare in Europe, we would like to see European support for health services. We urge the Commission finally to comply with the request by the European Councils in Nice, Laeken and Barcelona and to put forward proposals for a Community framework allowing national, regional and local authorities to offer efficient public services with full legal certainty. We ask the Commission to work to achieve a high level of social protection within the internal market. Any legislation aimed at completing the single market should be coupled with a study of its impact on employment in the sector concerned. We want safeguard clauses like the Monti clause, protecting the right to strike and collective agreements. In our view, maintaining a high degree of social protection requires ambitious directives on working hours and temporary work arrangements. Social protection is not incompatible with economic efficiency. Indeed it is the States with the best-organised social dialogue, such as the Scandinavian countries, Germany, the Netherlands and a few others, that have the most successful economies in the European Union. In short, the PSE Group is in favour of competition that stimulates, cooperation that strengthens and solidarity that unites. I have just quoted Jacques Delors. I shall leave it to my colleague, Evelyne Gebhardt, to comment on the Toubon report, which I think I can say is generally positive. (Applause)

Karin Riis-Jørgensen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Mr President, I should like to start by commending Mr Toubon on the very fine job he has done. I think that we have achieved a perfectly reasonable outcome with which we can be very satisfied. I am also obliged to my fellow shadow rapporteurs from the other groups, especially Mr Harbour from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, for their constructive cooperation. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 5

We now have a report that, in my opinion, contains a number of sound liberal proposals. I should like to emphasise first of all the liberalisation of the postal market, which I consider extremely necessary and important, and also the increased competition on the energy market and general improvements in competition policy. These are all proposals that will safeguard and improve the four fundamental rights of the Single Market. The objective is clear: we want to see a barrier-free Single Market. After all, there is a constant need to improve the Single Market and to better equip Europe for globalisation, to make its economy even better and, not least, to ensure that consumers enjoy wider choice, lower prices and higher quality. After all, that is the essence of the Single Market. Fortunately, this report has vision, and attention should be paid to that vision. The report represents a stimulus to the Commission, a contribution to the Lisbon Strategy, a call for Europe to go up a gear if we want to join the top level and withstand competitive pressure from China and the United States in particular. Therefore, if the Commission wants the best for Europe and its citizens and enterprises, Commissioner McCreevy will take account of this report in the Commission’s working process and will follow in Parliament’s footsteps. That way, I am convinced that the Single Market will go from strength to strength, to the benefit of our enterprises, large and small, and also of citizens. A barrier-free Single Market will generate more jobs and growth, which is a precondition for our ability to fund the European welfare state – and the European public will be the real winners. It is not only the Commission who must read this report, however. Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel should also study the report very, very carefully. If we advocate a barrier-free Single Market, we cannot, and should not, accept a situation in which two major countries continue to hinder, not to say undermine, a free energy market.

Eoin Ryan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, the first 10 years of the internal market added EUR 877 billion to the EU economy and it helped to create over 2.5 million jobs, so I do not think anybody could argue against the idea that the internal market has definitely worked. For the next 10 years I believe that ensuring global competition will be vital for Europe. I cannot, therefore, support the view that a common consolidated corporate tax regime will not hamper EU competitiveness and that is, unfortunately, one of the reasons why, as the rapporteur on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I had my name removed from this report. I believe that the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), which is harmonisation of tax by a different name and through the back door, will undermine competition, inward investment, growth and employment in Europe. We need competition in tax, not harmonisation. If we are to make sure that Europe continues to grow and in the future is a dynamic economy globally, then I believe we need competition in this area. Therefore, I call on the Commission to produce as soon as possible the impact assessment of the CCCTB on the internal market. I believe that Europe needs to strengthen its efforts in the field of international dialogues on financial markets not just with the US, Japan and China but also with other emerging economies, like India. In fact, in comparison with other countries, Europe is at a standstill in respect of development and investment in R&D. I believe that the Member States need to encourage greater cooperation between technology-intensive goods and services in order to create markets for knowledge. Finally, I should like to say once again that what we need in tax is competition, not harmonisation, if Europe is to be a dynamic economy in the future.

Heide Rühle, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent cooperation and for the open and transparent manner in which he prepared this report. It tackles important questions. Building people’s confidence in the internal market is a crucial task and, as well as addressing economic concerns, it will mean taking greater account of environmental and consumer issues. We had another example of shortcomings in that regard during the summer when Mattel, the world’s largest toy manufacturer, had to recall toys for the third time in just under a year. Members of the public rightly expect a rapid reaction here from the European Union and the European Commission, and we want to see a review of the Toy Safety Directive.

The report addresses the main issues including the role of fiscal policy, and here my position is very different from that of the previous speaker. I think it is right to flag up the risk of distorting competition if we cannot achieve closer tax harmonisation. This is another subject on which we are entitled to expect proposals from the Commission. 6 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

In our view, there are also problems with the statements on energy policy. Apart from the fact that the question of separating networks and consumer services is so centrally important — and has not been addressed here — we are sorry to see nuclear energy playing such a major role. The many unresolved safety questions in relation to nuclear energy, highlighted just this year by accidents at reactors in Germany and Sweden, are completely ignored, as is the continuing failure to tackle the problem of nuclear waste disposal and the fact that subsidiarity remains an issue. Member States have decided to get out of nuclear energy and I therefore think it is wrong that the European Union should intervene here with financial support. Deregulation of postal services is another area where we find a lack of balance. We do not believe that the question of financing a universal service in small Member States and in remote areas has been properly tackled. Yet access to a universal service is crucial in terms of restoring people’s confidence in the internal market.

Godfrey Bloom, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, Mr Toubon concedes that ‘the citizens of all Member States are having their doubts about the internal market and the other common policies’. He allows that the EU has not succeeded in overcoming a crisis of confidence. Then he refers to the very document – now known as the ‘Reform Treaty’ – which has precipitated this crisis, by saying patronisingly that involving national parliaments will help them better understand the advantages of a single market. These poor benighted parliaments, by the way, are only the democratically elected sovereign legislators of 27 European nations, unlike this absurd consultative assembly which does not and cannot represent anyone but the Commission and its associated elites. With that, this report launches into a plan to undermine national responsibility for universal services by changing the definition of universal services and including health services, to take control of intellectual property rights, which we all know will include patents on software, to adjust business taxation without representation, to set up a sort of King Canute’s throne on an isotherm in order to grab power and money through carbon trading. As for small companies, we all know that the EU, its economic partners and the World Trade Organisation will continue to crush them. Mr Toubon, a crisis of confidence? Oh yes, oh yes!

Petre Popeangă, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (RO) Mr President, we cannot but welcome an analysis of the evolution of the single market - this major target of the European project - 50 years after its beginnings. However, it is not certain that significant progress has been made; the project is seriously delayed compared to the proposed schedule. The situation is regrettable having regard to the fact that this important instrument of solidarity including the four fundamental freedoms (free movement of persons, goods, capitals and services) does not consistently contribute to the achievement of the European project. Without approaching the issue of building the single market very analytically, I would like to say that the achievement of this target will face some difficulties because of at least three reasons. The existing gap between the different levels of functionality and efficiency of national markets: theoretically, all economies based on free market relations are functional; practically speaking, market functionality is conditionned by a series of political, economic, social, cultural and, especially, historical factors that give the character of a more or less functional market; this gap has unfavourable effects on the construction of the single market. The protectionist measures set up by certain states, especially those with a developed economy, do not allow less developed markets to advance and this abuse of economic power significantly reduces their rights to the benefits of the competition effects, which is an essential democratic element of the single market. Finally, the absence of common legal provisions, especially in the taxation field, has negative effects on the single market project, bearing in mind that heterogeneity in taxation could generate tensions between Member States. I support the report but I think that to ensure a greater degree of consistency, an analysis should have been carried out of the national markets in the States with less developed economies, especially in new Member States, such as Romania and, following the results, approximation measures to the developed economies should be put in place, as this is a sine qua non condition for the construction of the European single market.

Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, without any doubt the common market is the cornerstone of the competitiveness of the European Union and of consumer satisfaction. The report we are debating today states clearly, and in my opinion quite rightly, that this market, of which we can be proud, has been built on the principles of economic competition. That is why I would like to point 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 7

out that the single market is now in danger. The Reform Treaty adopted under the Portuguese Presidency represents this danger. According to the mandate of the German Presidency, undistorted competition should be completely eliminated from the Union’s fundamental goals, which are always crucial in solving possible disputes. All that is left is the creation of an internal market by the Union. Economic competition thus disappears into some supplementary protocol that completely lacks the force of the Reform Treaty. Once the Treaty is adopted, defending the principles of undistorted competition within the Union will be even more difficult than it is today. This will not enhance either the Union’s competitiveness or consumer satisfaction.

Andreas Schwab (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, the first thing I must do is to thank the rapporteur, Jacques Toubon, who was also responsible for working out our own position in the EPP-ED Group, in close cooperation with representatives of Member States in northern, southern, eastern and western Europe. We had a good exchange of views and we are agreed that the positive aspects of the internal market extend well beyond what is in the realm of general public knowledge, and also beyond what has been recognised in certain debates here in Parliament. We are also agreed that the Commission and its public relations services will have a major role to play in making working people more aware of the market’s inherent advantages. In my view, in the light of the merger between Suez and Gaz de France, the Internal Market Test – which is proposed in this report and which we in the EPP-ED Group support – could very usefully be transposed into national legislation. It would also be entirely reasonable to ask whether mergers such as this, or other developments at Member State level, might not usefully be subject to a similar test, in order to check their impact on the internal market and to explore whether or not, within that market, they bring advantages for ordinary people. We also inserted into the report a passage on services of general interest, which undoubtedly now makes sense in the light of the new legal basis created by the Reform Treaty, as already mentioned. We are agreed, too, that the internal market is Europe’s key asset in the process of globalisation. Only a properly functioning internal market can afford protection against certain developments in international markets. For we cannot rely solely on monitoring systems, Ms Rühle, relevant though they may have been in relation to some toy manufacturers’ recalls: we also need to appeal to the pride and the characteristic quality of our own European manufacturers because we shall never be capable of monitoring everything. We are keen to see what the Commission will propose in response to this report, in the Single Market Review this autumn, and we hope we shall be in a position to take further decisions about the right course for the internal market on the basis of the report which the Commission adopts at that stage.

Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, on behalf of the Social Democratic Group, I too would like to thank Mr Toubon for a report which, overall, we can support because it contains a great many positive aspects of particular importance to the members of our Group. That is as it should be, for what we are talking about here is the future of the internal market; we are talking about answering the questions that people who live in the European Union are asking; and we are talking about confidence in European Union policies. To Ms Riis-Jørgensen, I would say this: it is not good enough to read only those passages of the report that give one particular personal satisfaction; the text needs to be considered in its entirety. Nowhere does it say that free competition, the internal market and deregulation are the only priorities. Quite the opposite, in fact, for a great many social democratic aspects have been included. To take one example, in paragraph 8 we have spelled out the importance of impact assessment, which is particularly relevant in terms of social rights and labour law. That is the key to achieving the much repeated aim of ensuring that people come before the economy, and not the other way round – and that has to be the priority in any policy in which we invest our efforts. Another aspect of this report that is very positive for us as Social Democrats is the move to extend the scope of harmonisation, as opposed to simple mutual recognition. Mutual recognition in itself is not bad, but harmonisation is better. In effect, we have come up with a response which not only offers an effective form of protection, at a high level, for members of the public, but also makes it clear that we cannot have a scenario of competition between Member States’ social systems; what we want is cooperation between the different social systems, based on the highest possible values. This is an extremely important point and we have done very well to get it across. 8 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Another particularly important achievement for us as Social Democrats was the last-minute agreement on services of general interest. I welcome the fact that the European People’s Party has moved forward on the basis of the text currently in preparation for the Treaty on European Union. It is right that defending services of general interest should be one of our priorities and that we should address the legal uncertainties currently facing such services in the European Union, with a view to protecting the public and meeting demand in this area. There is one point, however, on which we as Social Democrats must withhold our approval, and that is the ‘Internal Market Test’. Nowhere in the text, Mr Schwab, is there a stipulation on this Internal Market Test, and I would suggest that you need to read the text more closely. For us as Social Democrats, an Internal Market Test is not a yardstick that we want to apply – or at least not until similar emphasis is placed on other tests such as gender mainstreaming or social impact, which follow from the Treaties. Until tests like these, which are required by the European Union Treaties, are routinely conducted, we cannot give our approval to a test that is not even provided for in the Treaties. This is another point on which our position has to be very clear.

Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, the internal market is certainly working if we measure it in terms of overall economic growth. It is certainly working, too, if we just accept the fact that what we have been experiencing — since we have had an internal market in Europe — is the greatest redistribution of wealth that this continent has seen in peace time. Yet in terms of people’s acceptance of it, the internal market is certainly not working. Why not? Precisely because we have this huge range of wealth levels, because unearned income is growing far faster than wage packets – and that is why, 15 years after Jacques Toubon, this report will come to be seen as a powerful testament to the failure of the Socialists and Social Democrats. If you read the draft amendments to this report, you will find no surprises. There are calls for effective regulatory mechanisms, for a review of internal market strategy, for initiatives to reinforce the social agenda and for a social safeguard clause. The Social Democrats were in the overwhelming majority in Europe for such a very long time, and 15 years down the line we will find out that they accomplished nothing and that they are responsible for increased radicalisation on the political fringes in Europe.

John Purvis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am delighted to see that most of our Group’s contribution to the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been incorporated in Mr Toubon’s excellent report. The realisation of a full single market is essential to Europe’s economic success. More specifically, the various legislative measures adopted recently in the wholesale financial services area have gone a long way towards establishing a single European market in this area, with high regulatory standards and trickle-down benefits for the customer. In several cases these are becoming global standards, and the next stage is to ensure that the regulation governing this area is properly implemented and evenly enforced across the European Union. We will, of course, resist further unnecessary regulation. Yet there are many cultural, traditional, legal and tax barriers that still inhibit the single market in financial services at the retail level. Therefore we look forward to reviewing the Commission’s White Papers on retail financial services and mortgage credit to see how improvements can be achieved with the least possible intrusiveness. I would like to mention the Lamfalussy process, because so far it has helped much with adapting the basic legislation in financial services to the real world of market operators and regulators. The process is still at the learning stage, but a large amount of legislation has been handled and early indications are positive. Although most of the Economic Committee’s amendments are in Mr Toubon’s excellent report, I am sorry that the ones relating to the Lamfalussy process were not incorporated. One area that is the responsibility of the Economic Committee and still impedes the functioning of the single market is the tax system. Whilst fully recognising the unanimity rule in this sensitive area and the sovereign right of Member States to set their own tax rates, the current VAT and excise duty systems clearly prevent full realisation of the single market and of its benefits for consumers and businesses. We, therefore, urge the Commission to come forward with practical proposals for facilitating EU citizens’ full rights to the free movement of goods, in particular concerning the tax regimes for Internet and cross-border shopping.

Arlene McCarthy (PSE). – Mr President, as chairwoman of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I would like to congratulate Mr Toubon, particularly on the way he has worked to 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 9

achieve a consensus among all the groups for a set of recommendations on the review of the internal market, which I trust the Commission will take on board as well as today’s debate. I want to stress some of the proposals which I believe are key in engaging citizens in the progress and development of the internal market and in boosting confidence in particular. More involvement of national parliaments to better reflect the diverse views of Member States and their citizens is a very important proposal. Equally important is the inclusion of social and environmental dimensions of the internal market, and of course the internal market needs to continue to deliver more choice, better quality and competitive prices for our consumers and small businesses. Reducing administrative burdens and boosting innovation, while protecting our intellectual property, will enable us to compete in the global arena. Consumer confidence in the internal market can only work when citizens are able to see the benefits and enjoy the rights and opportunities they have as members of the EU. Therefore, I hope that we will go beyond simply protecting our consumers to making sure we have remedies for them when things go wrong. In that regard, I would like to raise the very important work that is being done by the SOLVIT network and the European consumer centres. These informal, practical networks provide quick solutions to very complex problems in what is perceived by our citizens as a bureaucratic environment. One of the reasons why they do not want to shop across the border is because they do not trust that they will have a remedy when something goes wrong. The Commission should therefore strengthen these networks as an essential element of the review process. I think, Commissioner, we share the same objectives: to achieve an internal market that is relevant and responsive to all – you said that in your introductory comments – and I think that we want now to work together with you to ensure that our citizens continue to achieve the level of access to the internal market, the benefits and indeed the protection with remedies and redress.

Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to make three points. The first is a word of thanks to Mr Toubon and the way in which he has directed the whole process. I think everyone on the right and the left of the House has actually been quite pleased with the way in which things have gone. I think that the report is very good and balanced. My second point is about selling the internal market. I think that this paper tries to sell the internal market and we really need to do it. Mr Goebbels, you referred earlier to the so-called 'Nordic model'. Well, let me tell you that the Nordic model yes, on the one hand is about social welfare, but on the other hand it is also about economic openness. These are the countries that are completely abiding by the rules of the single market – free movement of goods, free movement of services - with Polish plumbers! - free movement of money and free movement of people, with people coming in from other countries to work, so these are also open economies at the same time. My argument is that we should not put down the single market because it is probably the best thing that we in the European Union have ever done. Finally, I want to give you an example of how the single market does not work. This is a real life example. A Finnish Finnair captain bought a car in Italy, I shall not mention what kind of car, at the beginning of the summer. Half an hour after he drove out of the shop he was stopped by the police. They took away his interim licence plates which were legal, bought in Germany, and they confiscated the car and they will not give it back until they have gone through a legal process in December. It could very well be that he loses his car, and here we are talking about an internal market where there should be full and free movement of goods. So my point is that this report is great and it shows that we really have to keep on improving and working with the single market with a nice balance of free competition and social welfare.

Gabriela Creţu (PSE). – (RO) Mr President, dear colleagues, the development of the single market is an essential factor in European integration. However, it should not be seen as an end in itself in front of which the social consequences do not matter. With the last enlargement of the European Union, it became more economically non-homogenous than in the past. This lack of homogeneity may be considered an advantage for certain neo-liberal policies, but not for all citizens. Competition is for companies, solidarity is for people, as Jacques Delors stated.

Beside its undoubted qualities, the Toubont report has some weaknesses from this point of view. Theoretically, we all support the Lisbon Strategy, a knowledge-based economy and high-quality jobs, where the comparative advantage cannot be a cheap labour force. The report also states that a major way for increasing business competitiveness is worker mobility, which should be encouraged. 10 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

As socialists, we think that the removal of all barriers in light of the free movement of persons and the labour force is a fundamental right established by the treaties. Encouraging mobility for exclusively economic reasons already generates serious social consequences in the workers’ countries of origin: beside real revenues, there is the loss of specialists and qualified labour force, depopulation and decrease in the active population, thousands of children living without parents and needing special educational and social services. The long-term social and human costs are not yet known. Therefore, we ask for a survey on this particular issue because the economic measures should never undermine the social aspect. (Aplauses)

Luisa Fernanda Rudi Ubeda (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, first please allow me to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Toubon, on the content of his report and for having the skill to kindle a broad base of support for its adoption in this plenary. A reaffirmation at this point that much progress has been made in the construction of a Single Market in the European Union is to state the obvious, yet nevertheless it is also important to reiterate, obvious though it may be, that there is still a long way to go. I believe that experience shows us that open economies are the economies which grow the most and that increased competition always translates into benefits for consumers in the quality and price of goods and services competing on or appearing in the market. In a globalised market such as the one in today’s world it is impossible to believe that progress can be made using protectionist measures, and of course the European Union, as an economic stakeholder at world level, will only be able to have a strong economy if it continues to pursue measures to liberalise, construct and deepen the Single Market. On many occasions people have depicted increased competition and the liberalising measures in the European market as a relinquishment of the European social model or as a relinquishment of the protection afforded by social rights. I believe the exact opposite is true, namely that for the European social model to continue to move forward, for European citizens to continue to enjoy social protection measures and good social services, it is important for the European economy to grow and that growth will only, I stress, be possible if we deepen the European Single Market. I said that a great deal of progress has been made but there is still some way to go, and one of my colleagues has just given some specific examples of this. I believe that it is important to remove barriers so that small and medium-sized undertakings can work throughout the European Union. It is also important, as stated in the report, to investigate and develop the market in retail financial services, and especially intellectual property rights. I would like to ask the Commission to call on national governments and on the Council to ensure that Community provisions are duly transposed into national legislation.

Wolfgang Bulfon (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, we are in favour of removing restrictions on the internal market in order to promote its positive effects, such as sustained growth, and in that process it is important to pay adequate attention to social safeguards for ordinary people. Because of their particular importance, the services of general interest – what we term ‘basic’ forms of provision – cannot simply be left to the free play of the market. In the health and social fields especially, they need a specific set of rules. I am sorry to see the quite unnecessary mention of nuclear power in paragraph 16. This is indisputably a high-risk technology which puts the population in danger. So, on that point I cannot back the report. It also has to be said that diverging national interpretations in the transposition of EU law are creating uncertainty. As numerous studies have shown, this is a considerable obstacle to the completion of the internal market. Finally, I should like to mention the international importance of European standards. The current controversy about faulty toys from China is a good illustration of how important it is, in dialogue with external trade partners, that we should have internationally recognised standards. Even if countries like China do feel overburdened by a long list of quality requirements, we nonetheless need measures to improve product and food safety in the interests of protecting European consumers. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 11

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO Vice-President

Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, the internal market is one of the most important building blocks for cooperation within the European Union. The cooperation is based on mutual trust and respect between the Member States. It is therefore also crucial that everyone contributes by quickly and effectively implementing the EU legislation that has to transposed into national law. SOLVIT is a good way of monitoring observance and can be developed. We politicians who work at European level in Parliament or in the Council are responsible for ensuring that the legislation is pro-competitive and does not create unnecessary administration and that it meets the needs and resolves the problems that still exist. To that end we must create a political consensus and a broad understanding of the importance of the internal market, to which both Mr Toubon and the Commission have made good contributions. Thank you, Mr Toubon. The EPP-ED wants one Europe for all, with job opportunities for all, effective healthcare and no poverty. An EU that can grow even stronger. The only way to achieve that is by ensuring that the market is competitive and that trade is not impaired by antiquated legislation, unnecessary customs duties, subsidies or market controls. Without a smoothly functioning market and strong European companies there is no money for welfare. The internal market and competitiveness automatically create social security and are preconditions for welfare.

Edit Herczog (PSE). – (HU) I would like to begin by saying how much we welcomed the clear and comprehensive debate which Mr Toubon’s colleagues held with us last year prior to the preparation of this report. I would also like to compliment Mr Toubon himself on the preparation of his report. I myself would like to comment on paragraph 40 first, which stresses the responsibility of the Member States. My main thought here is that the Member States do not owe it to the European Commission or the European Parliament to transpose the rules of the internal market but first and foremost to themselves and to each other, and above all to their own citizens and their own businesses. We therefore cannot ignore the July 2007 Internal Market Scoreboard and the information it contains. A condition for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 and 2005 was the introduction and transposition of the complete acquis communautaire. We can see from the Scoreboard that two years after the deadline expired the record-holders for overdue transposition of directives are without exception the old Member States, which account for the four largest transposition deficits. The ratio of failure to meet internal market obligations between individual old and new Member States is 1:2, but may occasionally be as much as 1:8, as for example between Slovenia and Italy. A direct result of this is that those who abide by the law are losing out because of unequal treatment and discrimination. When we talk about the future internal market, we all need to insist that businesses and countries that stick to the rules and transpose the acquis communautaire must not lose out in the ongoing development of the internal market. I would like to thank the rapporteur.

Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Commissioner, 15 years ago the Member States agreed on deeper economic integration and pledged to create a single European market for the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. In the 1990s this gave rise to a competitive environment for entrepreneurs, resulting in wider choices and lower prices for consumers. However, since 2000 we have seen how some Member States, in particular the old ones, protect, both covertly and openly, their small national markets from competition next door and tolerate administrative and other obstacles, thus blocking the swift and total accomplishment of the single market free of barriers. In the light of the rapid liberalisation of global trade, and seeing how hastily we Europeans are making room for goods from third countries, this is paradoxical behaviour. Would a healthy European market not be the key to dealing with the challenges of globalisation and unemployment? This irrational situation is caused by populism and by giving precedence to false national interests over the common interests of consumers and entrepreneurs. I therefore welcome the Commission’s Green Paper and the proposal for a review: this review will reveal how valid European legislation is evaded in a number of countries and will bring to light flaws that weaken trust in the single market. An example of this is the grey area concerning when to apply or not to apply the country of origin principle. If the market is supposed to function properly, we need to make progress in liberalising network services and finalise the financial services market, and to overcome myths prevailing in health and social services. 12 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

The introduction of the euro and recent directives have strengthened trade within the Union and made it more transparent. That said, we all know that entrepreneurs suffer from the burden of increasing paperwork and that we need equal conditions for fair international competition. We also need more modern and simpler control mechanisms. I urge the Commission to make every effort to monitor how the existing Directives are being implemented, and to make progress in the area of mutual recognition before furthering possible harmonisation. I realise that the globalisation of trade will require the standardisation of other products and an agreement on the European mark of origin. I agree that the disparities in the area of corporate tax are a source of tension and will need further debate. The European market is a process, not a dogma.

Lasse Lehtinen (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, we should not hit out at globalisation because of the harm it does, but take practical steps. The protection of national markets is paralysing our continent, so jeopardising its economic growth, something a social Europe also relies on. To its credit, the report stresses the importance of completing the process whereby energy and communications in particular are opened up to competition, because developed and open networks are ultimately in the interests of the consumer and a guarantee of growth. To speed this development up we also need effective regulation mechanisms and monitoring. One mechanism should be incorporated into the so-called cross-border client liability principle. With that, anyone commissioning work or services would be responsible for ensuring that the activity was transparent and that the subcontractors were attending to their obligations.

This Union and this Parliament take a too ideological view when considering the various energy options. In practice, the harmful effects of climate change are prevented by reducing emissions. In contrast to what, for example, Mr Bulfon said just now, it is unrealistic to suppose that we will achieve real and effective results without nuclear power being part of the solution. Our priority goal must be to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) To begin with I would like to express my appreciation to my colleague Jacques Toubon for his stimulating report, which lays an excellent and balanced foundation for the Commission’s forthcoming documents. In spite of the fact that the four fundamental freedoms were guaranteed by the Rome Treaties, there are still many obstacles to their practical application. A review of the present situation of the internal market offers us an opportunity to back up the existing rules and revise those that are outdated. This new approach may eliminate the chasm between the potential and the reality and will offer solutions for doing away with the barriers between the markets of the 27 Member States. I agree with the rapporteur’s view that the success of the single market rests on three pillars: the first is strengthening consumer rights and creating a favourable business environment, which is especially important for small and medium-sized enterprises. For example, it is necessary to improve access for small and medium-sized enterprises to public procurement contracts. Regarding the second pillar, we should eliminate any remaining barriers such as obstacles to the creation of a single payments area. The third pillar consists of strengthening the international dimension of the EU’s internal market by creating a larger transatlantic internal market. In the context of the global economy, the EU will be prosperous only when it equals or even exceeds the innovation capabilities of its trading partners. That is why the EU needs specific measures to increase its innovation capabilities. The Member States must create a favourable environment for active cooperation between businesses, public sector and academia. Channelling public and private investment into highly specialised research centres connected to universities may produce a breeding ground for the business community of tomorrow.

Barbara Weiler (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many members of the public might well find today’s debate rather odd: after all, the internal market has been around for more than 15 years and a lot of people have become quite used to it. Yet even after all this time, there remain some astounding shortcomings, due in certain cases to protectionist behaviour by a few Member States. Certain things have also gone wrong over the years. Members of the public – consumers – have less freedom of choice and the market is by no means a level playing field; it might be that for big companies, but for SMEs it most certainly is not. We all share the view — and I hope I speak here not just for Parliament but also for the Commission and the Council – that the internal market is not an end in itself. I should like to quote one of the great founding fathers of the Single Market, Jacques Delors, who talked about three key principles – competition, to stimulate; 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 13

cooperation, to strengthen; and solidarity, to unite. The last of the three has been somewhat obscured down the years. For us as Social Democrats, solidarity and cohesion in the internal market are very important. My final point is this: an effective market implies effective safeguards and consumer protection. Only by putting these in place can we build the confidence that everyone is reminding us about. Recent years have seen an increase in the number of products that contain hazardous substances or pose a risk: Chinese toys are merely the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of products are the subject of complaints. So that is where our task lies, and your task too Commissioner: we need to use our package of market-control measures to win back people’s trust; we need to take action and not simply leave things as they are.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) Mr President, economic and social cohesion, as well as solidarity are essential for the European Union. The Structural Funds contribute to the development of all the European regions and are important especially for the new Member States. We not only need an economic union with the most dynamic knowledge-based economy but also a Social Europe where everybody plays their part and in which public services are of high quality and are accessible to the almost 500 million European citizens. We need health and education services, we need a sustainable social protection system. Transport, energy, communications are essential for EU economic development, but one should ensure everybody has access to these services. e-government and the financial service development are essential for the transparency and quality of public services, as they should also ensure consumer protection in the digital environment. We hope that the restrictions imposed on Romanian and Bulgarian workers concerning the access to the Community labour market will be removed. Thus nondiscriminatory access to the European labour market is important for ensuring equal working conditions and for avoiding social dumping.

Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, as one of the pillars of the European Union the internal market is subject to constant change. Every day we see how much it actually impacts on the lives of ordinary citizens. Deepening European integration depends directly on deepening integration between the economies of the individual Member States. It is therefore very important for all citizens that decisive action should be taken to rid the internal market of successive barriers and obstacles to the flow of people, capital, goods and services. The report by Mr Toubon is an accurate report which sets out the areas on which EU legislation and policy should concentrate to improve the operation of the internal market. He draws attention to many issues which should take priority in our work and in particular to gaining the confidence of citizens, both consumers and business people, in the internal market. I wholeheartedly support the idea contained in Mr Toubon’s report that the national parliaments should be involved in the legislative work of Parliament, which will result in the EU being brought considerably closer to our citizens. It is a very worthwhile suggestion. Finally, I would like to add that as a former businesswoman I agree with all the recommendations in the report concerning the removal of administrative burdens on businesses. It is only on the basis of a consistent, pro-market and liberal policy that the EU economy will be able to compete with the economies of the United States, China and India. I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report whose greatest virtue is its balanced content. I would simply say that it constitutes a kind of non-political roadmap setting out the priorities for our work on the internal market.

Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, I have listened carefully to the discussion on the future of the single market and I would like to thank all participants for their comments. The review of the single market is an essential part of a reference to the delivery of a Europe of tangible results with the clear focus on the citizens. The single market is not a means to an end. Our policies must serve the people and improve their quality of life. All Europeans, you and I, should be able to identify with these policies.

Big challenges remain in the single market. Some of our proposals are already on the table. Others will soon come. We need your support on these initiatives to bring them to a successful end. We are rethinking the way we govern the single market, at national and EU level. Any initiative is thoroughly prepared under the better regulation principles. This allows us to examine all options before taking action and this may include considering self-regulation in specific areas. 14 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

We need to improve the ownership of the single market. It belongs to our consumers, to our companies, to our workers and our civil society. It belongs to national, regional and local authorities. We need to facilitate the cooperation between Member States on a daily basis. I would like once again to thank the rapporteur and am looking forward to receiving further comments from Parliament in the coming months.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote on this item will take place today. Written statements (Rule 142)

Gábor Harangozó (PSE), in writing. – This own-initiative report is an excellent opportunity to feed into the current review of the single market. It is therefore the occasion for our Parliament to stress the benefits consequent to a genuinely completed single market. More specifically, while highlighting the challenges faced by the single market, the report brings forward concrete recommendations. Among these recommendations we particularly support the emphasis given on the importance of tackling climate change through sustainable development actions; the necessity to substantially increase consumer confidence in cross-border purchases; the underlined competitiveness, growth and employment potential of innovation and SMEs; the encouragement of genuine free movement of workers throughout the Union and, more generally, the removal of all obstacles for the completion of an integrated and efficient single market. Of course, these recommendations need to be transposed into single market directives so that they will be thoroughly implemented by the Member States. In order to achieve effective completion of the single market rules, the Union must give itself the necessary enforcement tools for encouraging cooperation between national administrations, setting up information contact points for businesses and citizens, improving the efficiency of the complaints procedure, and undertaking actions through the relevant courts when necessary.

Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE), in writing. – The single market is still the core achievement of the EU. However, it is far from complete. There are deficiencies with respect to all four freedoms. Also, we are seeing crumbling stakeholder confidence in the achievements of the single market. These are largely taken for granted. As regards movement of goods, 25% are still subject to various national technical barriers. Hopefully the Commission’s policy package from January 2007 will swiftly be translated in targeted measures for resolving the remaining obstacles. As regards people, uncertainty persists over some basic principles, notably in the transferability of social rights. I am happy that this political minefield is being gradually negotiated in the field of, for instance, pensions and access to cross-border healthcare. As for capital and services, big changes are afoot. The status quo, for example as regards the lack of a common corporate tax base, distorts investment decisions in the single market and disadvantages SMEs. Even as the EU rolls up its sleeves for future challenges by way of the Reform Treaty, a political impetus for completing the single market is needed. This should aim to remove ambiguities in the business environment, clarify the applicable regulatory regime and seek to reduce administrative burdens.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. – I broadly welcome the rapporteur’s report and agree that the development of the single market has delivered a range of benefits for Europe’s citizens, notably by providing consumers with a wider choice and lower prices, creating a dynamic business environment and enabling the free exchange of goods, services and ideas. This in turn has facilitated European integration across a range of areas and continues to underpin the EU’s ability to achieve its broad objectives. However, I have reservations about particular elements of this report:

I do not agree that the introduction of a common consolidated tax base is either necessary or desirable, as suggested in this report. I believe that such a proposal, were it to be tabled by the Commission, would be a first step towards tax harmonisation, which I would find unacceptable. I believe that Member States are best placed to determine the nature and scope of their respective tax systems. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 15

Finally, I believe that the report’s reference to nuclear power as an essential part of the EU’s energy mix is misplaced and I will not be supporting this element of the report.

4. Statute of the European Private Company, Company Law (debate)

President. − The next item is the oral question by Giuseppe Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, to the Commission on the state of play in the legislative proceedings on the ‘Statute of the European Private Company’ and of the ‘Fourteenth Company Law Directive’ (O-0042/2007 - B6-0137/0000).

Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), author. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question is very important both institutionally and politically, bearing in mind that it is of considerable political and institutional significance. I should like to say very clearly, and I take responsibility for my words, that the European Commission has seriously failed the European Parliament since it has failed to follow up Parliament’s formal requests and has failed to present proposals for legislation on European Private Companies and relocations of head offices of capital companies. A proposal for legislation on the statute of the company was formally requested in February 2007, on the basis of Article 192 of the Treaty and – as I would like to stress, and I would ask the Commissioner to listen because this is a very important oral question, Mr President, to which an answer must be given – after a thorough debate, together with a hearing with qualified and representative experts who showed us how necessary such an instrument was and how useful it would be in fostering small enterprises keen to operate effectively in the internal market. It was the Commission’s duty, Commissioner, immediately to launch the procedure for adopting the legislative proposal, starting with an impact assessment. The Commission already had, moreover, a feasibility study from December 2005, but did nothing and instead took its time until in July it launched a consultation on the need – here again no more than a hypothetical discussion – for a European Private Company, as though Parliament, as the elected representative of the Union as a whole, could not legitimately base its request on a substantive legislative act. I shall not look in detail at the European legislation, as Klaus Lehne, one of the Committee’s main experts and a leader in this field, will shortly talk about the legal aspects of the question. I should like to look at the problem in greater depth and remind the Commissioner, so that he can give due consideration to everything that I say, of the relationship that exists between the institutions and on which the necessary cooperation between the Commission and Parliament has to be based. In my opinion, Commissioner, you personally have done Parliament a discourtesy, you have snubbed Parliament. You have ignored Parliament’s requests adopted on the basis of Article 192 and in particular the interinstitutional agreement ‘Better Regulation’, and there have been many failures to act – I have been Chairman of that committee and I am very well aware how many questions are pending – even though the Commission had formally undertaken not only to take account of requests but also to provide rapid and appropriate answers to Parliament’s committees. That has not been the case at all! The failure to comply with those obligations brings up the Commission’s accountability, which I have no difficulty in defining as legal, to the European Parliament. At the conference on company law organised by the German Presidency, Mr Lehne rightly said that the European Commission could be brought before the Court for Justice for failure to fulfil its obligations. Parliament, and I say this very clearly, should be aware that the Commission, on its Internet site, has already confirmed that the consultations held in 1997 and 2002 showed a high-level and specific demand from economic operators. The Commission therefore knows how important this issue is and is aware that it has a duty and an obligation to reply to Parliament’s requests. Not only has it failed to approve the proposal for legislation, but at the Berlin conference the Commissioner went as far as to say that further discussion of the usefulness of the proposal was necessary. That has left us very perplexed because we now need to consider – as the Commissioner says – whether the European Parliament still has a chance effectively to demonstrate the validity of that proposal for legislation. A directive in this field – I am concluding – would certainly provide a sound legal basis for companies’ freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. We are awaiting a detailed proposal from the 16 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Commissioner which means not just going along with the various lobbies, from England, from the United Kingdom and Ireland, I think, but addressing an adverse situation. It is not the interests of individual countries that have to be served, Commissioner, as you are well aware, but the interests of Europeans! Parliament is not a lobby and we are actually and tangibly expressing that requirement and that necessity!

Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the oral question tabled by Mr Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, gives me the opportunity to provide you with an update on where the Commission stands regarding the 14th Company Law Directive and the European Private Company (EPC). As you are aware, and as part of our ‘better regulation’ approach, a public consultation on the EPC statute was launched on 20 July by the Directorate-General for the Internal Market and Services. This consultation aims at gathering stakeholders’ views on the need for such a statute and its possible content. I know that the European Parliament would like the Commission to accelerate the process. However, we need to do the necessary preparatory work. An essential part of this is to consult stakeholders on different possible regulatory options – that is, a more uniform but less flexible statute, or a statute which gives a lot of freedom to users but results in a variety of EPC structures across the European Union. We need to hear stakeholders’ opinions on which option is the most attractive for companies. That is what better regulation is about. The feasibility study at the end of 2005 offered a rather general assessment of the current situation, but does not provide a clear answer as to the best policy option and the possible elements of the EPC statute. That is why we need a more in-depth analysis. The study will, of course, provide good background material for our work. We have also benefited from the European Parliament’s report on the EPC statute and its recommendations on the possible content of such a statute. Concerning the proposal for a 14th Company Law Directive, the preparatory work on this issue has not been conclusive. Our better regulation and impact policy requires us to demonstrate that an initiative has clear economic benefit before embarking upon it. I should be in a position shortly to make a more definitive statement on this issue in regard to the value added of such a proposal. We need to reflect further before making such a proposal, which, frankly, risks being controversial. As Members know, I am not afraid of being controversial, but I need to be convinced that the potential benefits for the European Union of such an initiative merit a legislative proposal. This is not about procrastination but about the belief that, to produce good quality work, the preparatory work must be carried out properly. Within the next couple of months I will inform Members of how I intend to proceed on these important issues.

Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I must say I am pleased that Commissioner McCreevy, in his answer to this oral question, did not reject the European Parliament’s suggestions. Over the past few years, there have been so many hearings and consultations about the European Private Company that I cannot understand why we need to have a third, a fourth, a fifth and perhaps even a sixth or however many more. The matter is closed. We had an initial proposal in the Commission’s action plan. That was approved, in the revised action plan, by the majority of stakeholders. The hearings in Parliament produced an unequivocal message. Parliament’s decisions could not have been clearer, and on that basis I cannot accept any further delays. Experts are generally agreed that there is a gap in the law in the Directive on the cross-border transfer of registered seat. The European Union offers freedom of movement of capital – that is, the option of moving one’s property or capital to a different location – but if I own a business, I do not currently have that option because I cannot decide freely where to base my business, or where to transfer it to, within the European Union. That is very clearly a gap in the law. The Commission, in its annual legislative programme, announced its intention of closing the gap. Currently we have a situation where the European Court of Justice is developing its own case-law in this area and tending towards Wild West-style deregulation, for the simple reason that the legislature is inert; it is doing nothing to address the areas where we lack harmonisation. It is high time that the legislature acted, instead of handing all responsibility over to the Court of Justice. One final point: the European Commission’s monopoly on initiative does not exist in a vacuum. Like any monopoly, it has to be seen in a context and, in this case, the context follows from the Treaty and the Interinstitutional Agreements. According to those texts, both the Council and the European Parliament have 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 17

an indirect right of initiative. The Commission, in the Interinstitutional Agreements, has undertaken to respond to their proposals. That being so, I wish to make it very clear that if the Commission fails to deliver a substantive response on this issue within the stipulated time limit, I shall propose to the Committee on Legal Affairs that we take proceedings against it in the European Court for failure to act.

Gary Titley, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I welcome the Commissioner’s remarks, particularly as commitment to better regulation involves clear team work of regulators and those people affected working together to develop a piece of legislation. I also welcome that he is clear that there have to be economic objectives and that has to reflect market needs. Looking through the Commission’s own summary of this consultation on company law, I notice that less than half the respondents call for the adoption of a European private company statute. That seems to be slightly at odds with some of the statements we have heard so far, so perhaps he could clarify exactly what those responses were. I also notice that most people wanted a codification and consolidation of existing company law, rather than anything going further. Clearly, he has got quite a difficult balancing act. What I want to know is: to what extent have we identified so far a clear need for legislation at a European level, as opposed to a domestic one? I suspect that, in some cases, the pressure is coming from those who have very complex domestic laws and who want a European law to simplify matters. However, the problem is we have a European law on top of domestic laws and we often find it makes life much more complicated. Surely, the whole object of this exercise is simplification and clarification.

Sharon Bowles, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, when I last spoke on this issue in February, I drew to the Commissioner’s attention the fact that I did not like all the recommendations in Parliament’s report, such as the size of the capital, because I felt that would make any statute along those lines discriminatory in favour of larger companies. Therefore, I welcome the fact that in the Commissioner’s latest consultation, he is urging responses by SMEs. However, we all need to be proactive in seeking those, with emphasis on the small rather than the medium. I shall certainly be doing this within my region and I am pleased to say that there are other bodies within the UK doing likewise, so I welcome efforts to establish the relevance to small companies. This is particularly the case when it is information from smaller companies that is frequently lacking, while, at the same time, we readily acknowledge that it is just those companies that do not have the means to deal with the different laws and regulations and, therefore, in theory at least it is those who we want to benefit most from the statute. As I see it, this House has made some proposals that would render the statute unlikely to find favour with those very smaller companies, so there is a problem. My message is to keep it simple otherwise, for small companies at least, it would just be a fig leaf for no change.

Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the competitiveness of companies and the efficiency of the internal market also require appropriate and up-to-date legal statutes for companies. Some progress has been made in the case of large undertakings, with the adoption of the regulation on the European Private Company Statute on 8 October 2001. In 2004, the European Commission opened up a discussion on a new form of European company, designed more specifically for small and medium-sized undertakings: the European Private Company. That initiative was very warmly welcomed by all those who had been awaiting it for the past 30 years – yes, 30 years. The results of the feasibility study on the Statute by the Commission were presented in December 2005. It clearly showed that the vast majority of the economic operators interviewed wanted such a statute, for two main reasons. Firstly, the introduction of a European statute would have the advantage of removing obstacles to the establishment and mobility of SMEs in the European Union. Secondly, it would enable a European label to be created for SMEs, particularly those in the new Member States. For SMEs, the European Private Company seems an effective way of accessing the European market. Its adoption would also indirectly contribute to the evolution and harmonisation of national law, which, in turn, encourages the development and integration of the European economy. This new statute would meet the need to simplify the legal instruments available to companies and make them more effective. It is my belief that many small and medium-sized undertakings would gain from such a statute, which would, obviously, remain optional. The European Private Company plan is strongly supported in economic circles in virtually all the Member States. That is certainly the case in France and Germany. 18 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Parliament has approved the own-initiative report by Mr Lehne, whose conclusions I support, but at the moment no progress is being made. That is why I am supporting the questions to the Commission from Mr Gargani, on behalf of JURI. It is important to know what are the fundamental problems that have caused the Commission to delay its work on this issue.

Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I share the point of view expressed by President Gargani and Mr Lehne on the need to press forward with European Union rules on company registered offices and the Statute of the European Private Company. Mr McCreevy has told us in his reply that there are some problems, that there has been a delay, that consultations have been launched on one of the proposals and that for the other no point of view has apparently been defined as yet. So we are faced with the familiar issue of the adoption of Community legislation and the improvement of Community rules. Mr Lehne has made it clear that the atmosphere here is one of cooperation between the institutions: Parliament is not on one side and the Commission on the other. Parliament hopes that the Commission can present initiatives soon because the Commission’s power of initiative is part of the framework for cooperation with the other institutions. Commissioner McCreevy has spoken about difficulties with regard to the Member States but it is still not clear to us as a result of this debate where the objections lie, and whether they come from the private sector proper or essentially from the Member States. Which States are opposed to Community rules of this type being adopted? Are we talking of solely private opposition? As Mr McCreevy will have another opportunity to speak I hope he will be able to offer some further clarification as to where the difficulties lie, whether in the private sector or essentially with the Member States.

Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − I wish to thank all Members for their comments. I am afraid I cannot agree with Mr Gargani when he said that the Commission has not done anything and that it ignored Parliament. When we discussed Parliament's resolution on 1 February 2007 in Brussels, I undertook to answer Parliament in detail and I have every intention of living up to that commitment. I also noted the request from a number of Members, during our debate on 1 February, not to ignore preparatory work. Consultation on the EPC was duly launched in July. There is some support amongst stakeholders for a European Private Company. But it would be wrong to assume that there is consensus on its possible content, as both Mr Titley and Mrs Bowles have illustrated. Jumping to a conclusion risks parking the proposal on the shelf before it even gets started.

President. − The debate is closed.

5. Risk of closure of Gdansk shipyard (debate)

President. − The next item is the Commission statement on the risk of closure of the Gdansk shipyard.

Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am dealing with this file on behalf of my colleague, Mrs Kroes, the Competition Commissioner. The Commission is not seeking the closure of Gdansk shipyard. Gdansk shipyard has played a crucial part in European history and in the struggle for freedom and a reunited Europe. We would like to see the yard undertaking a genuine far-reaching restructuring so as to become a successful company capable of competing on its own merits in the EU and world shipbuilding markets. In the last decades, the shipbuilding industry has restructured all around Europe. The Commission is well aware that for many yards and regions this has been a difficult process. Many shipyards were closed and the shipbuilding capacity had to be reduced. Wherever national State aid has been used for this restructuring, the Commission has had to exercise its responsibility under the Treaty to ensure that the level playing field among shipbuilders in the European Union was not distorted. The Commission now has the same responsibility concerning its intervention in the Gdansk case. The conditions under which State aid for ailing companies is compatible with the Treaty are clearly set out in the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulties. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19

The proper restructuring of Gdansk shipyard has been postponed for many years; public money has not been used to create viable jobs, but to keep alive a company that would under normal market conditions have ceased to exist. The Commission's goals here are three-fold. First, to ensure that the restructuring of Gdansk shipyard leads to its own long-term viability. It could possibly mean scaling down its activities, but would eventually lead to the emergence of a smaller but more efficient shipyard capable of standing on its own feet. Second, to limit the distortion of the level playing field and any harm to European competitors caused by State intervention, the yard's production capacity has to be reduced. Also, a significant contribution to the restructuring plan must be made from own resources, including the sale of assets that are not essential to the shipyard's survival, or from external financing at market conditions. Third, to ensure equal treatment. Shipyards in other countries as well as other Polish shipyards, have had to reduce considerably their capacity. Gdansk shipyard cannot be an exception. Structural funds and other EU assistance have been used by other Member States to tackle the difficult transition period and to support the affected regions. We have repeatedly reminded the Polish authorities of this possibility. The Commission has been, and will remain, in close and constructive dialogue with the Polish authorities to seek a way forward in which the conditions for compatibility of the State aid are met and the State aid can be approved. That process is ongoing.

Gdansk shipyard deserves a viable future by developing a new and sustainable position in the competitive shipbuilding industry of the EU.

Janusz Lewandowski, on behalf of the PPE-DE group. – (PL) Mr President, as the MEP for Gdańsk I feel I have a two-fold responsibility: firstly, for the fate of 3 000 jobs and an establishment which has symbolic status in Poland, and, secondly, for ensuring that together we comply with the principles of rational economy on which the European Community is based and which has brought prosperity to millions of Europe’s inhabitants. I therefore believe that today’s debate will not be a political demonstration. There is too much politics surrounding the Gdańsk shipyard. To date it has been over-exploited politically. I trust that this will be a step towards finding the best possible solutions. I also believe that such intentions have motivated the radical left in Parliament, which has called for this debate, but I would point out that they are not idealists seeking a system of social happiness, but practitioners of real socialism, referred to in Poland as “post-Communists”, who twice shut down the Gdańsk shipyard as an act of political revenge, thereby undermining its economic credibility and creating one of the sources of today’s problems. I was a witness to and a modest participant in the collective elation in August 1980 which gave birth to Solidarity, subsequently a movement of 10 million people. I know that there are among the 3 000 employees of the present shipyard people who at that time risked their lives in the name of human dignity, human rights and other values enshrined among the standards of the European Union. They did so with courage but also prudence, and without resorting to violence. Consequently, that approach, which did not involve the use of violence – an instrument of terror – may serve as a guide for us in the twenty-first century. I would, of course, like the major centres of workers, the shipyards, the mines and the steelworks which formed the mainstay of Solidarity, to lend the shipyard’s cause infinitely greater support than isolated dissenting voices abroad, and I would like these centres to now become examples of economic success in the free market. However, this will be very difficult, even impossible in the short term, as we can see from the experience of major centres of heavy industry in western Europe, which have taken entire decades to turn around economically. This is the case in particular in the shipbuilding sector, which is faced with competition from the Far East, Korea, China and Vietnam, where low labour costs and, above all, a range of overt and covert forms of State intervention are decisive.

I would like the European Commission too to be aware of the complexity of the situation, because if it is not taken into account frustration will build up and a political populism will take root in our country. I can understand the frustration of the shipyard workers who have a sense of what they are due historically and who, as they say, are confronted with soulless bureaucracy. There is also frustration on the part of the European Commission which is dealing with an exceptionally spirited and recalcitrant establishment which would give many an authority a bloody nose. I know that the workers at this shipyard should not be punished 20 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

for the rather inappropriate, or simply clumsy, way these things have been handled by the present government. I also know that the basis for agreement must be a long-term vision and not hastily drafted plans. That long-term vision means an investor who will equip the shipyard with modern technology to replace the obsolete slipways currently at issue. And I believe that today’s debate is a step in precisely that direction.

Bogusław Liberadzki, on behalf of the PSE group. – (PL) Mr President, it is appropriate that we are having a debate on the Gdańsk Shipyard. There are two significant facts here: the first is that it is the anniversary of the signing of the Szczecin agreement of 30 August 1980 and the Gdańsk agreement of 31 August 1980, and the second very significant fact is the present financial situation of the Gdańsk Shipyard. The Gdańsk Shipyard is a symbol of the historical changes in Poland and also of the major changes that have occurred in Europe and internationally. Here is where it began. It is also the Gdańsk Shipyard that the leaders of the free world came to in the 1980s to encourage perseverance in the fight. It is here too that people fought for human rights, freedom of expression, free trade unions, human dignity and development along the lines of the then European Economic Community. It is therefore a living monument of which we should be proud, but it is also a shipyard – perhaps it is now primarily an undertaking producing ships. The shipyard workers reminded us of this fact a week ago in Brussels. They did not speak about historical dues but about economic matters, about their lives and their jobs. Shipbuilding is a global industry. Ships can easily be bought in Asia and do not necessarily have to be bought in Europe. In view of what has just been said, Commissioner, in decisions concerning competitiveness we should not concentrate solely on so-called ‘fair competition’ within the EU. We need a global approach, that is to say we need to view the shipbuilding industry in the European Union within the global competitive environment and then consider all the conditions surrounding the operation of shipyards within the European Union, including the Gdańsk and Szczecin Shipyards. The EU market rules are acceptable and accepted as a principle, but the way in which they are implemented and the relevant timetable must be realistic, and in particular must be addressed at individual entities. Therefore, there may be certain doubts about privatisation as a means to an end – that is to say privatisation as an end which must be achieved by a certain date. I therefore call on the Polish Government to work closely with the Commission, and on the shipyard management to manage this undertaking efficiently.

Bronisław Geremek, on behalf of the ALDE group. – (PL) Mr President, first of all I would like to say how pleased I am that the European Parliament is considering this matter today and how much I welcome this initiative. I would like to thank Commissioner McCreevy for his statement today and to say that it is very important that we think of the European Union as a community. On entering the European Parliament building we pass a statue, a sculpture, which states L'Europe a un coeur - Europe has a heart. Translated into political language, it denotes the strength of the European social model. It is 27 years ago that the Gdańsk Shipyard workers launched their fight against the Communist system and for bread and freedom. They wanted to restore the purpose of human labour and to liberate the economy from the State monopoly. This historic shipyard is now faced with the dramatic European Commission recommendation that its production be reduced by two-thirds and that two slipways be closed in any event. We consider that in this situation the following steps must be taken. First, limit closure of the slipways to one and thus restore the shipyard’s chances of profitability. Second, allow time to streamline the shipyard management, since the current management leaves much to be desired (so that it becomes profitable and 3 000 workers do not lose their jobs). Third, remember that the Gdańsk Shipyard stands as a major European memorial and testimony to the fact that social solidarity is one of the founding values of the European Union. However, the European institutions cannot ignore this decision. The pragmatism of our actions must go hand in hand with an understanding that we are building a Union for people and thanks to people. Europe’s strength depends on our ability to be innovative and competitive but also sensitive to the fate of those who are weaker and less fortunate. In my view, that is also the sense of the liberal message of freedom. I would also like to mention a particular memory that I have: that of generations of Europeans in all countries of the European Union who wore the Solidarity badge on their lapels with pride and with hope. There are such people in this Chamber. Thus, they are the generation that is building European unity and should be aware of the historical significance of the Gdańsk Shipyard. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 21

Marcin Libicki, on behalf of the UEN group. – (PL) Mr President, I accompanied workers from the shipyard during their talks with Commissioner Kroes and Commissioner Špidla. I was also with them when they appeared before the European Commission and appealed to Europe to help them. The Gdańsk Shipyard is now emerging from its financial woes and beginning to operate at a profit. It would be a great mistake if major financial restrictions were now to prevent it from making a profit and achieving success through the efforts of the people working there and us as a whole. I would also like to emphasise the historical aspect. We would not now be here as 27 countries in a united Europe, a Europe free of the threat of nuclear war, had it not been for Solidarity which was born in the Gdańsk Shipyard. This is something that everyone needs to remember, including the politicians sitting here. I would also like to point out that all those who have spoken on this matter so far and, I think, those who will do so later are completely unanimous in their views on this matter, regardless of their political differences. This must be taken into account.

Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, I welcome the fact that my colleagues in the Conference of Group Presidents have agreed to my proposal to ask the Commission to make a statement to us before any decision is taken on the future of the Gdansk shipyards. The Directorate-General for Competition did not need this new case to illustrate its thinking. It has already attracted so much protest that many observers who can hardly be suspected of anti-liberalism have themselves regarded it as dogmatic for some time. In this instance, a restructuring plan is only seen as convincing if it provides for 1 000 workers to be laid off. There are plenty of previous examples of companies in difficulties being told to axe hundreds of jobs, failing which they will have to pay back the aid they need to survive. In the present case, tell us what shipyard operates without subsidies. I do not think there is any question that the award of subsidies has to be subject to conditions. But the problem is that those conditions always involve heavy sacrifices for the workers. In that respect, although the successive Competition Commissioners I have known are not usually noted for their soul-searching and social fibre is clearly not one of their attributes, this time the leading directorate-general of the Commission has gone even further by showing that it is as indifferent to political issues as to social problems. By threatening the very existence of this place that is so emblematic of Poland, is the Commission considering the political implications of the message it is sending the people of this new Member State, barely three years after its accession? That is apparently the least of the worries of the guardians of free and undistorted competition. They think there is a time to celebrate the key role of the Gdansk shipyard workers in the freedom struggle – a historic role, as Mr McCreevy said – and another time to impose the iron laws of the free market on them. There is still time to stop this irresponsible action. The first step, in my view, is to start substantive talks with the Polish trade unions, indeed with the European Federation of Metalworkers. What is needed is to clarify the real amount of aid paid to these shipyards and, above all, to find a solution that avoids job losses. Apart from that, this new case, which highlights to the point of absurdity the narrowness of the criteria now applied in the name of preventing distortions of competition, reinforces the view of my group that, before any final decision is taken on the future European treaty, it is vital to have a thorough, public and wide-ranging debate on the aims of the Union and whether these are consistent with the policies put into operation. The story of the Gdansk shipyards is a reminder that a political structure that proves unable to face up to its own contradictions and progress beyond them is doomed. That lesson is still just as relevant today and some European leaders would do well to reflect on it.

Witold Tomczak, on behalf of the IND/DEM group. – (PL) Mr President, the closure of two of the three slipways at Gdańsk Shipyard proposed by the European Commission and the possibility of having to reimburse State aid is a great mistake. It fails to take account of several factors, including previous actions detrimental to the shipyard on the part of political wreckers and dishonest businessmen eager to get their hands on property and land in the city centre. The dishonest privatisation of the shipyard is currently the subject of legal proceedings. The Commission has no reliable knowledge about this. Restructuring of the shipyard has already been carried out, thousands of workers have been laid off, and seven of the ten slipways have been closed down. At present the shipyard is achieving positive financial results. The closure of two slipways would destroy that gain and that achievement. The enormous State aid that shipyards have received in the old Member States has bypassed 22 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

the Gdańsk Shipyard. This does not create a level playing field for competition and also takes no account of the differences in the methods used to calculate the profitability of shipyards. This blow to the Gdańsk Shipyard also weakens the shipbuilding industry of the European Union as a whole. I would remind you that the EU’s share of international shipbuilding is three times smaller than that of South Korea alone, which subsidises its shipbuilding industry. This demonstrates the Commission’s lack of concern about the EU’s long-term economic interests. The Commission’s intentions are contrary to the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. The Gdańsk shipworkers fought for solidarity, which does not involve the brutal elimination of competitors. Solidarity is not an empty slogan or compassion but responsibility and fairness and facing up to the truth. Is the European Union capable of such values today?

Maciej Marian Giertych (NI). – (PL) Mr President, the Gdańsk Shipyard has particular significance for Poland. It is not only a work establishment but also a political symbol. In Communist times an attempt was made to destroy it. The political engagement of the workforce and the support of the entire nation meant that the then authorities were unable to shut it down. The workforce is conscious of the particular significance of the Shipyard and is responding to threats as they did then - by means of protest. It would be terrible if an establishment which defended itself against Communist power should collapse under pressure from European Union directives. It is absolutely essential that the establishment remains a shipyard and that it forms part of the shipbuilding industry and no other. The reduction in the number of slipways from three to one, proposed by the Commission, would deprive it of its long-term profitability as a shipbuilder. It needs at least two slipways in order to continue operating profitably as a shipyard. Poland complies with the financial rules in force, but we know that shipbuilding is not such a sensitive sector of the EU economy that aid for the Gdańsk Shipyard might distort competition. The Commission must take account of the special character of the Gdańsk Shipyard and give it special treatment. As a symbol of the fight for independence from Communist power, the Gdańsk Shipyard must remain a shipyard.

Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the Gdańsk Shipyard is a great European symbol, the place where in August 1988 Polish workers led by Lech Wałęsa began a strike for freedom and justice. The shipyard became a symbol of the fight for trade union, political and civil rights for the workers’ movement throughout the world. I would like to underline the importance of the initiative by Mr Wurtz which has made it possible to hold a debate on the risk of the collapse of the Gdańsk Shipyard in the European Parliament today. I first spoke out in defence of the Gdańsk Shipyard while still an activist in underground ‘Solidarity’ in November 1998, when the government of Mieczysław Rakowski placed the shipyard into liquidation on the pretext of poor economic results. Unfortunately, the Gdańsk Shipyard also became a symbol of the decline of heavy industry and the defencelessness of workers and trade unions in the face of that process, a model example of everything that is defined as ‘casino capitalism’. Little remains of the proud shipyard that was the birthplace of ‘Solidarity’. After 1989 the Solidarity government was unconcerned by the fate of the shipyard. The establishment became a place of market speculation, on the one hand, and demagogy and populism, on the other. Following entry into the European Union Polish shipyards received State aid. The Gdańsk Shipyard started to restructure and is demonstrating that it can operate profitably. The current demands by the European Commission for the closure of two of the three slipways used by the shipyard to build ships will make it unprofitable and result in unemployment and tragedy for many workers’ families. In the European Parliament, on the twenty-seventh anniversary of the signing of the August agreements, I would urge prudence in this case. Commissioner, let us consider a wise compromise which would reconcile the principles of the Single Market, which the Commission upholds, with the interests of three thousand shipyard workers. Let us save the Gdańsk Shipyard!

Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, when it talks about the Gdańsk Shipyard the Commission forgets, in all its pragmatism, a matter much more important than money, namely history. Had it not been for the Shipyard, neither I nor many other Members from Central and Eastern Europe would be here today. Had it not been for the changes initiated at the Shipyard the whole of Europe would look very different today – a Europe built on values such as democracy, freedom, equality and respect for human rights, the fight for 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 23

which is symbolised by the Gdańsk Shipyard. It was the strikes at that shipyard that began the dismantling of Communism. To find a symbol of the European Union we need look no further than the place where we are and remember that in the name of post-war reconciliation between two nations we are able to spend over EUR 200 million a year on the monthly move to Strasbourg. Why not also give financial support to the Gdańsk Shipyard, which symbolises the end of the Cold War and the liberation of the whole of Central and Eastern Europe from the yoke of Communism? I therefore make this appeal: let us not allow the Shipyard to collapse, let us not destroy the birthplace of ‘Solidarity’, and let us not measure the historical value of the Shipyard in euros.

Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, Commissioner, you have yourself recognised the very important political symbolism of the Gdańsk shipyards and all that they evoke. But, of course, the shipyards are more than simply that symbolism. They are the cornerstone of a whole regional economy, directly and indirectly providing thousands of jobs. The closure or the running-down of the Gdańsk shipyard could devastate the whole regional economy, destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Commissioner, you have spoken about the importance of competition, the importance of the free market. I would like to hear you speak about the importance of those jobs. I would like to see you recognise the strategic importance of this shipyard for Poland – and, indeed, of this industry for the European Union as a whole. I think this controversy lays bare, once again, rules on state aid and exactly where EU policy is directed. I think it would be ironic and almost tragic if the demise of Gdańsk and all that it symbolises was due to the heavy hand of EU policy, which is wedded to the dynamic of competition, the market economy – to the exclusion of all else, it seems to me.

Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, no one denies that the rules of the Single Market and competition are the driving force behind the European economy which guarantees its swift development. Work establishments which do not face up to this challenge will have difficulties, including liquidation, and it is obvious that the employees of those establishments will protest. However, last week’s protest by Polish shipyard workers must be viewed differently. They did not come to Brussels to complain in order to arouse sympathy or ask for money. They wanted to protest against a decision which they considered to be another death sentence on their shipyard, and will put at least a thousand workers on the street. So what is the issue as far as they are concerned? To the shipyard workers who were in Brussels the issue is one of a level playing field and ensuring that the Commission decision is based on reliable, verified information, because reality shows that the shipyard is getting off the ground and that it finally has a chance of being a profitable undertaking. EU law has allowed additional aid in similar situations. We have examples set out in the Treaty when the eastern German Länder benefited from such aid. I also want to emphasise that it was not a protest by the Polish government. Those protesting were citizens of the European Union – shipyard workers with a right to do so, who organised themselves and came to draw our attention to the fact that something wrong is happening. We should welcome that fact because that is how we build a civic society. And one final thing: their presence in Brussels also demonstrates the fact that they have enormous trust in the European Union and that trust is expressed by Polish society as a whole. Neither we nor the European Union should fail to live up to that trust.

Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, last week a delegation of Polish shipyard workers came to Brussels to protest against the Commission’s decision to close down two slipways, which would result in mass lay-offs. The shipyard workers believe that the Commission’s approach to their workplace is too rigorous and unfair. After discussions with Commissioner Kroes and Commissioner Špidla the shipyard workers returned to Poland with high hopes. The Commission should, as announced, undertake a further thorough review of the shipyard’s situation.

I would like to add that since Poland acceded to the European Union about a million people have left my country looking for work abroad, and this figure is continuing to increase. If the European Commission sticks to its decision it will result in unavoidable redundancies for thousands of workers at the shipyard, who, at the present time, have been managing to hold their own in the competitive EU market. 24 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

There are some concerns about the partiality of the Commission and its support for another shipyard lobby. I am sure it would be possible to find a satisfactory solution for both sides in the maze of often-contradictory regulations. I would therefore like to add my name to the call to change the decision against the shipyard and to treat the Gdańsk Shipyard not just as an ordinary shipbuilding works, but also as a national and European symbol.

Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, may I just emphasise that the Commission understands the historic significance of the Gdańsk shipyard and the sensitivity of the case. We all agree on the objective that the Gdańsk shipyard should be restructured to make it a viable yard. This is the process that the Commission wants to encourage. However, the Commission has the responsibility to do so while ensuring a level playing field in the European shipbuilding market and consistency in the treatment of companies under restructuring. I would hope that the ongoing discussions between the Polish authorities and the Commission can lead to a satisfactory outcome.

President. − The debate is closed. (The sitting was suspended at 11.15 for voting time, and resumed at 11.30)

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT Vice-President

6. Announcement by the President

President. − Colleagues, as you can see, two new information screens have been installed in the Chamber. They are larger and offer many more possibilities than the screens which have been replaced. This is the first step in an ongoing project to improve the quality and the presentation of information concerning proceedings in the plenary, both for Members and the public. In particular, after each roll-call vote, a graphic overview of the Chamber will be briefly displayed, showing voting patterns across the House. This new feature, familiar in many national parliaments, merely reflects information which is in any case published in detail in the ‘Results of Votes’ annex to the Minutes of the proceedings. However, further to a decision by Parliament’s Bureau yesterday evening, the Conference of Presidents, in their sublime wisdom, will decide on Thursday if the group chairs wish to make use of this aspect of the system on a permanent basis in the future. In the mean time, political groups were consulted this morning and agreed to permit the use of this graphic display on an experimental basis at our voting session this morning.

7. Voting time

President. − The next item is the vote. (For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)

7.1. NUTS - amending Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU (vote)

– Report: Gerardo Galeote (A6-0285/2007)

7.2. Europol analysis files (vote)

– Report: Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (A6-0288/2007) 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 25

7.3. Natural disasters (vote)

– Joint motion for a resolution: Natural disasters (RC-B6-0323/2007) – Before the vote on Amendment 4:

Vittorio Prodi (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to request that the words ‘and land-registry updating’ be added to the end of paragraph 23 as an essential instrument for monitoring the situation and also as an instrument of territorial policy. (The oral amendment was accepted)

7.4. Better regulation in the European Union (vote)

− Report: Katalin Lévai (A6-0273/2007)

7.5. Better law-making 2005: subsidiarity and proportionality (vote)

− Report: Bert Doorn (A6-0280/2007)

7.6. Simplification of the regulatory environment (vote)

− Report: Giuseppe Gargani (A6-0271/2007)

7.7. Use of 'soft law' (vote)

− Report: Manuel Medina Ortega (A6-0259/2007)

7.8. The Single Market Review (vote)

− Report: Jacques Toubon (A6-0295/2007)

Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I had asked to speak on an issue connected with our work schedule: the fact that the new school year has coincided for some years, and will unfortunately coincide again next year, with our plenary poses major family problems for our Members and for many of our officials. In my view, this is a question that Parliament should debate, because the well-being of our children, who should be taken to school by their parents, is a matter that it behoves this Parliament to address. (Applause)

President. − Thank you, Mrs Frassoni, I am sure you have a good point, but you were late for assembly, so see the headmaster, please! (Laughter)

Thomas Wise (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I do not know what rule this is under, but my voting list has another report to be voted on – Ayala Sender. Do we reconvene at 12.30 p.m.?

President. − The debate has not taken place and the vote will be tomorrow. Thank you for raising that point.

8. Explanations of vote

- Report: Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (A6-0288/2007)

Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) We have here an initiative from the Republic of Finland, the aim of which is to adapt the rules on analysis files to the legislation in force. 26 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

In fact, the 2003 Protocol which entered into force in April this year modifies Title III of the Europol Convention and, particularly, the part relating to the creation of analysis files and the collection, processing, use and deletion of the personal data contained in such files. This means that the implementing rules that were adopted will have to be amended accordingly. This is therefore a measure which, though temporary, is necessary and appropriate. In fact, the measure will be in force for a limited period, as all previous legislation will be repealed when the Council Decision establishing a European Police Office enters into force.

– Joint motion for a resolution: Natural disasters (RC-B6-0323/2007)

Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted for this resolution but there is one point that I should like to highlight – the reference to the creation of a European protection force. We have a tendency, here in the European Parliament, to react to specific events by calling immediately for the creation of a new institution or the establishment of a new position. In this case, the point must be clearly made, once again, that responsibility for dealing with natural disasters simply cannot and should not be taken out of the Member States’ hands: on the contrary, it is primarily their responsibility, and it lies within their authority, to take preventive measures and to ensure that fire services have the best possible equipment and training so that they can combat disasters effectively. In exceptional cases only, in the event of extreme catastrophe, there will of course also be recourse to support and solidarity from the European Union, which will be asked to step in. The primary responsibility, however, must remain with the Member States.

Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on natural disasters because it has been demonstrated yet again that Europe is not invulnerable in these extreme situations and that it needs the solidarity of the EU. One thing must be clear, however: greatly improved coordination is needed and the situation should not be allowed to arise where EU Member States need additional assistance from third countries because we are not in a position to provide the necessary help ourselves. The challenge for the Member States is to develop better organised aid structures, particularly where volunteers are used, for example by providing the best possible training and equipment for fire brigades. The disposal of dead pets and wild animals is a major problem that needs to be tackled as soon as possible, both to prevent the risk of outbreaks of disease and also to reduce environmental damage.

Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – (DE) Mr President, I too voted for the resolution, although it is my opinion that these dreadful forest fires should not be allowed to cause further bloating of the EU institutions. As I see it, neither a European civil protection agency nor a European disaster intervention force will be capable of affording effective protection against natural disasters in the European Union. They are more likely to produce increased red tape and increased costs. What we need to do, therefore, is to improve international cooperation in order to be prepared for future natural disasters, and we need to maintain our fire services and also our woods and forests sufficiently well so that future disasters simply do not occur on this scale.

Glyn Ford (PSE). – Mr President, I have to say that in my own Group’s voting list this resolution on natural disasters is described as forest fires, but the natural disasters in Europe over the summer were actually wider than that and I wish to raise the issue in my own region of the worst floods in over a century. A third of a million people were without drinking water for more than a week. 4 000 homes were severely damaged and tens of thousands forced to evacuate at a total cost of EUR 150 million. I am hoping that my government will apply for assistance from the European Commission to enable the county and the towns in my region and elsewhere in Britain to actually get some recompense for the costs that are inevitably going to fall on very narrow sections of the population.

President. − The title of the motion for a resolution is ‘natural disasters’ and it has been corrected.

Linda McAvan (PSE). – Mr President, I just want to echo what Mr Ford said about the natural disasters in the UK. People may not be aware, but 40 000 residential properties were flooded. Nine hundred schools have been affected. Mainline railway lines are still closed. Agricultural land has been affected, including 75% 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 27

of the pea crop in the UK. In my own region of Yorkshire and the Humber, many thousands of people were affected and many are still unable to return to their properties. What we want from the Commission, given that the UK Government has now applied for solidarity funding, is a rapid response to that application, but at the same time we need all the EU institutions to make climate change a top priority. When we have a major piece of legislation coming through this House in the next few months, I hope that colleagues will bear in mind the natural disasters of this summer and make sure that we make our contribution to tackling the long-term issue of climate change, and I hope there will be no more of these natural disasters on the scale we have seen this summer.

Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I too want to support the application for funds from the European Commission. My region, the South-East of England region, suffered equally badly, especially in Oxfordshire and parts of Berkshire, and my colleague Mr Hannan and I have made an application to the European Commission for emergency funds. The reason I am standing up now is to ask the Commission to expedite the funding of relief and the restoration to normality of my region, the South-East of England.

Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) In voting for the resolution on the natural disasters that have occurred this summer, I wanted to express my solidarity with the families of the victims and those living in the devastated regions. This is also a message of thanks to all the professionals, volunteers and local authorities that helped to fight the fires and rescue the flood victims. I believe that there is now an urgent need to put emergency Community aid measures, especially financial measures, in place to help regenerate the regions where there has been severe damage. We also need to restore the productive potential of the areas affected, try to encourage the creation of more jobs and take appropriate steps to offset the social costs arising from the loss of jobs and other sources of revenue. I am still concerned at the increasing number of disasters caused by extreme weather conditions, which experts believe are largely due to the climate change that is causing global warming. I therefore urge the Commission to take steps to guarantee compliance with the Kyoto commitments and their repercussions.

Den Dover (PPE-DE), in writing. − While supporting and voting for the Joint Motion for a Resolution on Natural Disasters, British Conservatives have misgivings about the creation of a "European force" (paragraph 9) since we believe that both prevention and rapid reaction capabilities should be concentrated on the resources of the Member States.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We consider this resolution to be a good one and we propose to vote for it, but we must draw attention to the absence of any important proposals (despite several references to previous EP resolutions) and the insistence on others about which we have major doubts. Thus, we must insist on the need to review the Solidarity Fund regulation to cover regional disasters, create mechanisms to support the people affected and assist reforestation, with due attention to the prevention of major disasters caused by climate change. There should be a public agricultural insurance scheme, financed by the European Union, to guarantee farmers a minimum income in situations of public emergency such as droughts, fires and floods. It is essential to opt for a policy of prevention to address the problem of natural disasters particularly affecting the Mediterranean area, and to introduce radical changes in the CAP to combat the decline in small and medium-sized farms and family farms by encouraging agricultural production, biodiversity and occupation of the land. We have doubts about the Community civil protection mechanism because it may turn out to be yet another way of removing important aspects of national sovereignty, such as the management of natural resources, particularly forest and woodland.

Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), in writing. − (PL) For some years now we have been opening the autumn session of Parliament with discussions of the tragic consequences of natural disasters that affect Europe in the summer. Droughts, heat waves, floods and fires are devastating Europe. When we add to this the industrial catastrophes caused by forces of nature, then we see a picture of Europe whose citizens stand helplessly before the destructive power of nature. Over 60 people died this year in the fires in Greece, many families lost everything they owned, and thousands of hectares of forests and olive-groves went up in smoke. This is a truly tragic picture. I know what such a tragedy means. My own country has been affected by floods and we have had many victims of tragic mining 28 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

accidents. For this reason I would like to offer my sympathy and European solidarity to the families and loved ones of the victims of the Greek disaster as well as to the inhabitants of regions affected by the fires. At the same time, I do not think that Europe can afford to be passive in the face of such events. This does not just mean EU financial assistance that will make it possible to rebuild the regions affected by disasters. First of all, we must prepare a more effective prevention and early warning mechanism within the EU, which, even if it does not make it possible to avoid disasters, would certainly have an impact on reducing their effects. Even though the protection of the population against disasters is the responsibility of every State, we should think about a more effective monitoring of national crisis control policies, and perhaps even about a joint rapid reaction force in the event of such disasters.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) I should like to express our deepest sorrow for the victims of the serious forest fires in the spring – particularly in Greece – and our solidarity with their families and with all those affected. Deeds, not words, are needed now. The EU must activate the necessary financial instruments and means to meet the material needs of the people affected and to promote the social, economic and environmental recovery of the regions involved. In the light of the points raised so far, I recall some of the proposals which we presented in 2003 and 2005 and which remain as relevant as ever: - Maintain the eligibility of regional disasters for aid under the Solidarity Fund;

- Recognise natural disasters specifically affecting the Mediterranean area where more than 90% of forest fires and drought are recorded; - Create a Community programme for the protection of forest and woodland against fire; - Examine the possibility of creating an agricultural disaster fund; - Pay special attention to the least-favoured regions in the event of natural disasters. Lastly, I should like to point out that if the funds allocated to ever-increasing military appropriations were spent instead on preventing and combating natural disasters and on recovery in the areas affected, the incidence and consequences of such disasters would be significantly reduced.

Carl Lang (ITS), in writing. – (FR) At the end of August, Greece experienced its worst natural disaster ever. The first partial toll of the huge fires that swept through large areas of the Peloponnese was 63 dead, over 40 000 head of cattle burnt to death, 250 000 olive trees burnt and hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest gone up in smoke. The three days of national mourning announced by the Prime Minister, Kostas Karamanlis, cannot cover up for the total failure of the State to protect its citizens and come to the aid of villagers surrounded by flames, in a country where scorching summers and fire risks are a common occurrence. Everywhere there was evidence not just of undermanning and equipment shortages, but also of the failure to plan ahead and to coordinate operations. Like the previous PASOK governments, the New Democracy government did nothing to prevent the scale and horror of the fires. With a total lack of scruple and for purely political reasons, the Prime Minister announced, even as the fires were breaking out all over Greece, that the general elections would take place as planned. In support of the Greeks who have suffered as victims of their politicians, let us hope that in future irresponsible governments will be replaced by responsible governments.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on the summer’s natural disasters and particularly welcome the existence of the EU’s Solidarity Fund, which is available to help Member States deal with the aftermath of such disasters. It is a useful expression of solidarity that genuinely helps EU countries and citizens in moments of great need.

Sebastiano (Nello) Musumeci (UEN), in writing. − (IT) The terrible fires which struck Greece and southern Italy in particular this summer, leaving victims in their wake and destroying thousands of hectares of woodland and agricultural land, again highlight the urgent need for better coordination of rapid reaction measures by Member States’ civil protection forces. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 29

To that end, it is now clear that a European Civil Protection Agency needs to be set up to coordinate and manage measures to eradicate or prevent the causes of disasters. That Agency – which the writer has proposed that the Commission set up on a number of occasions, on the basis of the positive experience of the US Federal Emergency Management Agency – would not just be responsible for combating the devastating fires that cause enormous damage every year in the Mediterranean countries, but would also take swift action to tackle the emergencies following on from all kinds of disasters brought about by natural events, such as the floods from which Bulgaria has recently suffered, or man-made events. It has to be stressed that disasters may be supranational in nature, and Europe should not just rely solely on the generosity of volunteers or on the competences and resources of the particular State that has been affected, but should have enough human and financial resources and appropriate equipment to enable swift action to be taken.

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) For the sake of consistency, in view of what we have said in the past and what we expect from the European Solidarity Fund, I shall clearly be voting for this resolution. But this vote is not just about consistency. European integration, among countless other advantages, has the advantage of scale and the economies of scale that come with solidarity. Without in any way diminishing the responsibilities of Member States and their governments, it is possible and desirable through an effort of solidarity at European level to face the disasters that are caused by nature and its increasing unpredictability rather than by any mistakes in the management of the land.

However, while insisting on this point, we cannot leave the human factor out of account, when a criminal starts a fire or when a plan for the land opens the way for such disasters or exacerbates their consequences. I therefore believe it is time to review many of our policies, particularly in the area of forest and woodland management and rural development but not only in that area: we also need to look at our environmental measures, so as to prevent Man from becoming even more destructive than the destructive force of Nature.

Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Over 60 dead and 184 000 hectares of land gone up in smoke: that is the toll of the fires that swept through Greece at the end of August. Europe was not a passive observer. Solidarity came fully into play through the 'European rapid reaction instrument' that we voted for last March, a joint civil protection system in which 30 States make resources such as Canadairs, tankers and qualified personnel ('green berets') available to countries suffering man-made or natural disasters. I am not fanatical about the systematic transfer of competences to Europe, but I do believe that a Community civil protection system is worthwhile, because natural disasters know no borders. I have said so several times in this House, especially at the time of the disastrous fires in Portugal in 2003. The European Union urgently needs to demonstrate its benefits. It must serve as a model, so that there is solidarity between all the citizens of Europe, and not just in this particular disaster.

Gilles Savary (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The catastrophic storm in December 1999, floods in Central Europe in 2002, fires in Portugal and Spain in 2004, and now fires in Greece in which people have lost their lives, and also in Romania and Bulgaria: each time there is a strong emotional response, each time Europe sympathises, each time the Commission promises to improve its solidarity and its aid mechanisms. Right here, on 18 January 2000 in fact, I called for the creation of a public safety Eurocorps, and the idea was taken up by Commissioner Barnier in his May 2006 report. Right here in this Parliament, we have called in vain for the renewal of the 1992 regulation under which funding would be provided for fire-prevention equipment such as firebreaks, access roads and monitoring systems. Now we must not wait for the next disaster, for more victims. Let us put the Barnier proposal into practice. There is a military Eurocorps. Surely Europe can set up a public safety Eurocorps for itself, to protect its citizens against natural and accidental risks? Then we should ask Member States to draw up plans to prevent forest fires and help them, encourage them, to finance these through a specific financing instrument similar to that in the old 1992 regulation. 30 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

When we are facing climate change, it is in the interests of the whole of Europe to introduce ambitious prevention policies.

- Report: Lévai (A6-0273/2007)

Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) As far as the regions are concerned, given that their role in the legislative process means that they are often directly responsible for implementing and enforcing EU law, the efforts to achieve better regulation are extremely important. Bodies at different levels of national and local government, economic and social partners, representatives of civil society and non-governmental organisations must – as far as possible – participate actively in the consultation process on European law-making. Equally important is their role in the assessing the influence and effect of this legislation on the Member States. This will increase the quality, clarity and transparency of the regulations being prepared, while taking account of local and regional conditions and differences. In this way we will also prevent wrong interpretations as well as delays in the transposition and implementation of legislation.

Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) Within the scope of my parliamentary mandate I come across citizens’ complaints that during the transposition of EU legislation some Member States impose on them obligations that go beyond the requirements of the laws in question. The citizens are afflicted by needless administrative burdens that make them antipathetic towards the EU legislation that is being adopted. I voted in favour of the report on better regulation in the European Union, which incorporated my amendments, as it presents a great opportunity to approach European legislation from a new angle. European laws are drafted with the aim of simplifying the lives of EU citizens and are not meant to burden them; that is why they have to be drafted in a simple and intelligible way, with the emphasis on quality not quantity. At the same time, if the relevant parties at all levels are informed about the transposition of EU legislation efficiently and in time, this will ensure that the citizens have greater confidence in the European project.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I voted for this report on better regulation in the EU. I strongly support regulation being done in a least-cost and most efficient way, to help the development of a more competitive European economy and deliver better social, environmental and economic outcomes at the same time.

- Report: Doorn (A6-0280/2007)

Jonathan Evans (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservatives believe it is unfortunate that paragraph three appears vague in seeming to support "any" initiative in the enforcement of Community law. British Conservatives support the enforcement of Community law but wish to analyse and consider any initiative proposed by the Commission. Otherwise, we believe that this report is an excellent exposition.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I voted for this report on how EU law- and regulation-making can best be done. More effective and streamlined regulatory and legal frameworks will deliver EU-wide improvements in social and economic outcomes, generate more jobs and improve our quality of life.

- Report: Gargani (A6-0271/2007)

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The report states that simplifying the legislative environment to ensure the clarity, efficacy and quality of legislation is an essential prerequisite for attaining the objective of better law-making which, in turn, is a priority for the European Union. In the meantime, it states that some 500 new legislative initiatives (200 of which in 2007 alone) have been included in a separate rolling programme specifically dedicated to codifications, showing the bureaucratic complexity of the European Union. It also notes that the simplification being promoted at European level should be accompanied by appropriate simplification at national level to ensure that the advantages of Community simplification are not undermined by national rules or technical barriers.

However, a distinction must be made between purely bureaucratic matters and cases where rights may be called into question. We agree with the proposal that the Commission once and for all adopt recasting as a standard legislative technique so that, for each initiative, the text can be available in its entirety, also where there are specific 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 31

amendments, providing a clear indication of the new parts and those which are unchanged, thereby increasing the legibility and transparency of Community legislation.

Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − I voted for this resolution on better regulation. As a socialist, I have no difficulty in putting further burdens on industry to protect health and safety, the environment or raise the minimum wage. Yet I want value for money. The End of Vehicle Life Directive that came into force some years ago was estimated by the British Cabinet Office to have cost the economy GBP 400 million (EUR 590 million) while providing environmental and social benefits at a level of GBP 100 million (EUR 150 million) per annum. If these figures are anything like accurate, this directive was a political and environmental failure. We want costs to industry (and society) where there is a large multiplier as to benefits with costs of GBP 100 million providing EUR 500 million in benefits. Implementing the recommendations for in future cost benefit analysis of proposed legislation will do exactly that.

- Report: Medina Ortega (A6-0259/2007)

Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We believe that traditional legislation and the open method of coordination can live side-by-side and that both are still needed. We do not therefore share the view that the open method of coordination must be used only in exceptional cases. It should also continue to be used when harmonisation is not desirable or practicable. We do, however, share the view that the European Parliament should participate more fully when the open method of coordination is used.

Jonathan Evans (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservatives support the broad thrust of the Medina Ortega report, which sets clear boundaries on the promotion and use of Community law. Concerning paragraph 18, we wish to make it clear that Conservatives do not support closer European integration but share the view that there is a current mistrust relating to the EU institutions which these proposals may help to alleviate.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We agree with the rapporteur that the notion of non-binding legal instruments (soft law instruments) based on common practice is ambiguous and pernicious and should not be used in any documents of the Community institutions, although we disagree with other points in the report. Such soft law instruments, which can legitimately be used as interpretative or preparatory tools for binding legislative acts, should neither be treated as legislation nor be given any norm-setting effectiveness, and it is for each country to decide on their use, in particular where they cast light on the interpretation of national measures adopted to implement them or where they are designed to supplement binding Community provisions. Clearly, so-called non-binding legal instruments cannot be a substitute for legal acts and instruments, which are available to ensure the continuity of the legislative process. The Commission must therefore give special consideration to the effect of soft law on consumers and their possible means of redress before proposing any measure involving soft law instruments.

Daniel Strož (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (CS) This report is very important in the context of improving and simplifying the Community’s legal environment. I would particularly like to stress its importance with regard to the need to strengthen the European Parliament’s role in the legislative process and its importance in terms of eliminating the democratic deficit. I also fully support the desire to establish methods of consultation with the European Parliament on the adoption of so-called non-binding legal acts, especially since these acts are fairly common: they often earn attributes such as ‘unclear’ and ‘inefficient’, and their excessive use may be a manifestation of exceeding the scope of the Commission’s. In addition, the public may identify the image of European ‘superbureaucracy’ with these acts. Although the report recommends that soft law should not be used in official Community documents and that the distinction between dura lex and mollis lex should not be recognised, I do not consider this to be a relevant issue. The difference between binding and non-binding acts of the Community is a matter of fact and this recommendation does not change either the reality of their existence or their essence. In addition, the fact that the soft rules of secondary Community law are not legally binding does not mean that they have no legal value. Think, for example, of their importance in the interpretation of legal acts. Furthermore, if a Community body does not issue a recommendation or does not express an opinion in cases where it is 32 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

obliged to do so, it can be accused of being passive. However, this last comment is a technical one and does not detract from the report as a whole.

- Report: Toubon (A6-0295/2007)

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, today we approved a report in which we carried out a review of the functioning of the European Union’s common market. The common market, which consists of the free movement of persons, services, capital and goods, has encouraged significant economic growth, increased employment and improved competitiveness in the European economy. However, to improve its functioning, existing barriers and unnecessary regulation should be abolished. It is still the case, unfortunately, that some countries restrict the movement of workers from the new Member States. It is also important to inform our citizens, investors and businessmen about the benefits and opportunities presented by the common internal market. A unified market, without boundaries or restrictions, is the fundamental pillar of the European Union. The common market brings our whole community closer together and binds us together, introducing transparent principles for competition and encouraging the growth of entrepreneurship. The common market must, however, take into account social cohesion, employment issues, protection for the environment and for the consumer. A particularly important issue are measures to reduce the administrative burden in the European Union.

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, paragraph 16 of the Toubon report regrets that insufficient emphasis was placed on the potential contribution of nuclear power. My vote against this phrase is on the assumption that it was referring to nuclear fission, with which I and many others have a problem in terms of the disposal of radioactive waste and the legacy of decommissioning. Any emphasis on the potential contribution from nuclear fusion, however, while still some way in the future, would deserve support. Paragraph 32 refers to harmonisation in the area of taxation, amongst others, and also urges the Commission to push ahead with its proposals concerning a common consolidated corporate tax base. The Irish delegation of the PPE-DE Group is firmly opposed to any harmonisation of direct taxation, including corporate taxation, and we will continue to reject any proposals which weaken that position. So, despite many excellent points in the Toubon report, my colleagues and I had to abstain.

Jan Andersson, Göran Färm and Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We consider that the report has a well-balanced view of the internal market and in particular welcome the provisions on the social and environmental impact assessments which must form the basis of new policy initiatives. We do not, however, share the view on the contribution of nuclear power and believe that the report is unclear on tax matters. For example, we are uncertain about the initiatives that the Commission must take as regards excise duties and VAT and point out that tax levels fall within the competence of the Member States. We are also uncertain about which trade defence measures are referred to in the report. Even though we had wished to see stronger provisions on social clauses, we have voted in favour of the report as a whole because we welcome the review and the broad thrust of the report.

Liam Aylward, Brian Crowley, Seán Ó Neachtain and Eoin Ryan (UEN), in writing. − The first 10 years of the internal market added EUR 877 billion to the EU economy. It helped to create 2.5 million jobs. These facts speak for themselves that the single market is working. As a trading nation, Ireland can only benefit from a fully functioning single market. Ensuring competitiveness is a vital element in the policy mix of a fully functioning single market. I do not accept that the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) will not hamper EU competitiveness as proposed in the Toubon report. The CCCTB is the backdoor to tax harmonisation. It is vital that Member Sates have the flexibility to use taxation in different ways and at different rates to achieve their social and economic objectives − tax harmonisation would prevent this. The Toubon report contains many favourable points with regard to the knowledge society for a sustainable EU, for an EU open to the world and for a well-regulated EU. However, I abstained on the final vote because I firmly believe that the EU is best served by promoting tax competition, not tax harmonisation.

Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the report on the Single Market Review: tackling barriers and inefficiencies through better implementation and enforcement. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 33

I do not agree with the approach by the rapporteur, Mr Toubon, in which opening up to competition in the Single Market would not be subject to any limits or social regulation. I also voted against the further liberalisation of the postal service advocated in the report and I am sorry that the amendments on social and fiscal harmonisation were rejected. Furthermore, I deplore the new reference to the introduction of an unrestricted transatlantic single market and stress that priority should be given to safeguarding and promoting the European social model. In my opinion, completion of the Single Market should be regulated by guarantees of social protection for the citizens of Europe, which is not proposed in the Toubon report, the only European Parliament contribution to the Single Market Review.

Brigitte Douay (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The French Socialists have voted in favour of the Toubon report on the Single Market Review and its adaptation to the twenty-first century, since it refers to important aspects that are sometimes ignored when discussing the completion of the Single Market. Thus social and territorial cohesion and up-to-date services of general interest go hand in hand with the completion of the Single Market. We have, nonetheless, voted against paragraph 24 on the liberalisation of postal services. The report also lays emphasis on consumer protection, which is closely linked to the completion of the European Single Market and has to be guaranteed. Lastly, the environmental aspect has to be included in the requirements for the internal market, which is an asset for the European Union provided that those general principles are observed. One important point in the report is SMEs and facilitating their access to the European internal market as a whole, in view of the vital role that they and the craft industries play in European employment and innovation. I particularly support the determination expressed by the rapporteur to take active and effective steps against counterfeiting, which is a real plague on the European economy.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report has a very strong neoliberal bias, showing once again that the European Parliament is bent on ever more liberalisation, more returns on capital for business and financial groups that are already recording profits of 35% or more. So, after a eulogy on the great benefits that the Single Market delivers (to big business and financial groups), we are told that there are still protectionist attitudes and that it is essential to combat them and to move forward in other areas, such as financial services, tax policy, transport, postal services and energy, which are not yet fully liberalised and integrated. By distorting reality, they seek to mask the real effects of the Single Market, such as the increase in costs, the reduction in services and the quality of services, the job losses, to name but a few. This report is an attempt to encourage further liberalisation of public services, further transfers of political power from national to transnational level, and further attacks on consumers’ and workers’ rights, and we must therefore vote against it.

Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) The June List shares the rapporteur’s general position, that the internal market is one of the EU’s greatest success stories and that it must be further developed and improved. We are opposed, however, to many of the specific proposals made in the report. We strongly oppose the provisions on tax harmonisation, the welcome given to the euro, and the need for the Member States to liberalise postal services, which are a public service to be regulated first and foremost by each Member State. Lastly, we agree that the legal situation as regards services of general interest is unclear. We have chosen to vote against Amendment 12/rev tabled by the PPE-DE and Amendment 4 tabled by the PSE, however, because the long-term result of the provision made in those amendments will be that further power is transferred to the European Court of Justice. On the basis of the above arguments, we have chosen to vote against the report in the final vote.

Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservatives have been at the forefront of the campaign to create a fully functioning and effective single market. We welcome the Toubon report and its emphatic support for continued action in making the single market dynamic, outward-looking and flexible, while at the same time ensuring that it delivers real benefits for citizens. 34 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

In that context, British Conservatives have argued that tax policy must remain under the complete control of EU Member States, and that 'one size fits all' policies at EU level threaten the economic dynamism and global competitiveness that are so critical to Europe's future. We have therefore voted against calls for a common consolidated corporate tax base.

Anna Hedh (PSE), in writing. − (SV) Even though the report includes some positive provisions I have chosen to vote against it. Aside from the provisions on nuclear power which I cannot support, the report criticises excise duties and minimum harmonisation in consumer affairs, which could in future have negative repercussions for both Swedish alcohol policy and consumer protection. I welcome the review but wanted to see stronger provisions on social clauses and I believe that the report is not as balanced as it should have been.

Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report by Mr Toubon on the Single Market Review and I support the positive approach of the rapporteur to one of the most important pillars of the European Union. The four freedoms that make up the Single Market – the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital – must be further encouraged and developed to ensure that everyone benefits fully from the advantages of the Single Market. As regards the free movement of services, I think it is a great pity that more emphasis has not been placed on the importance of the country of origin principle, which has already been severely undermined by the services directive, in the achievement of a real Single Market and in the creation of jobs. I also believe that observance of the country of origin principle for VAT on distance selling and e-commerce is the only viable basis for a coherent and transparent tax framework to allow the free movement of goods. In my view, tax competition is in no way an obstacle to the completion of the Single Market; on the contrary, it encourages economic operators to defend their freedoms in regard to free movement within the Single Market.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report on the Single Market Review which the Commission is working on. In particular I welcome the focus on improving regulation throughout the Union, and the focus on providing legal certainty for services of general interest.

Christel Schaldemose (PSE), in writing. − (DA) The Danish members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament – Mr Rasmussen, Mrs Thomsen, Mrs Schaldemose, Mr Jørgensen and Mr Christensen – have voted against paragraph 18, which concerns the Commission’s review of the consumer acquis. The delegation believes that minimum harmonisation is necessary whilst such great disparities remain in the level of consumer protection in the Member States. The delegation also disagrees with paragraph 26, which states that the present VAT and excise duty systems are a barrier to the completion of the Single Market. The delegation believes that the wording, among other things, conflicts with the Danish system of excise duties. However, the delegation wishes to emphasise its support for better implementation of the Single Market.

Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − I wish to explain that I cannot support paragraph 32 of the report, which calls for broad tax harmonisation, or the harmonisation of corporate taxes, nor recital O, which criticises these Member States that guard their prerogatives in regard to tax issues. Member States must be free to determine their own taxation policy as part of national fiscal policy. In regard to paragraph 40, part 2, I will vote in favour of this because I have concerns that on a number of issues Member States use EU legislation to ‘gold plate’ their own national laws, and then blame the EU for any subsequent criticism that may come their way. I will also vote for paragraph 16, part 2, which states insufficient attention has been given to nuclear energy as a tool with which to tackle climate change in a balanced way and would hope that as a result a discussion could start based on facts and not on fears with regard to the role that nuclear energy can bring to climate change as part of a well balanced energy policy.

Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. − I voted against this report because amendments favouring tax harmonisation were passed and included in the report. I am resolutely opposed to any measure favouring harmonisation of taxes across the EU. There is a constant attempt to slip these measures in as amendments, and even in the body of reports, and I will oppose them at every opportunity. The Commission should be more forthright about its intentions on this subject coming up to the referendum on the Reform Treaty. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 35

9. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

IN THE CHAIR: HANS-GERT PÖTTERING President

10. Formal sitting - Portugal

President. − Welcome to the European Parliament, Mr Cavaco Silva. It is a great pleasure for the European Parliament to receive the President of the Portuguese Republic.

President. − (DE) Mr President, colleagues, it is a great pleasure for me and for all of us to welcome the President of the Republic of Portugal, Mr Aníbal Cavaco Silva, to the European Parliament today. Mr President, during your 10 years as Prime Minister of Portugal, you consolidated the country’s democratic institutions and successfully promoted its economic development. As a forward-thinking European, you guided Portugal with a sure hand on the road to European Union membership. I see that the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso, is here too, and of course I should also point out that Portugal has recently taken over the Presidency of the Union. You too, Mr Barroso, are warmly welcome today. It is 10 years since a President of the Portuguese Republic last addressed the European Parliament. Since then we have come a long way together. You are here today in the Parliament in Strasbourg, as President of Portugal, to mark your country’s third EU Presidency. Portugal’s three Presidencies can best be summed up as ‘ambitious on the Community’s behalf’, for on each occasion Portugal has tackled vital contemporary issues – the Lisbon Strategy, for example, or the EU’s relations with Africa and with South America. This Presidency is no exception. On Portugal’s agenda this time are the successful conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference and adoption of the Reform Treaty; the strengthening of foreign and security policy and, in particular, the development of closer relations with Latin America, Africa and the Mediterranean region; further action on climate change; and realisation of the Lisbon Strategy. The discoveries that were made in all quarters of the globe by the navigators who sailed from Lisbon in the 14th century were effectively the first step towards globalisation. That opening to the world and the culture of tolerance that your country has developed down the centuries constitute particularly valuable experience in the context of today’s globalisation, and they are thus an advantage to us in European Union. Portugal’s efforts to develop relations with Latin America and to pursue contacts with South America, through its special relationship with Brazil, very much reflect our own view. Your culture of tolerance and your global outlook represent an opportunity in today’s world. Under this Presidency, your country will be able to build on the work of the 14th-century explorers with the same courage that they had and the same persistence. We wish you much luck and success in your task. (Applause)

Aníbal António Cavaco Silva, President of the Portuguese Republic. − (PT) Mr President of the European Parliament, Mr President of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to express my thanks to the President of the European Parliament for his kind words and my deep appreciation for the invitation to be here today. It is an honour for me to have this opportunity to address you all, representatives of the peoples of Europe and members of this great European institution, the European Parliament. I am well aware of the decisive role this Parliament has played in the successful process of European integration. I have not forgotten the intense and fruitful collaboration with this institution in 1992 when, as prime minister, I led the first Portuguese Presidency of the Council whose motto, you may remember, was Towards European Union. The European Parliament’s contribution was fundamental to the establishment of a strong internal market and to the progress of the project for European Union born of Maastricht. Now, for the third time, my country holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. And, once again, we face great challenges. Challenges that call for convergence in the political will of the Member States and the European institutions. More than ever before, it is essential to concentrate our collective energies and determination on what is really needed to make Europe stronger and more cohesive. This is ultimately what the citizens of Europe expect of their leaders. 36 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

The Portuguese Presidency will do everything in its power to establish the convergence that is indispensable to progress in the construction of Europe. I trust, in particular, that we shall have the frank and open collaboration with the European Parliament that we had during the previous Portuguese Presidencies. One of the Presidency’s priorities is to conclude the Reform Treaty based on the agreement reached at the June European Council. An agreement which I regard as a very important step, one which I hope will enable us to move on from a period marked by a certain erosion of the process of European construction. I therefore call for a concerted effort to ensure that the new Treaty is concluded during the Portuguese Presidency. Once the negotiations are over and that chapter is closed, the European Union must concentrate with increased consistency and renewed confidence on the challenges that are of concern to the citizens of Europe: economic growth, employment, security, the environment, energy, and globalisation. This is the agenda on which Europe is required to act, for our own and also for future generations. It seems to me, therefore, that this is a good moment to stress the value of solidarity as a fundamental pillar in the construction of Europe. Solidarity which is, in fact, a sine qua non for the future of European construction, on a par with the other truly fundamental principle, subsidiarity. A solidarity that is tangible, practical, translated into policies and joint action, not a rhetorical, à la carte solidarity. I take the liberty of recalling at this point the 1950 Schuman Declaration, and I quote, that Europe…will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. We must continue to be guided by these words in our efforts to build a stronger and more cohesive Europe. Loss of the idea of belonging to a Union based firmly on solidarity is one of the major risks of European integration. To be a true Union, it is essential to retain the sense of Community that was, not without reason, the original name given to the construction of Europe. One of the concrete achievements which created de facto solidarity was the concept of economic and social cohesion established in the Single European Act of 1986, in connection with which I had the honour to participate in the negotiations and which I signed in my capacity as Prime Minister of Portugal. The extraordinary progress of European integration in the past 20 years would not have been possible without economic and social cohesion policies. They contributed to political cohesion, to economic growth, to employment, to territorial cohesion, to equal opportunities and to strengthening Europe’s standing in the world. There are now fresh reasons for renewed interest in the principle of cohesion. I am thinking of increasing globalisation, migration on a vast scale, and demographic developments leading to the social and economic imbalances associated with an aging population. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The three aspects of sustainable development are well known: social, economic, environmental. This is a central objective of European integration, reaffirmed on various occasions and enshrined in the Lisbon Strategy. I should like on this occasion to concentrate on the social aspect and more particularly on the subject of poverty and social exclusion. In addition to the principle of solidarity there is an ethical and moral concept of progress, without which the founding values of the European idea would fade away, values such as the enduring quest for peace, the affirmation of freedom and human rights, the spirit of community, the insistence on equity and social justice, the assertion of the dignity of labour and the attempt to instil a more extensive and more liberating sense of civic responsibility. The unequivocal identification of the battle against poverty and social exclusion as a European objective confers on all of us a responsibility for finding new solutions for increasingly complex and persistent problems. The Social Agenda, combined with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, sets out the ambitious and difficult challenge we face.

I note, in this connection, that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the creation of the European Social Fund and the 10th anniversary of the European Employment Strategy. It is also the European Year of Equal Opportunities. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 37

As President of the Portuguese Republic, I have chosen the subject of social inclusion as one of my priorities for action. During the first year of my term in office, I promoted the Road to Inclusion to mobilise the Portuguese people and alert them to the urgent need to address the indicators of persistent poverty, unequal distribution of income and exclusion that still affect thousands of citizens. I am now more convinced than ever of the need to meet this challenge with flexible and innovative solutions: more responsibility for non-governmental organisations and citizens in general, more coordination of State action and civil society initiatives, recognition that policies for the redistribution of income do not preclude, on the contrary they require, the creation of more and better opportunities for all to share in the aims of wealth creation, personal achievement and sustainable development. Portugal still has a long way to go by European standards. But it is also true that Europe as a whole is still a long way from the objectives of social cohesion which it seeks to achieve and which it cannot abandon. It is a fact that the uneven levels of prosperity in the Union disclosed by economic and social indicators in recent decades have been accompanied by a considerable approximation to the European average among the less developed Member States. The economic convergence of States must not, however, be confused with the convergence of social groups within those States, a process subject to the imperatives of equity and social justice. From this point of view, it must be acknowledged that very little progress has been made. In the five years from 2001 to 2005, the poverty line in the Union countries as a whole remained static at 16%. We are talking about some 75 million Europeans whose disposable income is less than 60% of the average income in their own countries. Taking this figure in conjunction with the recorded trends in the unequal distribution of income, it becomes apparent that the situation is even less encouraging. In 2005, in the European Union of 25, the income of the richest 20% of the population was five times that of the poorest 20%. In 2000, it was four and a half times as much. A more detailed examination of these indicators shows that the social groups most at risk of poverty are the old, the unemployed – especially the long-term unemployed – people living alone and single-parent families. Other groups, for their part, are subject to disturbing and increasing social risks because of their potential for exclusion. I am speaking of children, people with disabilities, immigrants and ethnic minorities. The EU Council itself recognises in its 2007 Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion that, and I quote, children have a higher-than-average risk of poverty in most Member States. In some, almost every third child is at risk. Living in a lone-parent or jobless household further compounds the risk. This is a serious situation, which we cannot afford to ignore. How can the European Union, which faces the risk of an aging population and endemic demographic recession, fail to value its most important asset, its children and young people? (Applause) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wonder whether we may not have reached a point where traditional social protection policies cease to be effective. Social security and protection policies played a decisive role in the economic revival after the Second World War and in moulding modern European societies. What came to be known as the welfare state has left a legacy to which the Union itself owes its origins. Building on the success of the eminently redistributive policies inspired by the idea of the welfare state, Europe has constructed an elaborate pattern of social protection which, despite the many differences between the various States, is known generally as the European social model. With all its limitations and defects, the fact remains that this social model is now an inherent part of the European identity. Nevertheless, if we are to defend it, we must accept that the social model will have to change in order to meet the new challenges and adapt to the new world of globalisation and the information and knowledge society. 38 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

The predominantly redistributive national policies are finding it increasingly difficult to produce any perceptible results in the social field. The efficacy and sustainability of these policies are increasingly questionable. It is essential, in planning future social policies, to focus on the idea of the welfare society, in which all of us, as citizens, have more responsibility and show more solidarity. Of course, social progress depends on economic growth. But unsustainable and unacceptable economic growth is socially destructive. Unemployment is the main cause of poverty in most countries in the European Union. We need more and better economic growth and that means more and better employment opportunities. Easing participation in the labour market, according due weight and dignity to every individual contributing to the production of wealth and prosperity, in a process described as active inclusion, these represent the best protection a citizen can have against poverty and social exclusion. The goal announced in the Lisbon Strategy to raise the employment rate in the Union to 70% is a social imperative that must be borne in mind, though it looks as though it will be difficult to reach that goal by 2010. Another way of protecting citizens is to help them to acquire qualifications, help to equip them with education and training to face the new technological, environmental and cultural challenges.

It is therefore essential for Member States to give top priority to the common aim of improving levels of education and training in the younger generation and instilling the habit of life-long learning. This will undoubtedly give them a competitive edge in future societies based on information and knowledge. We have designated 2010 as the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. That is the year when we shall be called to account and required to show how far we have maintained the ambitions that inspired us in Lisbon in 2000. Those ambitions include, and I quote, investing in human resources and combating social exclusion. The aim of combating poverty and exclusion is not confined to the geographical boundaries of the European Union. The foreign dimension of the principle of solidarity is primarily a reflection of the humanitarian values on which the European project is based. The traditions that prevent development in the poorer countries are now combined with the problems arising from globalisation, so the campaign against poverty and under-development must become a global campaign. That is the only way it can succeed. The European Union has added responsibilities in this area and it has a wealth of knowledge and experience that give it a special role. It must take the lead in the global agenda. And it is in this context that I would draw your attention to Africa, a continent that is close to Europe and not only in geographical terms, a continent that we would do well to consider and treat as a priority partner. The Union may find there is a heavy strategic price to pay for European inertia vis-à-vis Africa. In this connection, I attach special importance to the forthcoming EU-Africa summit which will take place during the Portuguese Presidency. It is time to talk with Africa and stop just talking about Africa and its problems. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel I cannot end this speech without touching on two subjects which I believe are absolutely decisive for the future of the Union. First, energy and the environment. These will undoubtedly be key sectors in the 21st century, and developments in these sectors will determine the new geopolitical shape of the world. Energy and the environment are of vital common interest and must be regarded as new driving forces in European integration. Here too we must build a strong ‘de facto solidarity’. Economic efficiency, security and quality of life in the European Union depend largely on the success of energy and environmental policies. In this connection, I must express once again my appreciation for the strategic vision and determination shown by the European Commission and its President, without which we could not have achieved the excellent results in this area that we did during the German Presidency. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 39

Second, there is a question on all our minds. What is the European Union’s role on the international stage and its contribution to the construction of a new world order? I believe it is absolutely crucial to the sustainability of the process of European integration to ensure that Europe is a central and influential player in the global, multilateral and multipolar world that is emerging. A player with a firm, consistent and cohesive voice. A player who is respected and who respects others. A player who can defend the principles and values on which its economic and social model are founded. I note, in this connection, that Portugal was among the countries which led the first wave of economic globalisation in history, and it is well aware that the future of Europe depends largely on its ability to become a credible and influential player on the international stage. In conclusion, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must say once again how much the extraordinary course of European integration owes to the European Parliament, an institution which has always taken the lead in defending the values and principles that forged the identity of Europe and formed the fabric of ‘de facto solidarity’ our founders bequeathed to us. I am sure that here, in this chamber, the necessary vision, will and energy will be found to pursue this admirable aim of uniting the peoples of Europe and strengthening Europe’s position in the world. (Standing ovation)

President. − (DE) Mr President, that your words have been received with approval and warmth is obvious from the applause. You spoke out for solidarity and a sense of community and those qualities underpin what we are about here in the European Union. Only through solidarity, a sense of community and practical action will we achieve our aims. Yours is not an empty rhetoric for you have shown in the course of your political life that you are committed to Europe and capable of taking practical action on its behalf. Speaking for the European Parliament, I should like to assure you that we as MEPs will do all we can to support the Portuguese Presidency, so that when the Heads of State and Government meet in October we may achieve a successful outcome on the Reform Treaty. I would also make a point of extending our gratitude and recognition to Foreign Minister Luís Amado, Secretary of State Manuel Lobo Antunes and Ambassador Álvaro Mendonça e Moura and all their colleagues, whose task it is to convey, through the process of discussions, the expression of our political will. To them I say: ‘We are with you.’ I thank you Mr President, on behalf of the European Parliament, for your impressive words to us and I wish Portugal every success in the interests of this Europe that we share. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Cavaco Silva. (Applause) (The sitting was suspended at 12.35 and resumed at 15.00.)

11. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

12. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

13. Presentation by the Council of the draft general budget - Budget 2008

President. − (DE) The next item on the agenda is the presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for 2008.

Emanuel Santos, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have the honour to present, on behalf of the Presidency of the Council, the draft general budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2008, adopted by the Council on 13 July 2007. I should like, first of all, to record the excellent and constructive atmosphere that prevailed during the meetings preceding the first reading of the 2008 budget by the Council. The conciliation meeting produced a significant result, namely agreement on five joint statements on important subjects, providing a good basis for future work. In this respect, I am convinced that the excellent cooperation between the two branches of the budgetary authority, with the valuable assistance of the Commission, augurs a positive outcome. I can assure you that the Council is keen to continue the constructive dialogue on the budget in order to reach a satisfactory agreement on a good Community budget for 2008. 40 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

In March 2007 we celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the Treaties of Rome and reaffirmed our common values and objectives. In the dynamic project that is the European Union, the European Union budget like the single currency is one of the most tangible expressions of what it means, for the European citizen and taxpayer, to be European. The European Union budget must therefore be drawn up in the light of the challenges we face together. There are various challenges but I will, if I may, draw attention to some which I consider to be more important. First, the challenge of eliminating the barriers to entrepreneurship in order to create a dynamic European economy based on the Lisbon Strategy. Another challenge is to create a trans-European transport network to bring us closer to one another and consolidate the internal European market. The challenge of an information society shows the importance of human resources and social inclusion. The European Union will derive greater strength from the enlightened participation of its citizens in this project, unique in modern history. The latest challenge, affecting some regions in particular – the challenge of climate change – must be met by developing renewable sources of energy and by more efficient and socially responsible use of natural resources. All these challenges arise in the context of the globalisation of the world economy, which presents a serious challenge for our old continent of Europe, a challenge we must meet at an economic and social level with policies that will increase the productivity of the European economy and strengthen social cohesion. This is what all Europeans expect of our government. We must all redouble our efforts to ensure that our budgets represent an effective and efficient response to the political priorities. It is therefore necessary for us to reduce the administrative burdens, concerns shared by the Council and the European Parliament, and for the Commission to speed up the process of approving operational programmes and projects so as to avoid delays in execution. More rapid approval must not, however, call into question the principles of good budgetary management. It is true that we need greater flexibility but not at the cost of abandoning the efficient and responsible use of the European taxpayers’ money. Before presenting the draft budget for 2008 in more detail, I should like to record the guiding principles behind the Council’s decision. The essential elements, in brief, were appropriate funding for the various European Union priorities; a carefully controlled increase in payment appropriations; compliance with the current ceilings of the financial framework leaving, where necessary, sufficient margins below the ceilings for the various headings and sub-headings; and lastly financial discipline and good budgetary management. I will, if I may, mention just one detail. In order to complete its analysis of the preliminary draft budget, the Council employed a combination of budgetary tools which proved to be extremely useful and which were developed in the context of budgeting for objectives and activities. Among them, I should like to draw attention to the activity planning forms, where the Council considers, after examining a number of them in depth, that the overall quality of the process has improved significantly and hopes that this budgetary approach will be developed further in the future. The draft budget for 2008 amounts to EUR 128 000 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 119 000 million in payment appropriations. As regards commitments, I should remind you that the Council considers it essential that these reach an appropriate overall level in the 2008 budget, with due regard to the capacities for absorption. As you know, we consider that overestimating payment appropriations is not a solution for unpaid commitments, the Reste à liquider. One of our guiding principles was therefore to assess the needs – real and clearly defined needs – and this resulted in an increase in payments of 3.4% compared with the 2007 budget. As regards sub-heading 1a – Competitiveness for growth and employment – the Council intends to provide for appropriate funding of priorities connected with the Lisbon Strategy, having left a significant margin to cover the European Union priorities defined in the conclusions of the June European Council, as well as other so far unforeseen needs. Although the Council intends to limit increases under this sub-heading in comparison with the 2007 budget, I should point out that the Council will continue to provide for a very significant increase in the Research budget, i.e. 7.75% in commitments and 45% in payments, in the light of the rate of execution in previous years and the capacities for absorption. This increase reflects the great importance that the Council attaches to efficient implementation of the Lisbon Strategy which, as I have already mentioned, is an essential element in the economic development of the European Union. As regards sub-heading 1b – Cohesion for growth and employment - the Council intends to accept the commitment appropriations proposed by the Commission in its preliminary draft budget. With regard to the payment appropriations, I should like to emphasise that the proposed increase has been maintained at 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 41

an even more significant level, i.e. 6.2%, taking into account the capacities for absorption and past experience with the completion of old programmes and the execution of new ones. As regards heading 2 – Preservation and management of natural resources – the appropriations proposed by the Council were based on earlier results and past experience has shown that, despite being applied horizontally, these appropriations are generally speaking always very close to the figures for the final execution. I should like to expand on some considerations concerning the approval of operational programmes and projects in the areas of rural development and the Structural and Cohesion Funds for the period 2007-2013. This was the subject of a joint statement which we approved at our conciliation meeting and I can assure you that the Council attaches the greatest political importance to ensuring that all operational programmes and projects are executed as rapidly as possible and in an appropriate manner. As to headings 3a and 3b – Citizenship, freedom, security and justice – the Council intends to make only one slight adjustment to the commitment and payment appropriations in accordance with the capacities for absorption and the prior rate of execution. As regards heading 4 – The EU as a global partner – the Council intends to include some priorities with a political bearing in its draft budget. I refer to Palestine, for which an increase of EUR 80 million is proposed, in reserve, and Kosovo, for which an increase of EUR 180 million is proposed, likewise in reserve. We are still in the first stage of the budgetary process and I am sure we shall have further opportunities to give more precise figures in this connection.

At the present stage, the Council intends, so far as it is concerned, to accept the Common Foreign and Security Policy budget proposed in the preliminary draft budget as representing a provisional minimum. However, it is highly probable that the amount proposed for the Common Foreign and Security Policy budget will prove to be insufficient in the light of developments in the international situation. I think we all understand what is at stake. I should like to end my explanatory statement with a few words about heading 5 – Administration. The Council’s approach is based on horizontal criteria such as increased efficiency and, at the same time, on the specific nature of each institution, especially in terms of the provision of new posts in connection with enlargement. For its own section of the budget, the Council intends to provide an increase of only 0.2%, which seems to me to represent a clear political signal. A detailed analysis of the budgets of the decentralised agencies was also carried out. A method based on horizontal criteria was used both on subsidies and with regard to the number of new posts to be approved. I also take this opportunity to say a few words about the need to ensure sound financial management of the European Union institutions. In this connection, the Council is delighted with the joint statements which we approved at the conciliation meeting and which raise questions such as decentralised agencies, executive agencies, assigned revenues and recruitment in connection with the latest enlargements. We all know that this is only the first step in the budgetary process, but I have every confidence that together we shall be able to explore all the possibilities in order to reach a final agreement and produce a satisfactory budget at the end of the year. Our principal objective is to have at our disposal in due course a budget for 2008 that will be adequate for the purpose of the Union’s political priorities but that is not excessively large, because that would signify acquiescence in a probable failure to execute it effectively and efficiently. We must bear in mind not only that this budget will affect the well-being of each and every citizen of the Union but also that it is the taxpayers of each and every Member State who foot the bill. Hence the need to strike the right balance. I am sure that the three institutions represented here today will make every effort to do so. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your kind attention.

Kyösti Virrankoski (ALDE), rapporteur. – (FI) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the European Parliament has now to deliberate upon the Council’s proposal for next year’s budget. Right at the start I wish to thank the country holding the presidency, Portugal, for its excellent and transparent cooperation. It has worked splendidly in collaboration with the European Parliament and its Committee on Budgets, in particular. The debate has gone extremely smoothly. Although the Council’s proposal gives cause for comment, the work of the Presidency gives us good reason to assume that we will achieve an excellent end result. 42 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

The Council’s budget proposal is a frugal one. Compared to the preliminary draft budget, commitment appropriations have been cut by EUR 717 million, with the margin for the multiannual financial framework at EUR 3.9 billion. Payment appropriations have come in for an even bigger cut, having been reduced by EUR 2.1 billion, meaning they are a good EUR 10.3 billion under the financial framework, which is to say just 95% of the EU’s GNI. When we recall how, after long and hard talks, the financial framework was adopted only a year ago, we have to regard the level of payment appropriations, and these especially, as unrealistically low. It is regrettable that budget headings 1a (competitiveness for growth and employment) and 1b (cohesion for growth and employment) should have been made the target of particularly drastic cuts. In the first case payment appropriations have been reduced by more than EUR 500 million and in the second by EUR 498 million. Both of these headings concern a key priority of the European Union, the Lisbon Strategy, one now made weaker by a cut of more than a billion euros. There are also fundamental problems for the budget in connection with heading 1. Last year the European Parliament warned the Council that financing for the European Galileo navigation system was too inadequate. Now there is a shortfall of EUR 2.4 billion, because the private sector did not get involved. Under its resolution, the European Parliament is supporting a project using Community funds coming out of the Union’s budget. This is the simplest procedure, the least bureaucratic and the most democratic. Such a huge sum of money, EUR 400 million a year, is nevertheless impossible to find, given the current financial framework, and so we need a joint decision by Parliament and the Council. We can rescue this important European project, but it will have to be done in the context of this budget procedure.

Another problem is the European Institute of Technology, the EIT. If we do want to set it up it will have to be financed sustainably. It cannot be based on hopes and assumptions, but needs realistic decisions. The idea that the EIT would almost certainly receive cash out of EU programmes based on free competition is just a dream. What if it were to come true, though? That is why we need realistic solutions. There is a special problem concerning next year’s budget, and that relates to the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and rural development funds. Only a few of the Structural Funds’ Operational Programmes have been approved. Just 20% of the 335 Programmes under the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund have been approved, but the figure for the European Social Fund is just less than 10%. Most worrying is the situation concerning the Rural Development Fund, where just two of the 96 Programmes have been approved. In June the European Parliament and the Council adopted a declaration which focuses attention on this, and they promised to monitor the Commission’s actions here. Parliament for its own part promises to enforce this declaration. Finally, I want to emphasise the importance of good management. The European Parliament wants to promote activity-based management and budgeting. We, together with the Council, passed a declaration which stresses the importance of a cost-benefit analysis and accountability when new agencies are being set up. We need to insist on this. The theme of next year’s budget is the Budget for Results. The purpose is to emphasise the notion that it is the appropriations that need to be used to achieve the desired results. Management is not the main issue here: it is results. I firmly believe that we, along with the Council and the Commission, will succeed in establishing such a budget for next year.

President. − Thank you very much, Mr Virrankoski, and thank you too for observing the speaking time so scrupulously. It would seem that the Finns have everything well under control here. Representatives from smaller countries such as Finland, just like those from larger states, are capable of exerting great influence. Our other rapporteur is also a Finn: you have the floor, Mr Itälä.

Ville Itälä (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (FI) Mr President, the most important principles to be observed when Parliament and other institutions were drafting next year’s budget were thrift and budgetary discipline. We have to set an example to the taxpayer, the ordinary European citizen, and show that we can also take responsibility for economic matters. This is the only way we can win the trust of the people.

Parliament’s new Secretary-General has put forward a new proposal for Parliament’s 2008 budget, and I would like to congratulate him, since it is extremely good and well-balanced. It will help us find a compromise when taking the final decision. I should mention two things concerning the proposal. Firstly, the Secretary-General’s proposal is still below 20% of heading 5, i.e. the increase does not use up the whole 20%. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 43

The other important matter is that he has been able to place a lot of existing employees in new posts, whereas all the posts should have been made vacant. We nevertheless have to remember what this process in Parliament is like generally. We have already adopted certain principles here a few times this year. One is that Parliament’s budget is a taxpayer’s budget, and that we would try to keep to the 2007 expenditure levels where new projects are concerned. We are not so very far off this target, and I believe that all the projects proposed can be carried out when we determine the precise sums in accordance with budgetary discipline. I wish to raise another matter concerning Parliament’s budget, and that has to do with information policy. Various projects have been set up with a view to the forthcoming elections, such as the Web TV, and the most important thing of all is for MEPs and the political groups to be closely involved in all aspects of Parliament’s information policy. So the groups and Members must keep themselves in the picture and not leave the administration in charge of information policy: people want to know why an individual member or group votes a certain way or puts forward given proposals. People want to know the political background, and we should therefore be involved. I hope that the idea about inviting the small, local media along, as now agreed, goes through to the final version. One way to get close to the people is for us to invite along the small, local media, which do not have the funds themselves to come here to Parliament. This obviously has to happen through our Members. I would like to come back again to the other institutions. The Council has proposed a 2% cut across the board for all institutions. As rapporteur, I have to say this is difficult to accept, as the institutions differ greatly from one another. Some are small, some large, and they vary in the sort of work they do.

Let me take as an example the Court of Auditors, which I visited yesterday. They have been very economical and have complied with budgetary discipline for many years now. They have posted a surplus for everything, they have not wasted money, and their expenditure consists of salaries and fixed costs, and nothing else. This 2% cut would be completely out of the question for the Court of Auditors. The whole scheme would fall apart if we were to go with it. I hope we will reach agreement on the idea of going over possible areas where savings can be made for each individual institution. In principle I agree with the Council that everyone needs to exercise thrift and areas where savings can be made have to be found, but I am not in favour of a universal 2% policy.

Reimer Böge (PPE-DE), Chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentleman, what we are discussing today is the second year’s implementation of the agreed Financial Perspective; we are discussing implementation of multiannual programmes with European added value as determined in codecision; and we are discussing additional commitments to reform by all three institutions. I should like to assure the Council Presidency that a promising start was made, in terms of basic agreements, with the tripartite dialogue and the conciliation procedure on 13 July. The five statements to which you referred, particularly concerning how we deal with the decentralised agencies, are a move in the right direction and one on which I hope we can build. I should also like to tell you, Commissioner, that your initiative for a two-stage presentation on implementation of the budget is another important step in the interests of efficient budgetary policy on the part of both the Commission and the European Parliament. Obviously, what we have to do now, in this budgetary procedure on the basis of the Council’s draft, is to ensure budget discipline and to safeguard commitments already entered into, but of course we also have to adjust the foreseeable and anticipated figures. In that regard, I do not understand what the Council has said in its additional statement in relation to the sub-headings on growth and employment (1a) and on agricultural policy and market-related expenditure – namely that if the amounts are insufficient, the Commission must be asked to submit an amending budget. Heading 4, foreign policy, has to be highlighted yet again as chronically under-financed. I must point out, too, that in the negotiations on the Financial Perspective we flagged up these shortfalls right from the outset. So we shall work to ensure that agreed programmes are properly implemented in terms of both commitments and payments. At the same time – and let me make this quite clear — we shall not accept any shelving of our political priorities either in the current budgetary procedure, Commissioner, or indeed through major global transfers at the end of a budget year. I want to say explicitly that the statement on implementation of the Structural Funds and rural development was important for us, and we would ask the Commission to submit a progress report as soon as possible 44 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

because the Member States and the regions quite rightly expect to see the programmes in question here implemented without delay. Taken overall, the statements concerning the decentralised agencies, advocating improved cost-benefit analysis, make for greater transparency and greater clarity about the staff actually employed there – whether permanently or temporarily — and they constitute a qualitative step forward which, in conjunction with the Commission’s so-called ‘screening report’ on establishment plans, amounts to positive progress and must be further developed, studied and more thoroughly pursued. The watchword in this regard, I would add, should be prudence as opposed to over-reaction. Of course, much of what we currently complain about in relation to decentralisation or the rules for implementing the Financial Regulation results from Community decisions, for which we all bear our share of responsibility. The solution is a familiar one and it entails slimming down procedures and simplifying them to some extent. In that regard, there remains a great deal of work to be done. Allow me to say something here on two or three key points. The figure for payments in the Commission’s preliminary draft was EUR 8.2 billion less than the ceiling in the Financial Perspective. Now the Council has submitted a draft with a figure EUR 10.3 billion below the ceiling. If you look at the Council’s summary table, however, you will find that the content is highly questionable. Under the heading for the Lisbon Strategy, growth and employment, for example, the fact of creating a new EUR 342 million margin, and reducing the payments by EUR 548 million from the figure in the preliminary draft, effectively amounts to making an artificial margin to accommodate the European Council’s pronouncements on political priorities.

I assume that the underlying issues are the problem of financing the European Institute of Technology and the problem of financing the Galileo project. Let me be very clear here: Parliament firmly favours a Community solution for the Galileo project and, in the overall context, awaits new proposals from the Commission. I have one brief comment on Heading 3: in relation to natural disasters, what has happened to former Commissioner Michel Barnier’s proposals on civil defence in Europe? Do we have a joint response and, if so, how might it impact on the 2008 and subsequent budgets? Mr President, the foreign and security policy issues, to which we have referred repeatedly, confirm that our political analyses were correct: the current figures in the draft budget are insufficient to address the challenges in Afghanistan, Palestine or Kosovo, and cutting the Emergency Aid Reserve is merely a virtual solution, the point of which we cannot grasp. In this regard, we would ask the Commission to state clearly what, from its perspective, lies in store for us in the coming years. I have one final point, Mr President. The Member States undertook – and I quote here – referring to the Statement of Assurance mentioned in paragraph 44 of the Interinstitutional Agreement: ‘to produce an annual summary at the appropriate level of the available audits and declarations’. ‘to produce an annual summary at the appropriate level of the available audits and declarations’. I say this very much in earnest: those Member States not in a position to guarantee that the annual report will arrive in good time may expect us to take issue with them on this matter on budgetary as well as other grounds. Otherwise, I fully support what our two rapporteurs have said.

Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. – (LT) I would like to welcome everyone to the new season, which seems interesting and intensive as always. It is so gratifying that already in July we achieved some very productive and well-intentioned communication. In Lithuania it is said that a good start is half the job. Therefore, I hope that the atmosphere in which we have started working and the results that we have already managed to achieve by negotiating and adopting three important declarations is a really good start to the task at hand. Today we discussed the first version of the Council’s budget, although I very often hear from Parliament that we – the Commission – are given so many tasks. I certainly accept this and agree with it; we are ready to react and provide any information that is required. As regards the first draft of the Council budget, I would like to mention that the Commission, when it presented its version, referred to the forecasts of the Member States using our analysis. We therefore believe that our proposal was fully economically and politically sound. Therefore, the Commission cannot fully agree with many aspects of the Council’s first negotiated budget. Certainly, we agree with the opinion already presented by MEPs that the biggest horizontal cuts… I would like to repeat that the method of horizontal cutting was applied again in all categories. The Commission, certainly, considers that this approach and methodology is unsound, particularly in categories 1a and 1b, where we talk about innovation and research, 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 45

even more so as we have an additional problem with the European Institute of Technology and the Galileo programme, which has to be solved as an additional parallel problem of the annual European budget procedures. Certainly, this means that it is necessary to return to discussions on quantities and sizes and not to consider arithmetical reductions. The same applies to agriculture and the category of foreign affairs policy where, in my opinion, the Council’s approach of putting funds in reserve is rather conservative and, surely, we will all have to return to it soon. Over the coming fortnight the Commission will be presenting its proposal to Parliament and the Council on the adjustment of the budget as regards Kosovo and Palestine. Certainly, as always, we worry about the Council’s approach to administrative expenditure and I agree that the budget has a certain Finnish colouring, especially in the European Parliament. I mean this in a good sense, because I see the need for discipline, strict responsibility and soundness in the expenditure of the country representatives and we accept this and will always respond to it. The Council’s proposal includes the horizontal cut in the conditions in which the Council itself will not be able to fulfil its commitment to employ extra people; more than 800 staff members to perform additional developmental tasks surely cannot be acceptable to the Commission. We really expect Parliament to have the same attitude towards this issue as we do and hope that the re-adjustment will be made jointly with Parliament. Briefly speaking, therefore, it is gratifying that the beginning has been successful. Yet we react critically to the Council’s first proposal and assess it critically, and we are ready to discuss Kosovo and Palestine in the short term and also to discuss and take decisions on the proposals on the Galileo programme and the European Institute of Technology on around the 19th and will try to come to a mutual understanding on these important issues. I therefore hope for a successful procedure and hope that my fellow Lithuanians manage to translate my first Lithuanian speech well and correctly.

President. − (DE) The debate is closed. Written statements (Rule 142)

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The Lisbon Strategy requires that 3% of the Member States’ GDP should be invested in research, two thirds originating from the private sector. Only a very small number of European regions reached this goal. In 2004, 42% of European companies carried out research on their activities and Member States invested only 1.84% of their GDP on research. In 2006, 35% of the EU active population worked in the field of science and technology. Education is essential for the future of the EU. It should be accessible to everybody, either rich or poor, living in either the urban or rural environment. The quality of European education should be measured depending on the graduation rate and the admission rate to the next education level. We need a new Social Europe, in which its citizens should have priority. Having regard to the fact that both the European Union and its Member States will approve their budgets for 2008 in the autumn, I require that the investments in education and research have priority in the European Union.

14. Inland transport of dangerous goods (debate)

President. − The next item is the report by Bogusław Liberadzki, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inland transport of dangerous goods (COM(2006)0852 – C6-0012/2007 – 2006/0278(COD)) (A6-0253/2007).

Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to submit to you today the proposal for amendment of the directive on the inland transport of dangerous goods. The transport of dangerous goods accounts for about 8% of all goods transport, nearly a million operations every day. We have to guarantee freedom of movement for dangerous goods and intermodality in national and international services, whilst at the same time keeping an eye on the safety aspect in order to protect our environment, our citizens and workers in the sector. This proposal is designed to update four directives and four Commission decisions on the transport of dangerous goods by merging them in a single legislative act. This is an important simplification of Community law on the subject. 46 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

In addition, the scope of the Community rules needs to be extended to include inland waterways transport, a sector that is not covered by any rules of Community law at present. Admittedly it is a less significant mode of inland transport, but an accident on an inland waterway can have serious consequences. A single set of rules for all transport of dangerous goods in internal waterways will make it possible to minimise those risks. Finally, the proposal relates to both international and national transport. Those are the aims of the proposal for which Mr Liberadzki is rapporteur. Before the debate begins, may I thank your rapporteur and TRAN for their support for the Commission proposal.

Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), rapporteur. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, to submit a report in which, first of all, we welcome the fact that the Commission has submitted the draft directive that we are considering today. We are in complete agreement with you, Commissioner, that this consolidates, and at the same time reduces the number of, the regulations relating to the transport of dangerous goods. Secondly, we also agree that this regulation could have a very big impact both on transport safety and also on the quality of life of the public. Finally, the regulations that we wish to adopt, or rather to combine from many different sources, thereby reducing the number, are based on the recommendations drawn up by the UN for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterways, which together account for over 110 billion tonnes/km per annum within the European Union. In presenting this report I would like to emphasise that the Committee on Transport and Tourism approved it almost unanimously, deeming it to be both important and necessary, and that it brings in a new level of quality in that it extends regulations concerning the transport of dangerous goods to passenger trains. It also regulates when Member States, for reasons that are not strictly to do with safety, can introduce certain derogations from generally applicable regulations, and how these derogations should be introduced and dealt with at EU level. I would like to ask everyone here to support the amendments that have been discussed and introduced, especially Amendment 44, where, at the request of the Council, in addition to vehicles we introduce the concepts of wagons and inland waterway vessels, in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, and I would ask you to vote in favour of this. I would also specifically like to ask you to vote in favour of Amendment 45, which, after much discussion, was drawn up as a good compromise. This refers to Article 1(3)(b), where we have introduced the words ‘where justified, it is possible to prescribe the route and the means of transport to be used’. Then Amendment 16 could be omitted as unnecessary, or we could vote against it. I would also ask you to vote against Amendments 46 and 47, since it would appear that these rules are already included in the text, and so they will merely pad out the regulation unnecessarily. Finally, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation, which was very productive. I would particularly like to thank the Council and the Commission – the Council both under the German Presidency and under the Portuguese Presidency. We had about five working meetings. There were no significant differences of views, and we were able to resolve any differences that did arise. In my opinion this was a model of cooperation.

Renate Sommer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, yes, the proposal for a directive on the internal transport of dangerous goods is an important issue, because around 110 billion tonnes/km of dangerous goods are transported in the EU every year: 58% by road, 25% by rail and, up to now, 17% by inland waterway. The purpose of this proposal for a directive is to simplify and coordinate the existing rules on the transport of dangerous goods. It also extends the scope of the EU provisions, which currently cover transport by road and rail, to transport by inland waterway. That simplification reduces the red tape and improves intermodality. Common rules on transport by road, rail and inland waterway ensure a uniform level of safety throughout the Community in internal and cross-border transport. Uniform rules governing means of transport simplify and promote multimodal transport.

Extending the scope of the provisions to inland waterway transport is a welcome move. That means the same safety rules apply to all Community inland waterways. That will have a positive impact on working conditions on board, on transport safety and on protection of the environment. Uniform rules reduce costs by avoiding the need for a variety of authorisations and permissions. Moreover, that is likely to improve the potential use and the market prospects of transport by inland waterways; after all, we are trying to shift more transport of dangerous goods to inland waterways. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 47

The draft amendments adopted by the Committee on Transport and Tourism largely reflect the Council’s position. We are in agreement and we want to try to get this through at first reading if possible. Let me underline that I do beg the House to adopt one particular draft amendment, which the rapporteur has already mentioned and which represents a compromise. It is important to include sensible provisions in this dossier. Here we are in agreement with the Commission and the Council. The draft amendment relates to the provision allowing Member States to lay down specific safety requirements and possibly also to prescribe the means of transport if they can justify it before the Commission. In conclusion, let me give warm thanks to the rapporteur, with whom we were able to work so well together, and request the House to adopt this report at first reading.

Brian Simpson, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, on behalf of my group I would like to thank the rapporteur, not only for his report but also for his inclusiveness in bringing together Parliament, the Council and the various political factions on this important issue. Members will be aware that current Community law in this area resides primarily in four directives that deal with the transportation of dangerous goods. The RID Directive and the ADR Directive deal with rail and road respectively, with the transport of dangerous goods by inland waterways covered by the annexes to these two directives. The proposed new directive now extends the scope of Community law to inland waterways and we need to support such a move.

Some people may think that the rapporteur has not gone far enough in challenging the scope of the directive and there are others, mainly from industry, who think the directive too proscriptive and that it goes too far. The rapporteur has, frankly, got the balance right and surely the important aspect of all of this is that we would establish a single system of regulation for the transport of dangerous goods by inland waterways, with standards laid down and with everybody, including Member States, knowing their responsibilities. This report does give us added value, as explained by our rapporteur. It will enhance safety and therefore, I believe, and my group believes, deserves our full support.

Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) As has already been said, Mr President, the proposal seeks to update and consolidate the existing directives and regulations on the inland transport of dangerous goods. A single legal text will now cover inland waterway transport in addition to road and rail transport. In all honesty I wonder how anyone could possibly oppose it. I cannot imagine that anyone questions the usefulness of and need for measures to ensure that these transport operations are conducted in the safest way possible. If these measures can be combined and worded more clearly, then that benefits all of us. In committee we upheld most of the rapporteur's chiefly technical amendments. Clearly the rapporteur liaised closely on these with the Council and, on a directive of this kind, that is generally the most efficient way of going about it. So it is commendable too that the rapporteur is keen to secure an agreement at first reading. But the ALDE Group was rather surprised by Amendment 45 and finds it a bit casual. Why not settle for the text used in Amendment 16, which everyone was happy with, ourselves included? Why go along with everything the Council wants, even when that may work against the efficiency of logistics chains? Why not talk to the Council about this? Not all Member States are in favour of this 'compromise'. What will the rapporteur, and also Mrs Sommer and Messrs Jarzembowski and Simpson, have achieved if Member States are able arbitrarily to favour one mode of transport over another? Surely it is obvious that every mode of transport must ensure, in its own specific way, that its operations are safe and efficient. Why should the market players not be able to determine that for themselves? We made sure of that previously with Amendment 16 and so I urge you to take another look at Amendment 45 and maybe think again. My thanks to the rapporteur for his hard work, but I think it is a pity he allowed himself to be seduced into reintroducing this provision on the use of prescribed forms of transport by the back door. Again, I urge you to reconsider your position on Amendment 45.

Leopold Józef Rutowicz, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the proposed new directive on the regulation of the inland transport of dangerous goods is a necessary piece of legislation. It integrates previous EU regulations into a single piece of legislation and extends it to include transport by water. 48 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

The inclusion in the proposal of international regulations on the transport of dangerous goods makes the directive a consolidated document of international scope. The new directive also makes it possible, to a limited extent, to take specific national conditions into consideration, where this is dictated by economic requirements and the state of the roads. An example here could be the extent to which megaliners are used. The amendments that have been proposed are technical in nature and do not give cause for concern, except for Amendments 46 and 47. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Liberadzki, for his constructive input in the preparation of the report. The UEN takes the view that the directive meets the expectations of those concerned.

Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these are very positive rules for multimodal transport, which I hope will grow in future, because they are more transparent and easier to understand. At last, inland waterways have been included, as the Greens had requested in an earlier report. I found it hard to understand why this took so long. The pollution caused by an accident involving a vessel transporting highly toxic chemicals can, of course, cause even more concentrated pollution if it happens on a river than might be case on the high seas. I regard the stringent rules that Member States may lay down, and that extend to prescribing the means of transport, as necessary, important and right. Conditions on our various transport routes are extremely varied. There may be high bridges, for instance, that are inaccessible to rescue forces. There may be high traffic density, which can under certain circumstances make the transport of dangerous goods even more hazardous. Dangerous goods are often transported in the vicinity of towns. All this means that we must provide Member States with that possibility, so that they can react to such dangers in a flexible manner.

A central issue in this report, however, as in many others, is monitoring. The national states must systematically monitor compliance with the rules, otherwise we will have empty words that pretend to a kind of safety that, unfortunately, does not exist. To be quite frank, there are serious deficiencies in this area in some European states. There is also a major challenge to be met in terms of training fire-fighters and rescue forces. I hope this also acts as an incentive to make this monitoring more stringent and at last to minimise the dangers of transport – whether by water, rail or road.

Jacky Henin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, the use of just in time delivery by industry and trade, with the ultimate aim, in short, of maximum immediate profit, means that dangerous goods are less and less in warehouses and secure factories and more and more on roads, rivers and railways and at sea. For very many years, the European Commission has been doing everything it can to deregulate the transport sector for the greater benefit of private interests, taking no account of the general interest. So much so that, when anyone raises the issue of public safety, the Commission immediately takes refuge in the subsidiarity principle. As always, the European Commission boasts of having worked closely with employers, forgetting, as always, the workers who might have been able to teach it a great deal, especially about the general deregulation of the transport sector, social dumping, and the refusal to introduce binding legislation on working conditions and training for road transport staff. There is a serious risk of a major disaster involving a dangerous goods consignment in the future. Then those who have made the decisions will be responsible. Yet this Parliament could vote for simple and effective measures, such as the designation of lorry parks as Seveso sites and triage at railway transit points for dangerous goods; imposing a traceability obligation in real time with a system of geographical location of all dangerous goods to ensure that incompatible products are not kept together; and training in the necessary safety measures for the personnel involved. But most people see this as unnecessary expenditure. Well, you can assume that, but do not count on us for support!

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA Vice-President

Luca Romagnoli, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Liberadzki’s excellent report and his well-argued proposal for a directive on the inland transport of dangerous goods requires little discussion. I voted for it in committee, and I confirm my vote here and believe that many colleagues from the ITS Group will follow my example. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 49

The more internal trade such as that between the Union’s Member States increases, the more useful it is, in my opinion, for the conditions in which that trade takes place to be comparable, especially in terms of safety, but also from the point of view of checks and related administrative procedures. It would be unreasonable to criticise or even worse reject such a technical text on which there has been wide-ranging and informed consultation with many experts from the Member States. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank, in addition to Mr Liberadzki, the dangerous goods committee for their work, bearing in mind that that work has been carried out continuously in accordance with the international agreements in force in this field. I would like to conclude by noting that the amendments, or at least many of the amendments tabled, should in my opinion be accepted, especially Amendment 2 to Recital 14, the amendments relating to observations on the obvious non-inclusion and therefore exemption of those Member States which do not as yet have a railway system, and frankly I also intend to support Amendment 45.

Jörg Leichtfried (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, first I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my good friend the rapporteur, Bogusław Liberadzki, on this really balanced and successful report. As Mrs Sommer has already pointed out, 110 billion tonnes/km of dangerous goods are transported in the EU every year. Like Mr Henin, I too would prefer at least part of that quantity to be stored in warehouses. Unfortunately that is not the case, which is why we must look into that matter too. A first, important point in this report is the updating and coordination of existing rules on safety requirements for tanks and vehicles. A second important point is the extension of that requirement from road and rail to inland waterways. If we look at the transport trend in recent years, it becomes very clear that inland waterways are becoming increasingly important. I agree with Mrs Lichtenberger that accidents on rivers are, of course, particularly dangerous. These measures – and here I am speaking as someone who lives in a country of transit – may also lead to a shift towards the railways. That is, of course, a very good thing. We in Austria naturally welcome this report, in particular because Austria, given its geographical location, sets very high safety requirements for transport participants. I also find it extremely welcome that in future every Member State is also to have the right to regulate or prohibit the internal transport of dangerous goods on its territory. In my view, that includes in particular laying down special provisions on environmental protection and the option of prohibiting or restricting the transport of certain hazardous goods. If the report is adopted in the wording proposed by the rapporteur, it will be a very good report and we can all be satisfied with the outcome.

Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should also like to thank our rapporteur for the work he has headed on the really very technical issues involved in the transport of dangerous goods, which represent nearly 10% of the goods across Europe. I certainly welcome the fact that not only does the report shed light on rules that affect public safety, it is also extended to inland waterways goods transport, because many of us think that is a mode of transport that should be developed throughout Europe as an alternative to road transport. It also raises high hopes on the part of European citizens. As well as being a step towards simplification of the legislation as regards the administrative procedures, for both consignors and consignees, it is also a crucial step for the training of personnel involved with the safety of dangerous goods. Although we have to define our position on certain points raised in the amendments in more detail, the report undoubtedly represents a step forward, on clarity in particular and on safety.

Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I wholeheartedly echo the comments of my Group colleague, Mrs Lichtenberger. We welcome this package as a step in the right direction, albeit with some reservations. Our amendments seek to strengthen the package, particularly in relation to training in how to deal with accidents and the right of individuals to know what is being transported. I personally would like to go further still. I would like to include military and civil nuclear materials in the same framework. Scotland, sadly, plays host to military nuclear facilities and civil nuclear sites and sees regular transports. The Sunday Herald newspaper recently revealed that 67 nuclear safety incidents relating to transport have taken place in Scotland over the last seven years. So there is clear room for improvement, and I believe that the EU can act where the UK Government will fail to. In the meantime, however, I welcome 50 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

any steps in the direction of giving people greater rights to know what they are sharing the roads and waterways of Europe with, and that they are safe. This report helps to do that, so we welcome it.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) Mr President, Commissioner, dear MEPs, between 1995-2004 freight transport increased by 28%, and by 2020 a 50% increase is predicted. 58% of the freight transported is carried by road, 25% by rail and 17% by internal navigable waterways. Dangerous goods represent 8% of the transported freight. This transport type highly endangers the regions the goods are carried through and therefore, the European Union must take the necessary measures to increase the security of this transport type. The existing laws in the European Union cover only the transport of dangerous goods by road and by rail, but for transport by sea there are only international conventions to which Member States are party. Following Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, almost the entire length of the Danube has become an internal navigable waterway. The Danube runs through seven European capitals and nearby many urban agglomerations, that is why the safety of the transport of dangerous goods along Danube is extremely important. It is essential that the measures on the transport of dangerous goods should be doubled with measures on the intervention of emergency services in cases of accidents where such transports are involved. There is a huge number of victims, even among those who should intervene in the event of an accident. Moreover, the transport of dangerous goods should be carried out during less crowded periods and routes, so that the related risks can be minimized. I think that for the safety of the transport of dangerous goods a short a transition period as possible is needed in order to implement this Directive.

Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mr Liberadzki and the Committee on Transport and Tourism again for this excellent report, which, like you, I really hope will enable us to adopt the proposal right away at first reading. In fact, it is because we are anxious for it to be adopted at first reading that we are ready to agree to the amendments reflecting the negotiated agreement between the institutions. We do not, however, think the amendments that would jeopardise agreement at first reading are desirable. What is true is that, as everyone has emphasised, the report will help to simplify the legislation and therefore make it easier to apply and thus to extend to inland waterways. I agree with Parliament that the inland waterways networks should be widely developed. They can be a way for Europe to achieve the modal shift that we would like to see. That is what I wanted to make clear. Once again, I thank Parliament and its rapporteur for its excellent work on this report, backed by expert knowledge. I think it can be said that the consultation on this report was absolutely exemplary.

President. – The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow. Written statements (Rule 142)

Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE), in writing – (FR) The steady rise in the transport of dangerous goods has made it necessary to introduce European legislation to simplify and coordinate the rules applicable to the transport of these goods. It is our responsibility to protect public safety and that also applies to the transport of dangerous goods. It therefore seems important to me that Member States should be able, if necessary and in a proportionate and transparent fashion, to require the use of mandatory routes. They must also be able to insist that carriers use one mode of transport rather than another if they believe that that will be safer for their citizens.

15. Freight transport logistics in Europe and sustainable mobility (debate)

President. – The next item is the report by Inés Ayala Sender, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on freight transport logistics in Europe – the key to sustainable mobility (2006/2228(INI)) (A6-0286/2007).

Inés Ayala Sender (PSE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, this afternoon we are discussing a key sector for European growth, competition and employment, namely logistics. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 51

Logistics are essential to the quality of our citizens’ daily lives, although they do not perceive this clearly enough. This exercise attempts among other things to increase the visibility of this topic among citizens. This is a sector which accounts for approximately 13% of GDP in the European Union and has great economic impact as it amounts to between 10 and 15% of the final cost of finished products in Europe. In some sectors, such as the important automotive industry, it exceeds even social costs. It is also a sector which hitherto has appeared to be a matter exclusively for industry and the market; its success and potential for growth appeared incontrovertible and this must continue to be the case. But, true to our firm conviction that the best market is a well-regulated market which facilitates and promotes positive capacities and, moreover, prevents potential risks before they become barriers and obstacles to necessary growth, creativity and development of our citizens, we therefore applaud the Commission’s decision to begin to consider this sector in terms of the contribution which the European Union can make so as to increase opportunities and restrict obvious risks, given the growth forecasts for the transport sector in Europe. The talk is currently of growth of some 50% between the years 2000 and 2020. Therefore the sector will be able to exploit and increase the opportunities open to it in a situation which we perceive as being defined around five essential priorities. The first priority is the recent enlargement towards the east which increases distances and creates outlying areas; at the same time, however, it also creates new opportunities both in terms of markets and trade in our citizens’ diverse cultures. The second priority is globalisation, which accelerates trade, diversifies needs and redefines the geographical position of territories and peoples. I am thinking here of my own country, Spain, which appears to be peripheral where enlargement is concerned, yet is placed by globalisation on a crossroads between areas as important as Latin America, Africa or trade with Asia. Another of the priorities for tackling logistics is climate change and current energy needs. We need to make infrastructure use more efficient, improve traffic management and restrict unladen journeys; current logistics can make a major contribution to this. The fourth priority is the opportunities for Information Exchange that we are seeking in Europe under the Seventh Framework Programme and the whole future of the knowledge economy. Logistics are the very embodiment of intelligent transport – transport which includes planning as a fundamental concept and is based increasingly on intelligent transport systems. SESAR, SafeSeaNet and Track and Trade are all devices and new technologies which are being successfully applied to this sector. Finally, demographic changes and young people’s employment expectations are also areas to which logistics can make a decisive contribution. To that end the proposal for a report specifically tries to support the Commission in identifying bottlenecks and trying to draw up new proposals. We need to prevent the administrative burden being too great by using precisely these intelligent systems to reduce and restrict formalities, which remain complex, especially in, for example, customs and maritime trade; I believe, however, that the proposals the Commission is making in this regard in its action plan are potentially very positive. Another bottleneck for which we are also proposing a number of solutions is the lack of infrastructure and shortfalls in associated funding. To that end we reiterate the need to terminate the system of cross-border networks by opening up unused historic passes in the Pyrenees, or in the Alps where we believe it would also help, and reducing congestion on some roads by opening rail tunnels. There is also a specific proposal to that end which I particularly support, namely the proposal for a system of dedicated freight railways. We would urge the Commission to submit a plan to us on the subject. As for the need for finance, what we would like is for the debate on the future funding of a sufficiently ambitious European transport policy to include logistics as a priority concern. Regarding the lack of manpower we support the Commission in its proposal to make the profession more attractive but we would like it to refer not only to training but to improving social and working conditions. Finally, we also wish to support and encourage the Commission in this regard when we point to the need for any future consideration of urban transport to include a specific chapter on urban logistics. We believe that our citizens endure congestion on a daily basis when logistics, which if successful are invisible, are shown to have failed. To that end we believe it is time that logistics took its rightful place in European discussions. 52 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly want to thank Mrs Ayala Sender for her report on freight transport logistics. I should also say to Mrs Ayala Sender that I remember our visit to Zaragoza, where we had the opportunity to see the benefits of all the work currently being done in Europe on developing logistics. The report gives us high hopes of the approach adopted by the Commission in its communication on logistics in 2006. This resolution is an important step in the joint efforts by Parliament and the Commission to improve the operation of freight transport in Europe. I find it very encouraging, because in a few weeks' time I shall be presenting the Action Plan for Logistics. Mrs Ayala Sender has eloquently set out the issues at stake: the economic dimension and the efficiency of logistics, which are a key element in the competitiveness of our economies. Logistics facilitate the flow of goods and help make our products competitive by giving them access to more distant markets. Thus logistics have become an important and dynamic industry that creates jobs and Europe has the most successful logistics companies in this field. Furthermore, logistics improve environmental efficiency. As Mrs Ayala Sender has said, they help to minimise transport congestion. Freight transport and logistics also have to meet the challenges of reducing the number of road accidents and pollutant and noise emissions. The work to be done on logistics does not involve regulating this rapidly growing sector, but ensuring that it has a sustainable future by allowing it to mobilise the efficiency potential that still exists in the transport business. In fact, that is why we have developed the idea of comodality, the effective combination of different modes of transport. In that respect we can use logistics to reconcile the economic and environmental objectives. However, there are still some obstacles to the development of logistics. First, the lack of harmonisation and common rules stands in the way of new solutions, particularly the development of information and communication technology. We could plan freight transport better, we could improve the operation and safety of transport systems, we should improve the monitoring of goods and ensure that customers have the necessary information. The logistics chain must work as a coherent whole, even if several partners and several modes of transport are involved. Secondly, we must lay more emphasis on quality in freight transport, with service quality indicators and the sharing of good practice. That means improving the training of practitioners and recognising their skills. Thirdly, we have to address the problem of bottlenecks, obstacles to freight transport. We have consulted everyone working in the logistics field and received five hundred replies, which will help us in our preparation for the Action Plan for Logistics. The report by Mrs Ayala Sender also, rightly, highlights the simplification of administrative procedures, infrastructure investment needs and the problems posed by logistics in urban areas. We need concrete answers to all those questions. I am pleased that the Committee on Transport and Tourism has attached real importance to the Action Plan for Logistics that I shall be presenting in October. The plan should propose concrete measures with clear objectives and a specific timetable. It will be one of a set of initiatives including a freight priority rail network, a port policy and two Commission documents on the maritime space without borders and motorways of the sea. The adoption of those measures will be an important signal and a way for us to identify alternative modes of transport that are efficient, integrated and environmentally friendly and, of course, meet the needs of users. The Action Plan will be coupled with measures to make rail, sea and inland waterways transport more attractive. The Commission does not claim to be able to solve the freight transport problems facing Europe on its own, but, on that point too, the report by Mrs Ayala Sender sends a message to the Member States to encourage them to develop their own logistics initiatives, especially by investing in infrastructures, in close collaboration with the European Union. We shall only succeed if the Member States and the European Union act together.

Logistics are a major problem. By working on them, we shall achieve the modal shift that we want to see in the fight against global warming. In my view, the way to make European mobility sustainable, that is to say compatible with our environmental requirements for the benefit of the economy and of European citizens, is through good logistics and good transport infrastructures. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 53

May I thank Mrs Ayala Sender wholeheartedly for her contribution to these advances in logistics, which are key to the development of sustainable transport.

Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Ayala Sender, most sincerely for a very creditable report. I am nevertheless sorry that the Committee on Transport and Tourism omitted from the report certain key issues which the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy brought up. Of these, the most important is the internalisation of the external costs of transport, such as environmental costs. Pricing that takes account of real costs, including environmental and social costs, is a fundamental means of making a transport system intelligent, efficient and rational. In Switzerland the road toll on lorry transport has led to the effective transfer of consignments to the railways and reduced the number of trucks travelling empty. This is a good example to us all. It needs to be realised that an efficient, rational transport system is not the same as the constant expansion of road traffic. Carbon dioxide emissions from traffic cannot continue to increase as they are doing now; otherwise the reductions in emissions achieved in other sectors, such as industry, will have been a waste of time.

Mathieu Grosch, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first I want to thank the Commission and the rapporteur for their work. Freight transport logistics is such a broad subject that it is not always easy to confine oneself to essentials. As it is put so well in French: ‘qui trop embrasse mal étreint’. So let us be glad that today we have managed to pick out the key points! We have to tread new ground, because this is not an easy field. It is an area of conflict between the economy and growth on the one side, and the environment and security on the other. Put simply: everybody wants the goods, nobody wants the transport. That means that this sector, which does indeed offer very good employment prospects, does not have a very good image. We must do our part to remind people firstly that it is an important economic sector, secondly that we can tread new ground, and thirdly that the sector still has employment potential today. I still regard the reference to training as very important and it should be taken up by the various countries. Specialisation in these areas can lead to new and interesting jobs. Research can also help make freight transport more efficient, environmentally compatible and also more secure. Cooperation among countries remains essential. We need only think of the Trans-European Networks. We all think globally, nobody wants to act locally. To put it simply, we want these networks everywhere, but we do not have the resources, whether we negotiate with the Council to get more funds for the Trans-European Networks or with the countries themselves. As regards modes of transport, I believe nobody has anything against shifting goods to the railways and inland waterways, but efficiency is the key point. Efficiency is not just a question of price. If transport by rail becomes cheaper but not more efficient, we will not achieve that modal shift. So we must combine efficiency with price if we are to deal with this matter adequately. Finally, let me raise the subject of megaliners and standardisation. We cannot prohibit, or even authorise, everything purely at European level. We should work together properly with the Member States and find directives, for example in the fields of security and infrastructure, that must determine whether or not these megaliners should be tolerated.

Gilles Savary, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I should first like to thank Mrs Ayala Sender for her initiative. Commissioner, I believe, in fact, that we are still not used to talking about logistics, either at European level or in the Member States. Often we have a road policy, a railway policy, an aviation policy, a maritime policy, and in some countries we find it very difficult to coordinate them. Logistics involve no more nor less than avoiding too many transfers between the different modes of transport and making sure that optimum use is made of them where they are most efficient or profitable. In that respect, I think that the work started by Mrs Ayala Sender is very promising and we are, of course, looking forward to the Commission communication. I should also like to reiterate the point made by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. In my view, not enough emphasis has been placed on the reports on the environmental aspects of the question. Clearly we have to develop logistics in Europe and transport policy is an adjunct to the internal market and 54 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

its development, but we cannot, on the one hand, have ambitious plans to reduce greenhouse gases and, on the other hand, be over-modest. In that respect, I am concerned at the fact that 60-tonne lorries have been allowed to creep into all the reports. An earlier report referred modestly to a European modular concept; some reports talk about megatrucks and gigaliners, the theory of the road lobby being that the larger the lorry the less it will consume and the greater the saving. That is untrue. The larger the lorry, the more competitive it is compared with the rail and waterway transport, and the more the Commission policy on railways, waterways and motorways of the sea will be undermined. It will not even be worth talking about any more. There will still be just as many lorries, but what is certain is that there will be far more goods on the roads and we shall have failed.

Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, in its communication the Commission rightly says, and not for the first time, that logistics play an important part in our response to all manner of new challenges, on the environment for example. Equally important, of course, is the role of logistics when it comes to the Union's competitiveness. Priority has to be given here to optimising the European transport system, addressing the problem of existing bottlenecks and applying advanced logistics. Action is required. How can we improve the efficiency of individual transport modes and combinations of those modes? That is the million-dollar question. And I would emphasise here that the anticipated growth in freight transport needs to be addressed as pragmatically as possible. If we are to cope with that level of growth, maximum use must be made of all modes of transport. So it is emphatically not a matter of one or other but of all. It is a pity that the House's reaction to the communication threatened to get bogged down in a policy debate on whether or not these longer heavier vehicles – ecocombis or gigaliners – should be allowed, as Mr Savary said just now. After a lot of pleading we now have agreement on a compromise which is as neutral as possible. As someone who is in favour of these big, longer heavier vehicles, I would like to add one thing, and that is that calling for innovative ideas, only then to discard them on the basis of false arguments, will get us nowhere. Base your decisions on proper research, that is what I say. Once again, the anticipated growth of road freight transport will test us to the utmost. Results in the immediate future will depend on how we prioritise existing obstacles. Sacred cows will have to be sacrificed, including those surrounding longer heavier vehicles, for example, or the proliferation of driving bans in the European Union, the sacred cows over cabotage, and so on and so forth. I sincerely hope these priorities will shortly be formulated more clearly in the European Commission's Action Plan. It only remains for me to thank the rapporteur for her hard work. I am leaving directly, not out of rudeness, but because I have an important meeting elsewhere.

Liam Aylward, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I welcome the contents of this report today, which supports the broader development of trans-European road networks in Europe. The second largest road development in Ireland at present is the construction of a 112 km road called the M3, which will by-pass the towns of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells in County Meath. There has been a lot of press coverage recently in Ireland about the role of the Commission in the context of the M3. Some people who oppose this development have totally misrepresented the role of the Commission in this matter. I want to set the record straight as to the exact role of the Commission concerning the M3. On 29 June 2007 the Commission sent a letter by reasoned opinion to the Irish Government, seeking an explanation as to why the Irish Government did not carry out a second impact assessment when there was an archaeological discovery at Lismullen last March. The Irish Government will defend its position because it acted only after independent reports from the Director of the National Museum of Ireland were given to the Irish Government. This report recommended that this find at Lismullen be excavated and preserved by record. This proposed plan of action was supported by the Chief State Archaeologist in Ireland. However, the Commission sending a letter by reasoned opinion to the Irish Government does not mean, as has been reported, that Ireland is going to be fined hundreds of millions of euros by the European Union or that the building of this road, which has commenced, has to stop, or that legal action will be taken against Ireland. I know that this is an emotive issue, but the role of the European Union in this issue has to be put into perspective.

Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as a Green I am of course in favour of any improvements in logistics because that can help reduce environmental damage. I must say from the outset, however, that there are few areas where the European Union really has the power to do anything in this regard. There are always logistical weaknesses in areas 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 55

where the link between different transport modes does not work; this is particularly harmful when the railways cannot be used because the logistical links are cumbersome, bureaucratic, non-existent or poorly developed. Even in cases where many transport modes run empty, however, we find that there is clearly a lack of logistics, or that it is simply not worthwhile to use the rolling stock in an efficient and targeted manner. Those are crucial issues and they are indeed addressed in the dossier. At the same time, they have been exploited by a number of lobbyists. In my view, the improvement in infrastructure is not yet logistical; we still see empty wagons even on very good roads or railways, which does not help us in any way. In particular, I object to the fact that this dossier has been misused as a propaganda instrument for what are known as gigaliners. We are already suffering from the fact that very poor use is made of the rolling stock. Nonetheless, it is intended for reasons of economic self-interest – especially on the part of the timber industry, in the past at least – to introduce very large HGVs, which will adversely affect road maintenance. After all, we must all realise that roads will need to be repaired far more frequently if even more weight is put on the axles, if even more weight presses on the asphalt surface. That is why we cannot speak of environmental or economic improvement here, because in the end this also hugely distorts competition with the railways.

Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, far more freight is currently carried by road than is good for the quality of our air, our protection against excessive noise, our safety and the amount of space we need. These transport operations continue to grow, especially as they have become relatively cheaper over the years. Companies are organising more and more movements that are not necessary. There are two reasons for this: the sourcing of raw materials, the various stages entailed in processing them and the sale of the end products are all handled at very different locations, and this generates a lot of unnecessary transport operations between those locations. Despite the creation of main ports and other large distribution centres, goods still travel further than they need to. In sparsely populated countries with few or no railways, most notably America and Australia, enormous road freight vehicles have developed, so-called road trains or rigs. These keep the cost of road transport down, but they create far too many avoidable problems for everybody else. We must not allow these heavy vehicles into Europe. Freight transport has to be cut, and that which is really necessary must as far as possible go by rail or water.

Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, the importance of logistics to our society is well known. Everyone involved has a duty to ensure that logistics operations proceed smoothly. Public authorities make the operating framework as favourable as possible and business and industry devises concepts to meet market demand in the best way possible. I am glad that the rapporteur mentions that and emphasises the various areas which need consideration. Something which gave rise to much discussion as we dealt with this report is the question of these longer heavier freight vehicles or 'ecocombis'. Although practical tests at national level have yielded quite positive results, opinions on these vehicles differ. To my mind the compromise is a good starting point for further debate. I look forward to seeing what the European Commission will bring to this debate, both in its Freight Logistics Action Plan and in the study of vehicle weights and dimensions. The study will be commissioned shortly and its findings will be published next summer. To sum up briefly, my compliments to Mrs Ayala Sender on her report and I hope that the course embarked upon can be taken further later on in the year.

Andreas Mölzer, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (DE) Mr President, for years now globalisation has landed us with rising expenditure on freight transport; on top of that we have had enlargement eastward – together with a misdirected EU aid policy. As a result, millions of vehicles are transporting freight every day, from private cars to HGVs, and the adverse effects such as congestion, noise, environmental pollution and fine dust pollution are escalating. The concentration on road transport will no doubt exacerbate the existing problems in densely populated areas and on the main transport routes.

HGVs are far more often involved in accidents than other forms of transport and strict EU-wide rules on rest periods will make little difference. Brussels does not take public health protection really seriously either, for there is no other explanation for the failure to transpose the Convention on the Protection of the Alps. In fact the EU addressed those issues years ago, drawing up action plans and calling for transport to be shifted from road to rail. Yet once again it did not managed to achieve any real results. 56 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

In regard to Trans-European Networks, we cannot continue to close our eyes to reality and, in the end, rolling country roads will have to become economically attractive.

Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, let me point out that the Commission itself said that logistics is a matter for the industry itself. I believe that is the right approach. I hope, therefore, that when the Commission presents its action plan, it will divide it up into measures we can take as a Community, measures the Member States can take, and measures it is up to the industry itself to take. Of course we have to reduce the red tape that is still an obstacle to coastal shipping, which has to fill in various forms, while HGVs can simply drive across the European Union. We must indeed cut back government bureaucracy and promote modern transport infrastructure and systems. Let us make no mistake, however. Logistics is a matter for the industry itself and we should not take on a burden we simply cannot afford. On gigaliners – perhaps it would be better to say either 60-tonners or 25m-long HGVs, for there are different categories – at this moment in time my Group is quite definitely against authorising their general use in transport. After all, in most parts of the European Union infrastructure such as bridges, crossings and roundabouts are certainly not suitable for such long or heavy HGVs. The State treasuries are not handing out any money for reinforcing the bridges or converting roundabouts. Given that transport situation, gigaliners produce considerable transport safety problems. Just imagine one of those 25-tonners coming round a bend in a small village, misjudging the bend and then trying to reverse! I think, therefore, we should continue doing what we have done in the past. We should authorise them in Finland and Sweden, which have huge open stretches for the transport of timber. In that regard, the Committee on Transport and Tourism has made a sensible suggestion. It says we should authorise these gigaliners in the Member States, but only subject to very stringent conditions, if we can show the Commission that the necessary transport security exists, that the necessary transport infrastructure exists. That means we should check those conditions in individual cases and for individual countries.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) Mr President, Commissioner, Member States have to ensure a favourable environment for the development of freight transport logistics and to remove the barriers involved. Both for carriers and for clients it is extremely important that freight arrives on time and under the established terms. By 2020 a 50% increase in freight transport is predicted. Freight transport logistics represents 13% of the Union’s gross domestic product and 10-15% of the final cost for products is represented by the cost of transport logistics. That is why Member States should facilitate freight transport and the rules and controls should be carried out on the basis of common norms, without introducing barriers to the free movement of goods. These norms should be forwarded with priority to all the relevant carriers so that they can respect the regulatory provisions, and observe their contractual obligations... (The President interrupts the speaker) The European Union has to use more environmentally-friendly means of transport. It is no coincidence that 70% of the priority projects for the development of the European transport network are meant for railways and waterways transport. Unfortunately, Member States have made little use of the Marco Polo programme for the transfer of a larger volume of freight transport from the road to the sea transport system. The navigable waterway made up of the Rhine, Main Channel and the Danube shortens the distance between the Northwestern and Southeastern Europe by 4 000 km. Moreover, as of 2007, the European Union has an exit to the Black Sea. For freight transport logistics, intelligent transport systems and the use of technology become indispensable. However, freight transport needs a good transport infrastructure and that is why we hope that the budgets relating to the Community and national transport projects will become a priority in the future. I think that this report is extremely important for the economic development of the European Union. Member States should do more for freight transport logistics. Congratulations to the rapporteur.

Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I am one of those people who believe that progress and welfare cannot be attained without ambitious objectives, but I also believe that we in the Community and the European Union have on too many occasions given ourselves grandiloquent and unrealistic agreements and objectives. This is what I believe happened in 2000 with the Lisbon Strategy, which was going to make us the most competitive and dynamic world economy by 2010; or in 1994 with 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 57

the Essen Agreements on trans-European networks, most of which are still pending. In March this very year, the European Council set a target for a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption, whereas in reality we have proved incapable of attaining the much more modest targets to which we committed ourselves in Kyoto. Now we are debating freight transport logistics in Europe as a key to sustainable mobility, a crucial element for our growth and development; and given the significant growth in freight transport predicted by 2020, logistics is something we cannot ignore as it is a necessary tool to increase the accessibility, efficiency and security of freight transport, as well as its sustainability. However, at the same time it is necessary to correct persistent failures such as the bottleneck in the trans-European road network in the Biriatu Pass in the Basque Country, or other aspects where there are shortcomings such as the lack of corridors currently devoted to rail freight (such corridors do not need to be high-speed in order to be competitive), or the poor interoperability of the railways, or the lack of efficient transhipment. We must make intelligent transport systems possible, apply the potential offered by the Internet to the management of freight transport by standardising weights, dimensions and rules governing freight, reducing red-tape and establishing one-stop access points. We must promote co-modality of the various modes of transport, not forgetting motorways of the sea and inland waterways; most of all we must incorporate the real costs, including environmental costs, into the price of use. All this cannot be achieved while reducing States’ contributions to the Community budget.

Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). − (DA) Mr President, EU transport policy is on the wrong track. Broadly speaking, nothing is being done about the key problems: climate change, congestion and accidents. It is as though we have become inured to congestion and accidents – but we cannot be content to inure ourselves to climate change once it has begun. We have to act now. Yet traditional thinking prevails every time, even in this otherwise excellent report – which includes the absurd proposal to allow the use of megaliners. What would happen if we allowed the use of these juggernauts of up to 60 tonnes? Would we have fewer lorries? Of course not. The gain from increasing the size of lorries would be eaten up by the increase in transport tonnage. That is a law of nature; it is what happens when transport is cheaper. Our roads would become full of these mobile warehouses, and neither ‘intelligent’ traffic management nor any other hocus-pocus would be of any help. It would be like applying small sticking plasters to a gaping wound, which will just become larger and larger with the present transport policy. Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to vote against the megaliners in paragraph 21. We cannot permit this kind of heavy goods vehicle in Europe. We cannot make it cheaper to transport goods by road. As mentioned earlier, this would undermine the competitiveness of maritime and rail transport: precisely the modes of transport that must be reinforced if we are ever to have sustainable freight transport in Europe.

Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE). – (RO) Mr President, this report is welcome as logistics is the key to economic development, and transport and mobility are the engine for sustainable development, and has to respond to the current imperative challenges, that is the need to decongest traffic and to fight against climate change. Faced with the need for sustainable economic development and the need to reduce pollution, logistics, planning, exchange of best practices as well as efficient cooperation between all relevant players – authorities, producers, carriers, beneficiaries – are the only viable solutions. Currently, both carriers and beneficiaries prefer the rapidity of roads and airways. Unfortunately, the extreme heat this summer caused the introduction of traffic restrictions for heavy-load vehicles in certain regions, such as Romania, and thus freight transport traffic faced difficulties and financial losses were reported. Under these circumstances, railway transport and above all internal navigable waterways and short sea routes, as well as comodality, have undoubted advantages for decreasing the pressure on road infrastructures. It is mandatory to resurrect the debate on co-financing the Transeuropean transport networks because, in order to make these massive investments in European infrastructure, national financial efforts, irrespective of their significance and however well-intentioned they may be, are insufficient especially in the case of the new Member States. The Commission has to bear in mind and to allocate more funds as of 2008. I would focus on the importance of the rapporteur’s recommendation towards Member States to draw up national action plans for freight 58 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

transport logistics, together with the European general action plan. Within these national plans, major importance should be attached to crossborder transport to and from third countries, as well as to the security of cargoes. These plans can successfully contribute to the improvement of priority management and to the absorbtion of Structural and Cohesion Fund financingmeant to improve and enlarge transport infrastructure, as well as to a better cooperation between the TEN and Marco Polo projects at crossborder level.

Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mrs Ayala Sender on her excellent report. I would like to raise two specific issues: firstly, I too welcome the points made in the report about the European Commission’s intention to investigate the possibility of creating a single transport document for all modes of transport. This is a very interesting announcement, which could support interoperability and promote multimodal transport, does not require investment expenditure and could help in integrating us to a great extent. The second issue, which I also consider to be particularly important, is the creation of a system of training and further training in the areas of transport and logistics in order to create a system for the mutual recognition of skills and competences; this is in reference to paragraph 17. I would definitely like to support this concept for the reasons given above. The third issue that I would like to raise is Schengen and, more specifically, how the new Member States are to introduce its principles in practice.

Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I should also like to thank Mrs Ayala Sender for the excellent work that, at the time Parliament is discussing this type of work, has resulted in this own-initiative report on freight transport logistics in Europe, a very important subject for our fellow citizens, as has often been said. Since I have to be quick, two main points. The first is that it is more essential than ever to take logistics into account in our overall goods transport strategy and we must pay particular attention to urban logistics and logistical problems in towns. The second point, and here I am speaking as a member of the Committee on Budgets, is that European Union investment must include the financing of logistical infrastructures. We know how disappointed we were about the amounts of the appropriations allocated to the RTE-T and I am counting on the support of the Commissioner in ensuring that the Member States make a greater contribution – at any rate managing to persuade them – when the financial perspectives are renegotiated. Finally, I should like to draw attention to the views expressed on gigaliners, lorries weighing over 60 tonnes, being driven on European roads. As very many of my colleagues have pointed out this evening, these are not in line with European objectives for safety or environmental protection or sustainable development.

Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, logistics processes are a matter chiefly for industry and the transport sector and in my view that is how it should stay. They are considerations featuring prominently on the agenda in Europe and indeed worldwide and for that reason we welcome the Commission's proposal. But efforts need to be concentrated on securing a better framework for transport and fewer obstacles rather than on yet more European rules or prohibitions. The rules do need to be tidied up. So I am happy that in this regard we have significantly streamlined the rapporteur's draft report. Let me say a little more about the obstacles to logistics. Last year in this House we debated the Naiades report. We are fully behind the Commission on this, because there are a lot of obstacles to inland waterway transport too, and I hope the Commission will lose no time in laying its first proposals before Parliament. Another obstacle to logistics is the restriction on these 60-tonne vehicles. I support the compromise, namely that Member States must be able to decide whether or not they apply this, but I am also aware that there are an awful lot of myths, not to say mega-myths, doing the rounds on this subject. You are having a study conducted, Commissioner. I urge you above all to study the facts and I also urge you to study the international routes. I agree with my fellow Member Mr Jarzembowski that we must not allow these gigaliners into our towns and villages. But over long-haul routes where there is no alternative, fine. So will you look at the facts? I await your conclusions with interest.

Zita Gurmai (PSE). – (HU) I would like to thank my colleague, Mrs Ayala Sender, for an excellent report. She has prepared some comprehensive material covering all areas, which will help in the drafting of the Commission Action Plan. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 59

It is an investment in the future of the European economy for timely, effective freight transport logistics to be put in place throughout the whole of the EU. Its existence will contribute to sustainable economic development, improved competitiveness and regional development. However, to achieve this goal we need ever higher quality, more punctual, effective and secure logistics and, most importantly, harmonisation of transport methods so that the efficiency and the benefits of individual methods can be used to full advantage. This requires the creation of the right technical, practical and economic conditions. Impact assessments relying on a unified strategy for logistics development are required. It is important to separate the roles of the state and the private sector. Efficient logistics is the key to sustainable mobility. Mature logistics solutions contribute to the optimisation of freight transport, and so it is also useful to look at opportunities for research and development support for developments in logistics.

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE). – (PT) With this initial report, on which the rapporteur is to be congratulated, we hope to contribute to the definition of a strategic framework for freight transport logistics in the European Union. We consider logistics to be an essential tool for the effective planning and implementation of a balanced and sustainable use of the various means of transport. Logistics are consequently central to a process of rationalisation for the purpose of achieving the most competitive and sustainable levels in the future. Despite the advantages conferred by a modern system of logistics in the areas of economic efficiency and competitiveness, optimum use of resources, creation of employment opportunities, protection of the environment and improvement of safety and security, we recognise that there are still problems to be solved, one of the most obvious being the chronic underfunding of the TENs, including the development of freight transport logistics. It is therefore essential to explore alternative sources of funding via private-public initiatives, the EIB, the Structural Funds, etc. Another timely point raised in the report is the need for the Commission Action Plan, mentioned earlier, to provide measures to fight organised crime in international freight transport and ensure the security of freight transport loadings against theft, robbery and hijacking. It is for the public authorities to regulate these and other matters, and to facilitate multimodal freight transport, which is essentially a business activity. Measures such as ‘one stop administrative shopping’ and cutting red tape reduce costs and pave the way for a sounder and more competitive economy in the sector. Given the high growth rates in freight transport that are expected, the future role of logistics will be crucial to achieving an efficient, sustainable, accessible and safe transport system. To this extent, we are sure that logistics will make an increasingly essential contribution to achieving the Lisbon goals.

Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, efficient freight transport logistics is crucial to territorial cohesion. So says Ms Ayala, whom I wish to congratulate on her sound and thorough report. In view of this I would like to ask the Commission to pay special attention to the specific problems faced by island territories, for which maritime transport is of particular importance. Simplifying procedures, tackling the problems of island ports such as the excessive costs produced by market limitations, or how to facilitate new infrastructures through trans-European networks and the Structural and Cohesion Funds: these are measures which would contribute to improving the economic development and competitiveness of islands. I would like to close by asking the Commission to give special consideration to the needs which being an island presents in the forthcoming action plan on transport logistics which it is to present.

Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, as transport policy stands today, Europe is aiming at more transport software, i.e. more intelligent solutions to improve efficiency, but also to serve the interests of the environment and health protection. We will not go into the detailed reasons for this change, although surely it has much to do with the fact that we do not have the money for large new infrastructure projects – see, for instance, the rather modest funds allocated to the TENs and suchlike. Under these circumstances it is most important to ensure that new hardware is not let in through the back door on Austrian and European transport routes. I, like a number of others, am referring to the 60-tonners or gigaliners or whatever we call them. At any rate, they can certainly not be authorised in an infrastructure that is not appropriate for them; they might be a good solution on flat land where there is little traffic, but they would be totally misplaced in mountainous and densely built-up areas. Austria in particular is in no way equipped for superweight trucks. Over the past few months we have seen again and again what they mean in terms of bridge construction and the weight they can bear. We have no interest whatsoever in 60 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

landing ourselves with new problems here. It is not in the interests of transport policy either, and especially not in the interest of health and environmental policy. If we cannot produce any extra European funds to pay for the external costs of the existing infrastructure, then we should leave things as they are or, in this concrete case, leave the gigaliners in northern Finland.

Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining with your rapporteur in emphasising the importance of logistics, not only from the economic point of view but also environmentally and socially. I think it is unanimously agreed that logistics should be developed and made more efficient, more environmentally friendly. That is made very clear in the report by Mrs Ayala Sender, which I welcome. A number of the wishes you have expressed, which I have listened to very carefully this afternoon, will be incorporated in the Action Plan for Logistics that will be coming out by the end of October. Since I really do not have enough time to reply at length, I shall just refer to the rules on the size of lorries. That is certainly one of the most controversial issues and we shall not be able to debate it fully today. I shall simply make a few comments. It is a fact that, although we hope to see much more of a modal shift in the future, at present most goods are carried by road. We have to assess any measures that might improve the efficiency of that mode of transport and reduce its impact on the environment. The assessment should also cover the rules on the size of lorries, Directive 96/53. I think any amendments have to be considered very carefully, because they might have complex repercussions. We need to examine the effects that wider or heavier lorries might have on the infrastructure, safety, the environment, the system of shippers and carriers, and intermodal competition. As I said, I feel that we should give these questions very serious consideration. My services will therefore be embarking on research to evaluate experiences. On the basis of its results, we shall be able to discuss all the nuances of this very important issue, which must not be treated lightly. That is my first point and I shall wind up very quickly, too quickly for my liking, but I appreciate that Parliament has a timetable. The second important issue in the work on logistics is infrastructures. Reference has been made to the financing of infrastructures. I should like to draw attention to the new Marco Polo II Programme, which will enable us to finance logistical solutions favouring the modal shift or the reduction in traffic. Finally, training. The last speaker, Mr Rack, said that a new culture has to be developed. That is indeed what is necessary and we always come back to the men and women working in the transport business, who need to master a whole range of new skills if transport is really to be made more efficient and mobility more sustainable, in other words more environmentally friendly. I thank Parliament very much and I shall take full account of this report and the subsequent debate.

President. – The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow.

16. Single European Sky (debate)

President. – The next item is the oral question to the Commission on building the single European sky through functional airspace blocks (COM(2007)0101 final) by Paolo Costa, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (O-0035/2007 - B6-0135/2007).

Gilles Savary (PSE), author. – (FR) Mr President, I must first render the things that are SESAR's unto SESAR, or to another Italian, Paolo Costa, who is actually the author of this written question and has asked me to stand in for him and put it to you in his absence. This is an oral question to the Commission with debate on the creation of functional airspace blocks for building the Single European Sky, in other words, the intentions of the Commission regarding the implementation, or progress to date in the implementation of the package of texts which were the subject of conciliation in December 2003, 'the Single Sky package' 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 61

One of the texts provided for the creation of functional airspace blocks, in other words airline routes at the various airspace levels, in order to optimise consumption, reduce greenhouse gases and if possible reduce congestion at the busiest airports, not forgetting the possibility of bringing down air transport costs. This is a particularly sensitive issue, with reservations on the part of the Member States, which have always reaffirmed their sovereignty over their airspace. That is especially true of the Member States – and I know of one that is dear to me, my own country – which have large military forces and military airspace blocks reserved in a virtually discretionary fashion. Mr Costa is concerned that, as we might have feared, no progress has been made, as far as he can see, on that text on the creation of airspace blocks, one of the four on the Single Sky, and it has met with strong resistance from the Member States. Mr Costa is therefore putting the following question to the Commission. The Commission has just produced a communication making it clear that the cost of not having functional airspace blocks for building a Single European Sky is about EUR 1 billion. Mr Costa has put an initial question: is the Commission satisfied with that situation and does it believe that the introduction of Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 on airspace organisation is progressing satisfactorily? How does the Commission account for the fact that no new functional airspace blocks have become operational since the Regulation came into force? Article 10 of the Regulation provides for an extension of airspace organisation to lower airspace and requires the Commission to determine any other steps that might be necessary 'in the light of progress achieved'. In view of that, what changes does the Commission think should be made to existing legislation? Finally, does the Commission agree that it should not wait until the end of 2008 before bringing forward a proposal to that effect? Finally – there is more than one question in the oral question – Mr Costa is asking whether the Commission agrees that the 'bottom up' approach, whereby the initiative to create functional airspace blocks is left to the Member States, has failed and that a more proactive approach by the European Union is now required? I think, and I hope I have remained true to its spirit, that that is the question Mr Costa is putting to the Commission.

Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr Savary, I thank you and, through you, Mr Costa, because I think this question has been very well put and the problem it raises is a real one. The reform in March 2004 was intended to organise air traffic in line with operational requirements, not national borders. It is a way of shortening flights and avoiding aircraft flying around unnecessarily. I shall answer each of the questions. The first concerns the cost of air traffic management and the repercussions for the Single Sky. You and Mr Costa have just quoted the key figure of EUR 1 billion if the Single Sky is not implemented, and I might add that, according to Eurocontrol, the potential savings are even greater, since EUR 3 billion could be saved. In addition to the reduction in airline costs, a saving of two billion would be achieved through the improved efficiency of aviation services. It is true that, as Mr Savary says, completion of the Single European Sky is not progressing quickly enough, given the importance of the objectives: competitiveness, sustainable development, combating climate change and promoting safety in the air. Should we, for that reason, stand there with our arms folded and do nothing? No. For the first time, the adoption of basic rules on the Single Sky has given the Community real powers in this area. The 2004 reform has been implemented: separation between regulation and the provision of services, certification of providers in accordance with European rules, air traffic controllers' licences and a range of technical measures adopted by comitology. Lastly, there has been the launch of the SESAR industrial project, a real addition to the Single Sky. But we need to move faster. The Commission must take stock of what has been done. Back in December 2006, I consulted a group of high-level experts and this July they presented their report to me on the reforms that are imperative. The Commission will be submitting a communication based on that this autumn.

The second question relates to functional airspace blocks. It is true that in the 2004 reform the Council opted for a bottom-up approach, with action by the national governments on the creation of the blocks. Frankly, that was not an entirely satisfactory approach, because it limited the possibilities for the Commission and the Community institutions to ensure that the blocks were actually created and that work at local level did not become bogged down. Another part of the problem is that insufficient stress was placed on improving the economic efficiency of the service provided. We are going to try and introduce a performance-based 62 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

approach by the first half of 2008. That would set specific performance targets for service providers and provide for incentives and intervention mechanisms in the event of non-completion. I believe that that performance-based approach will speed up the creation of functional blocks, because they will be essential to the achievement of the performance targets. We are working on the idea of a performance review body and a coordinator responsible for developing the projects more quickly. I personally think that a coordinator of the kind we have for the trans-European networks would be very useful in speeding up the creation of these functional blocks that we need. We shall not, of course, be waiting until 2009 to accelerate the creation and efficiency of the functional blocks. I would hope to present you with an initiative by the middle of 2008. It is generally agreed that the blocks can only be effective if upper and lower airspace are regarded as indivisible. Lastly, the fourth question, the bottom-up approach of the Member States, which, it must be admitted, has in some ways been a failure. In that case, should we adopt exactly the opposite approach? I am not sure. I think we still have to try and make the best of the bottom-up approach, but in order to develop a Single Sky we need to move on to a second stage, based on performance, on mechanisms. We have to cooperate actively with the Member States to encourage political commitment and exercise pressure from above to develop functional airspace blocks. That is why this question was so welcome. It has given me an opportunity to explain the main initiatives we shall be taking, which are in line with the very pertinent comments made by Mr Savary.

Georg Jarzembowski, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, we have no problems at all with what you have achieved in terms of improving efficiency in airspace, but your reply was quite clear. That reply was to the effect that Member States have not done their homework. Member States have not met the obligation that has existed since 2004 rapidly to create functional airspace blocks. On the one hand that results in the costs you referred to of up to EUR 3 billion, and on the other hand it also leads to environmental pollution. At the moment, we are discussing the introduction of emission trading in air transport, talking about 3% of air transport emissions. If we had sensible, rapid and efficient air transport management we could reduce fuel consumption by up to 12%, which would substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Mr Vice-President, you are a gentleman, but let us get to the crux of the matter: the Member States are not doing their homework. That is why we – you as the Commission and we as Parliament – must all tell the Member States: detention time! You have to catch up quickly now after falling so far behind. Yet that may not be enough. We must also threaten them with changing the bottom-up-, bottom-down approach. If Member States cannot manage to make progress on the truly vital question of air safety, air efficiency, the impact of air transport on the climate, then we expect that in 2008 the Commission will not just present a report saying that the Member States are improving in terms of creating airspace blocks, but that it will threaten the Member States. You can rely on our help. Then we will have to change the system and create the airspace blocks at European level. That is the stick we need in order to persuade Member States rapidly to create efficient, functional airspace blocks. I know how difficult that is, but kind words will get us nowhere. We must slowly begin to wave the big stick.

Brian Simpson, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I am so long in this Parliament that I recall the occasion when Commissioner de Palacio first proposed the Single European Sky and the term ‘functional airspace blocks’ first entered EU vocabulary. Well, after a painful birth, progress was made in 2004 with the regulation that enacted these airspace blocks, but I have to say that since then progress has been painfully slow, particularly in regard to the extension of those airspace blocks and specifically as regards lower airspace. I appreciate, Commissioner, that it was the Commission’s intention to work with Member States and no doubt some Member States have proved to be less willing to pursue this policy at the pace that we would like or, indeed, had envisaged, but surely the time is now right to find the accelerator pedal and for the Commission now to come forward with a directive as soon as possible.

Since 2004, no new airspace blocks have been created and, as we have heard from previous speakers, the cost of that in our failure to create a Single European Sky is estimated to be at EUR 1 billion. In addition, the existing legislation is in need of updating and the travelling public are still faced on a daily basis with air traffic delays, due to the antiquated attitudes of Member States and what appears to be inactivity by the Commission. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 63

Patience is running out, and action is needed urgently. Failure to act is not an option, which is why my Group will support the oral question placed before Parliament by Mr Costa, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. Commissioner, we are all growing older and we would like to see the Single European Sky in our lifetime.

Seán Ó Neachtain, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (GA) Mr President, I should like to ask whether this aviation liberalisation policy can be considered in any way to be helping certain regions and regional airports. Look, for example, at what is happening at Shannon Airport in my own constituency in the west of Ireland. Aer Lingus’s decision to discontinue flights to London has adversely affected the region, not least economically. It is totally contrary to Irish government policy. To my mind, then, as far as Europe’s regions are concerned, this freedom in aviation matters will help strong areas to progress, but weaken those which are not so strong. I would therefore ask the Commission to look at the case of, say, Shannon Airport, and consider how this policy can be pursued alongside regional development policy in such areas.

Vladimír Remek on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the ‘Single European Sky’ initiative confirms my experience as a private pilot that aviation is a textbook example of an area that calls for supranational cooperation irrespective of state borders. For that reason, and in view of the need to ensure maximum air traffic safety, maximum effectiveness and minimum flight delays, we support the creation of functional blocks and, consequently, the Single European Sky. However, let us not forget that while fragmentation is expensive, defragmentation costs money too. Since this is a complex system, I support, in the interest of continuity, the gradual establishment of a single operations management system in a common airspace. In addition, the unification of European skies where 27 national operating systems exist today will jeopardise the jobs of air traffic controllers and other specialists in this field. As far as I am aware, a rather successful long-term social dialogue has been conducted on these issues and, in my opinion, it is thus necessary to reconcile seemingly contradictory procedures. We want our flights to be safer and more effective; we want minimal flight delays and maximum elimination of the dangers of unusual air traffic events. Human lives are at stake: the lives of those who fly and also the lives and fates of those who manage the air traffic.

Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I am disturbed by the suggestion that the process of establishing open skies be accelerated. There seems to be no recognition of the problems that open skies have visited on regional airports in Europe, even in their preparatory stage. In creating a single European sky we will see the emergence of two major hubs – Heathrow, definitely, and either Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle – flanked by a network of sub-hubs. The competition among airports to be the first or second level in the open skies hierarchy is proving cut-throat in my country. Shannon Airport – a hub in its own right – and regional airports like Cork are being starved of routes, while Dublin Airport is chronically overcrowded. My government stands by and does nothing because the logic of open skies is to let the market decide, and the market, not social responsibility or common sense around regional and rural development, is deciding in a way that increases profits but does not serve people. Rather than rush open skies, let us, even at this late hour, take whatever time is necessary to do serious assessment on the impact of the policy. Then let us take whatever measures are needed to ensure that whole areas of Europe, like the west and south of Ireland, are not cut off from a viable, economic future by open skies.

IN THE CHAIR: DIANA WALLIS Vice-President

Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, we all share the same concern regarding European transport policy. We want to improve the efficiency of all modes of transport, and especially air transport, without at the same time increasing environmental pollution. If possible, we even want to improve the environmental balance of flying. We have had many ideas on the subject in Europe, such as emission trading. We hope to achieve our aims by, for example, possibly taxing aircraft fuel and suchlike. That may not be the wrong approach, but the way to achieve our aim is a different one. As in the case of road transport, we should seek more intelligent solutions. 64 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

The idea of an open European sky and a Single European Sky is the right approach, although of course it needs to be implemented. SESAR is a step on the way but we must do more in this respect. Let me address a final point because we will be voting on the subject this week. Congestion is found not just in the sky, but on the ground too, especially in airports. Let us, therefore, get rid of the senseless, bureaucratic rules on carrying fluids at airports. That would save a lot of money and a lot more trouble.

Ulrich Stockmann (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, we regard the Single European Sky as the most important project for the future of air transport. The Commission always emphasised its importance under your predecessor and I also believe it to be the case. We adopted the 2004 package of regulations. We still have a kind of patchwork in the sky, with 58 national airspace blocks, even though we know we would really only need one, or to be generous perhaps three to six. We know that this patchwork – the figures were given earlier – has adverse effects on safety, and of course also on the economy and consumers. We know about the stacking and congestion in the skies and nowadays we are putting far more emphasis on emissions. We have realised that we can take a big step forward here. In its progress report, the Commission showed how slowly the Member States are moving, even if there are some initiatives, and proposed a few ways of exerting pressure. Now I am not saying that is meaningless, nor ‘I told you so’, but as early as 2003 we said the bottom-up approach would not work, because even at that time we suspected that Member States would get embroiled in discussions about areas of sovereignty in regard to service provision and that such crucial matters need to be regulated by top-down legislative rules.

At the time we thought perhaps Eurocontrol could propose rules and make a proposal based simply on the substance, on functionality, which the Member States could then quarrel about, rather than waiting until they themselves had created another kind of patchwork, in a bottom-up approach. What is important now is seriously to consider whether we need to review the legal framework. That would be the only way to exert real pressure and bring about the necessary changes.

Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, in the spring of 2004, when the European Union was adopting the relevant legislation, there was talk of the benefits that civil aviation would obtain from the reorganisation of air traffic rules and military cooperation with the civil sector in this regard. The European system at that time was very fragmented, which resulted in there being narrow airspace corridors. As a result there was a worsening in the safety of flights, and about 20% of aircraft were delayed, more fuel was being used, which had a negative ecological impact. Is the situation any better today, Commissioner? Why have the so-called ‘functional airspace blocks’ not begun to function? Is this just the fault of individual Member States? Or perhaps our laws did not meet actual requirements? It would be good to have a prompt response to these questions and to take remedial steps now, and not wait to the end of 2008. Growth in air traffic is phenomenal. What are needed therefore are appropriate legal regulations, but regulations that do not just remain empty words. What is also required is appropriate staff training. And finally, how do you see this issue in the context of the EU’s neighbours, Commissioner?

Saïd El Khadraoui (PSE). – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with what other speakers have already said and I would add that the Single European Sky needs to be completed as a matter of urgency. It is clear that the softly-softly approach of Regulation 551/2004, designed to encourage Member States to make optimum use of these more functional airspace blocks, has not worked. I understand too that this is largely because many Member States are holding back, they prefer not to be involved, stress their sovereignty, and so forth, but we must not allow them to get away with that. Aviation is very much a sector which needs to be dealt with in every particular at the European level, in the interests of the industry, consumers, safety and the environment. At a time when climate change is so high on the political agenda, Commissioner, we cannot have aircraft making unnecessary detours, wasting huge amounts of aviation fuel, and so on.

We simply must push ahead with this dossier, along with other instruments – SESAR, the emissions trading system, and so forth. We cannot go on allowing tens of millions of euros to be wasted due to inefficient management of our airspace by a whole lot of unnecessary air traffic control centres. There is plenty of scope for trimming and pruning here and that is what we want. It is likely, moreover, that we shall soon reach the limits of capacity thanks to the sector's rapid expansion. Existing bilateral contacts aimed at forming functional 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 65

airspace blocks have achieved hardly anything, so we really do need to pull our finger out. Appointing a coordinator and a performance review body would seem to be a step in the right direction, but at the same time, Commissioner, I fear that this bottom-up approach will not be enough; we have taken it as far as we can and we must now look to take new legislative initiatives.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) Madam President, in 2006, low-cost companies opened 225 new European airways routes, meaning 1 800 new flights per week. The fragmentation of airspace at national level, with specific operational rules and procedures, may have negative effects on the safety of transport capability, on the introduction of new technologies and on costs. While passing from one air sector to another, pilots change frequency and contact the next air traffic controller. Air traffic control has become a critical element. It is important that new functional blocks be implemented following consultation of all the relevant parties, and Member States take effective actions in order to achieve an integrated management system. Meanwhile, investments should be made in more efficient aircrafts and airport infrastructure. Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to the EU adds new functional blocks for the Community airspace, with relevance both for the Black Sea region and for cooperation in the Balkans.

Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. − (FR) Madam President, I appreciate and share the impatience expressed by Parliament. I shall give you a very precise but very concise answer. Ladies and gentlemen, you will have a report in October 2007 and a second package of legislation by the middle of 2008, so it certainly cannot be said that we are not doing anything! We are therefore going to answer this question in detail together. The second point: I have probably spoken to you about a coordinator, a senior political figure who will promote the introduction of these operational blocks between the Member States. I must say that the results achieved in the trans-European networks indicate to me that this would be a useful way of stepping up our action in this area. I shall reply to the third question by referring to Sesar, because Sesar exists, it is already a joint enterprise that brings together all the participants. I believe that the introduction of Sesar will overturn all the bad habits that were keeping us confined to airspaces defined by national borders, which are no longer sensible. Thus I am giving a very positive reply to the question put by Mr Costa and discussed by Mr Savary and have listened carefully to what Parliament wants. I am ready to do all I can to respond.

President. − The debate is now closed. Written statement (Rule 142)

Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE), in writing. – (CS) The Member States agreed to set up common airspace blocks to control a single sky, irrespective of national borders. Prior to that two planes collided over Germany and 71 people perished. The arguments for a single sky are growing stronger: we have 57 control points for 28 000 daily flights; the US has two. Three years later we are no further on. The EU has not put all of the Regulations from 2004 into practice. These Regulations were supposed to integrate airspace in the internal services market and provide a basis for an effective operating system with emphasis on safety, the environment and increased flying capacity. We currently have 65 radar centres with 31 systems using 22 computer networks, and we expect that the number of flights over Europe will double in 10 years’ time. Do the citizens know that their governments and parliaments are ignoring the benefits of common Europe to their disadvantage? Why does the process of creating a shared operating airspace for both civilian and military flights over a united Europe take such a long time? Is it to appease local economic interests? Is it to protect national sovereignty, to the detriment of transport safety and at high prices? Today we want to know how and when we are going to integrate the classification of the upper airspace and how are we going to jointly operate the lower airspace in the future. Can obstacles to the creation of functional blocks over European territory be identified openly? Is it possible to shed light on the political will of Member States to fulfil their obligations? We are also worried about the failure of the bottom-up approach because in three years the Member States have not developed the functional blocks needed for more efficient control of the sky. 66 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

17. Commission Question Time

President. − The next item is Question Time (B6-0138/2007). The following questions are addressed to the Commission Part one

President. − Question No 31 by Silvia Ciornei (H-0591/07) Subject: Forced labour in Europe Trafficking in people for purposes of exploitative forced labour has been on the rise in recent years in the EU. The victims, whether European citizens or immigrants, are suffering under new forms of slavery. What action does the Commission intend to take to put an end to this phenomenon? Since such trafficking is facilitated by Member States' failure to ensure employers' compliance with the legislation on labour and workers' rights, what measures will the Commission take to tackle this problem?

Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, forced labour and trafficking for labour exploitation are gross violations of fundamental rights and we are fully committed to preventing and combating such crimes. According to estimates from international labour organisations, in 2005 there were at least 12.3 million people in forced labour worldwide. About a fifth of these have been trafficked. Trafficking for labour exploitation is mostly an organised crime business and creates an estimated 12 billion dollars per year. We also know that trafficking is still a low-risk crime. European strategy aims to move it from being low-risk, high-reward to high-risk, low-reward. An integrated strategy against trafficking for labour exploitation is needed which comprises prevention, prosecution, protection and assistance to victims. The Commission will play the role of facilitator to establish a network of all the stakeholders and institutions involved in a preventive strategy. First of all, labour inspection services, employers’ organisations, trade unions. In relation to prevention, the major goal is ensuring the respect of labour laws in all the work places and therefore fighting against illegal labour, especially in the sectors which are more at risk, including agriculture, construction, food-processing and domestic work. I am also committed to developing new legislation on combating trafficking in human beings and labour exploitation of migrant workers. The recent proposal for a directive providing for sanctions against employers of illegally resident third country nationals is an example. This proposal aims at fighting more effectively the exploitation of migrant workers through dissuasive administrative sanctions and through penal sanctions in the most serious cases, including trafficking, and where particularly exploitative working conditions are found. Investigation and prosecution should become more effective. Law enforcement officials should fully apply the legislation against trafficking in the field of labour exploitation, including legislation complying with the framework decision on trafficking and the directive on residence permits for victims of trafficking. As national good practice shows, measures to provide assistance for trafficked persons are crucial to protect their fundamental rights and simultaneously promote successful prosecution. The granting of assistance, residence status and support to find a better alternative for labour and life will secure the cooperation of trafficked persons in criminal proceedings and make it easier to punish the perpetrators. In conclusion, on the occasion of the first Anti-Trafficking Day on 18 October next, the Commission will draw up recommendations with and for Member States on identification and support of victims – first of all vulnerable categories like children – based on close cooperation between law enforcement, prosecutors’ offices and NGOs and other service providers.

Silvia Ciornei (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, please allow me to thank Commissioner Frattini for his answer. Since the time I submitted my question, I met the Commissioner and we discussed aspects of the trafficking in people. I deeply appreciate the involvement of the European Commission and of the 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 67

Commissioner himself in the fight against this phenomenon and I am glad that on 18 October, the European Commission will launch actual actions to stop this phenomenon, including those mentioned by the Commissioner, i.e. introducing criminal sanctions for serious cases of moonlighting. I would like to ask if the Commissioner intends, on behalf of the European Commission, to request a mandate from the Council for signing, on behalf of the European Communities, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, a very efficient legal instrument for combating the trafficking in human beings.

Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the answer is certainly yes. We are, and I am personally, committed to ensuring that all the international instruments see Europe as an actor and as a protagonist. As regards the instrument to which you referred, as well as the other concrete initiatives, the Commission undoubtedly cannot, ladies and gentlemen, do everything alone. I should like to propose a directive on the criminal punishment of profiteers, or rather slave-traders, who use and abuse the victims of trafficking, but unless the Member States give their consent, unless the network of small, large and medium-sized enterprises in Europe supports us, such instruments will be much less effective. What I am therefore appealing for is for us to work together.

Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) EURO 2008 will be held in Austria and Switzerland next year. The people traffickers and traffickers in women are already prepared for it. Is the Commission also prepared?

Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − It is a very important question. We had quite a good experience during the 2006 football World Cup in Germany. We worked together in very close cooperation with all the Member States, police authorities and German authorities. We were able to prevent at least 3 000 or 4 000 young victims from being trafficked in Germany during that period of time. We are ready to do the same. We are preparing a report, which will be published very shortly, on the very important results of European cooperation. You may know that at least 12 Member States have been cooperating in adopting measures to block and to control at the borders suspect people who are trying to illegally bring in young victims of this trafficking. We are ready to do the same next year in cooperation with Germany, Austria and Switzerland, which will also host championships. Germany did a very good job on this.

Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) The phenomenon whereby people are taken and forcibly employed and whereby they are deprived of freedom of movement and any activity, whereby it is impossible to leave one’s job, as in a prison, is a very old one. We know about this from the media and from various inquiries. Has the Commission any generalised, statistical information on the countries in which this has occurred, and do you not think this is a matter of criminal law? A Member State has no right to refrain from punishing offenders who deprive others of their freedom.

Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are certainly aware of the most worrying developments. We are also aware that some Member States are intensifying their cooperation on prevention and repression. The way in which these criminal offences are defined is, however, a problem which, in my view, is Europe-wide. When, as you said, people are forced to work in atrocious conditions, they are held hostage, and we cannot merely punish those responsible under the rules governing illegal work, since such criminal offences also have to be seen as the enslavement of other human beings. Only in that way can we improve the situation. To cite an example: only if we define such crimes in the serious way which I feel they deserve, will we then be able to apply the European arrest warrant. That is only an example, but as you know the European arrest warrant applies to a category of offences, only to serious offences, and shows that the Member States, to which I appeal, are willing to tighten up their national criminal laws so that such offences can ultimately be defined, as is already happening in some Member States, as genuinely serious offences, enabling the European cooperation instruments which we have set up finally to function. This is an essential prerequisite. 68 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

President. − Question No 32 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0518/07) Subject: Action against international crime and the European Court of Justice The development of the European Union has taken place on the basis of applying legislation, but the recent concern to act against international crime has led to the adoption of decisions under the third pillar, i.e. on the basis of intergovernmental cooperation, without them being submitted as they should to scrutiny by the European Court of Justice. Does the Commission believe it is possible to strengthen the juridical scrutiny of third-pillar actions, in the interests of greater legal certainty in the Union?

Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, the European Court of Justice plays an important role in safeguarding the legality, implementation and application of third pillar instruments. Under Article 35 of the Treaty, the Court has jurisdiction, upon request of a Member State’s court or tribunal, to give preliminary rulings on the validity or interpretation of framework decisions and decisions, on the interpretation of conventions established under Title VI of the Treaty, and on the validity and interpretation of the measures implementing them. However, this jurisdiction only exists for those Member States which have declared that they accept the jurisdiction of the Court. Moreover, those Member States, having accepted the jurisdiction, may limit it to the highest national courts or tribunals. At this moment, unfortunately, only 16 Member States have accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court to give preliminary rulings on third pillar instruments, and two of them have made a limitative statement. This is really insufficient in my view and does not allow for appropriate dialogue between the Court and the national courts applying European law on a daily basis. In addition, the European Court has jurisdiction to review the legality of framework decisions and decisions. Both Member States and the Commission may bring an action before the European Court to challenge the legality of these measures. In practice, the Commission has made use of this possibility twice. I refer to the cases regarding the request for annulment of the framework decision concerning the application of criminal law with respect to the protection of the environment and ship source pollution. But, in my view, these provisions also need improvement. In particular, the present Treaty does not provide for a mechanism similar to the infringement procedures for Community legislation, in order to monitor the implementation of the instruments in Member States’ legislation. I have expressed my view on the gaps with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court in the area of freedom, security and justice in two communications I submitted to the Commission in 2006 and July 2007 on the implementation of the Hague programme. The Commission therefore welcomes the mandate agreed by the Member States for an intergovernmental conference to finalise details of a reformed treaty. Under the reformed treaty, I would expect the Court of Justice to become fully responsible in all justice, freedom and security areas. This is important to tackle poor national implementation of previously agreed work.

Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, the Commissioner has replied as I anticipated, as I am aware of the value he places on the institutions of the rule of law. The problem is that the Constitutional Treaty is still at an indeterminate point: we do not know if we will succeed in concluding it and in the meantime we must operate in this Community, tackling terrorist crimes on the one hand and on the other ensuring legal certainty. The question I would raise with the Commissioner is, in the light of the lack of will on the part of some States to take on commitments before the Court of Justice, whether he believes it is appropriate for us to continue to adopt anti-terrorist measures if at the same time such measures are not coupled with a strengthening of the courts. In other words, each time a measure of this type is adopted, the Member States should enter into a commitment to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. Otherwise, we will be faced with the possibility of authoritarian or coercive methods being adopted without the possibility of recourse to the Court.

Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very delicate issue. On the one hand, I believe that the Member States must shoulder their responsibilities and, in my view, their first responsibility is to agree in October, during the Portuguese Presidency, on the proposal that the Intergovernmental Conference has received from the European Council, a very clear mandate which includes the new powers of the Court of Justice. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 69

There is no doubt that we shall then be able to take a huge step forward, particularly as regards the most delicate issues, the most sensitive sectors, i.e. those of the current third pillar, where the Court will finally have jurisdiction. We will finally have the possibility of a full review by the Court of Justice. I would point out that in some cases the Member States are reluctant even to follow the Court’s directions; the Court of Justice has told us that in some areas the instrument of criminal law may also be a European instrument; the Court said this of pollution, for instance, which is a sensitive issue. Some Member States are continuing to oppose any such agreement, which unfortunately has to be unanimous and which simply follows on from a Court decision; they nevertheless continue to oppose it. Clearly, this problem can be resolved only if the Portuguese Presidency manages to obtain agreement in October, something that would be a major success and would bring about that leap forward that you have mentioned and that I fully support.

Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, it is an open secret that in some of the new EU Member States the forces behind organised crime are on the best possible terms with the highest political circles. To what extent and by what means will the Union help those eastern and south-eastern European countries, which have huge monetary and financial problems themselves, to fight that interaction between politics and organised crime?

Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as a general objective this does not, in my view, relate only to the eastern countries, since the general objective is to encourage a strong, hard-line and ongoing fight against corruption.

The fight against corruption cannot come to an end, for instance, when a country becomes a Member of the European Union. We have worked with many candidate countries which have become Member States of the European Union. Those countries have achieved very good results and our interest now is, for instance, in working with those which are not candidates, but are simply our neighbours: the countries of the Western Balkans, important partners such as Ukraine, countries with which we have an important partnership. I think that it is always in our interest to help those countries to root out corruption and business and politics are always bound up in corruption. My answer to the question is certainly yes. The European Union is interested, and I think that it is in our interest, and I would also say in the interest of the people of those countries, because people who suffer politics-related corruption have their rights denied on a daily basis. That is something we owe to Europe and to the people of those countries.

Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, organising illegal immigration and people trafficking are important branches of the business of organised crime. We as a European Union brought Frontex into being with your initiative – a good idea fraught with major implementing problems: Member States do not deliver, actions are interrupted in July and only resume in September. What will you do to make the Frontex instrument function efficiently and provide Member States with the necessary support throughout the year, so that we can have an effective instrument in our hands to combat organised illegal immigration, something you also want to see?

Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in my view we have already achieved very substantial results. If any of you would like to compare the statistics for 2006 with the statistics for the first eight months of 2007, between January and the end of August, you will see from the official statistics that the number of illegal immigrants arriving in the central Mediterranean is up to 40% less than in 2006 and, in the case of the Canary Islands, over 60% less in 2007 than in 2006. This shows that Frontex is starting to have good results. Later this week, the second Frontex mission, to be called Nautilus II, will set off for the central Mediterranean; I have also proposed a third Frontex mission in the western Mediterranean between the Balearic Islands, Spain, Morocco and Sardinia. These are operations which require greater cooperation in terms of crew, vessels, helicopters and aircraft.

Cooperation between the Member States is growing every day because they are seeing the results. Frontex personnel numbers need, however, to be increased because as you probably already know Frontex is currently working with fewer than 90 actual people in order to coordinate operations in the whole area of the external borders. Bearing in mind the initial results, there is no doubt that this demonstrates record efficiency. 70 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

We are relying on the support of this Parliament so that Frontex can be helped from a financial point of view and from the point of view of the professional skills which it already possesses, but obviously not yet to the necessary extent.

President. − Question No 33 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0541/07) Subject: Role of EU research in relation to European food policy Given the conflicting views in the EU with regard to genetically modified (GM) foods, could the Commission outline its view in relation to the role that research has to play in this particular area. Could the Commission state whether, from a scientific point of view, it is possible for any EU Member State to declare itself a 'GM-free zone'? If so, would such a designation be consistent with the relevant EU legislation in this area and how would it be possible to authenticate such a designation in relation to livestock products? Does the Commission's research suggest that it would be beneficial for the EU to adopt 'GM-free' status, and if so what would be the potential consequences?

Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − I should like to thank the honourable Member, Mrs McGuinness, for the question. Firstly, I wish to reply to your question on GMO research in general. In the past the Commission funded research projects on genetically modified food in the Fifth Framework Programme and also in the Sixth Framework Programme, with several projects that contribute to shedding light on the safety assessments of genetically modified foods.

Research projects were also funded on the issue of coexistence between GMO and conventional crops, which also addressed traceability measures. These projects will ultimately contribute to reducing costs and to ensuring informed customer choices in line with Community legislation. This year, in the first call for proposals in the 7th Framework Programme, the Commission called for the submission of proposals on a topic for research on assessment of short- and long-term effects of GMOs on human and animal health, with the aim of supporting the development of improving techniques for post-market monitoring and for analysing their possible limitations. While evaluations have been finished, the selection process of proposals for funding is still going on. Moreover, a complementary study has been launched by the Commission in DG Environment dealing with the long-term effects of genetically modified crops on health, biodiversity and the environment. The key objective of this study will be to prioritise the potential risks of the main crop trade combinations cultivated worldwide by collecting and analysing information from peer-reviewed literature and from the relevant organisations, both within and outside the European Union. With the necessary expertise in research and cultivation of GM crops, the results are expected next spring. In the future, Commission-funded research could include tools for safety assessment, risk/benefit assessments, including risk communication and perception, detection methods, ways to ensure traceability and coexistence of genetically modified and conventional organisms. On the second part of your question on the coexistence issue, I would like to add the following. It should be noted that authorised GMOs can be freely traded and used within the EU under the conditions of the authorisation consent provided. The legislative framework for the authorisation of GMOs for placing on the market and for deliberate release into the environment in the EU does not provide the possibility to establish zones where the cultivation or placing on the market of GMOs is generally prohibited. A general ban would contradict Community legislation, in particular Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs. Indeed, only GMOs that have been scientifically evaluated as safe for the environment and animal and human health are authorised to be placed on the market. A specific ban on a product must be scientifically justified according to Article 23 of this directive, the so-called safeguard clause article. Community research into coexistence is studying appropriate measures to segregate authorised GM crops from conventional and organic crops in a feasible and practical way. The research results indicate that sufficient segregation is feasible for the major crops studied so far – maize and sugar beet. However, with increasing commercial cultivation and genetically modified crops in the EU and imports of genetically modified food and feed, adventitious presence through gene flow and admixture becomes unavoidable. On your question about the possibility to authenticate a GM-free designation in relation to livestock products, I would like to draw your attention to the statement of the European Food Safety Authority paper published 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 71

recently on 20 July 2007, where EFSA noted that no technique is currently available to enable a valid and reliable tracing of animal products like meat, milk or eggs, when the animals have been fed a diet incorporating GM plants or, to put it another way, DNA fragments or proteins from GM plants have not been detected in edible products from farm animals using the existing available techniques. To add something from the area of my colleagues, the Commission continues to assess the coexistent measures notified by Member States with respect to their compliance with Community legislation. The Council asked the Commission to develop jointly with the Member States guidelines for crop-specific co-existence measures at technical level. The Commission is currently setting up a European co-existence bureau which will conduct this technical work jointly with national experts and stakeholders. The work is planned to start by the end of 2007. The first crop to be addressed will be maize. As for the further steps towards harmonisation, the Commission intends to sum up the developments in the Member States regarding the development of the regulatory regimes and practical experience with GM-crop multi-cultivation in a report scheduled for the year 2008. This will be the basis for the decision about future steps to take on this issue. Finally, concerning the last part of the question concerning potential consequences, as regards the GM-free status, I would like to add the following. Farmers are free to decide amongst themselves not to cultivate GMO or to create, on a voluntary basis, zones where GM crops are not cultivated. These zones can be established only under the voluntary and unanimous agreement of all farmers concerned in the respective locations, while allowing for the possibility for any farmer to withdraw and cultivate authorised GMOs if he or she so wishes. The regions or farmers which wish not to cultivate GMOs or to adopt a GM-free status, can certainly benefit from the research findings from the research framework programmes. To date, the results from our research projects do not indicate any reasons why a GM-free status would be beneficial for public health or for the environment. As regards other issues related to your questions, as for the economic implications on voluntary refraining from GM-crops cultivation, they depend on numerous factors such as prices for GM or non-GM crops, agronomic differences between GM and non-GM crops, differences in yield, seed costs and so on. Local factors, pest pressure, climatic conditions, structure of agriculture of production and so on and regulatory conditions to ensure the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic production. The economic impact is likely to vary between regions and Member States. Such differences are also reflected in the differences between the uptake rates of GM crop cultivation in different European regions. The EU livestock production is highly dependent on the import of animal feed derived from soya beans, maize and other crops. Most of the imports of maize and soya bean-derived foodstuffs are labelled as GM. Certified non-GM soya bean meal is currently only available for a small market segment. Given the increasing share of GM soya bean production worldwide this could be expanded, but of course at higher cost.

President. − Thank you, Commissioner. I am grateful for your response, but it was rather lengthy, and I think I must comment on that – it was nearly nine minutes.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I will be brief. While you are chastising the Commissioner, may I say thank you because very often we do not get information and I really appreciate your clarity. I will need to study the detail. I have two comments and a question and I will watch the time. Should a country decide voluntarily to be GM-free? This is being proposed in Ireland; it is part of the Programme for Government and is being looked into. Could we as a country decide we do not want to bring in food produced from, for example, meat of animals which have eaten GM products, or to bring any particular food into our country because we want to keep ourselves GM-free? Are you concerned about the impact on grain prices of such a policy?

Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − I will tell you frankly that it is a bit difficult for me to answer. Of course, they will have to follow the existing Community legislation. That would be the straightforward answer. If the question was connected to research and development, it would be easier for me, but I think the answer is quite straightforward: it has to be in line with the existing Community legislation. 72 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Jim Allister (NI). – Is it not the case that the Commission’s dilatory approach to approving GM derivatives is helping to inflate EU livestock feed prices? For example, the excessive delay in approving use of the corn by-product Hercules is severely damaging the competitiveness of our grain trade sector, yet GA 21, a GM product from Argentina, is approved in the EU for human consumption, but not for animal feed. Is it not time to rationalise and bring some sense to this situation and cut adrift some of the contrived political correctness that is driving it?

Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − I would just like to stress that, from my point of view, we clearly take great care to take all possible steps to understand the GM or non-GM situation as much as possible. Decisions made in the Commission are always based on existing knowledge. We never ignore this and try to stick to this approach. Policy implications, as you mentioned, have never been the subject of our attention.

John Purvis (PPE-DE). – I too would like to join Mrs McGuinness in thanking the Commissioner for an excellent and interesting response. I think it will be a very useful precedential document for us to study, because it seems to me that he robustly supports the scientific justification for the use of GM crops in Europe where they are scientifically approved and authorised. He mentioned the safeguard clause. When is the Commission going to base all its decisions on the scientific research that his department is executing and to counter the public opinion that militates against the use of GMs, that is disadvantageous for our farming community and indeed for the cost of food, and is negative for the economy of Europe?

Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − As you know, it is a complex issue and it is important to understand that some people have precautionary fears. That is why it is important that we develop the awareness and the level of knowledge as far as possible, because it is of vital importance that we base our decisions on the knowledge we have. I will try to do my best to ensure that this level of knowledge is developed in the future as far as possible.

President. − Thank you Commissioner. I did not mean to be too harsh but we have to strike a balance between detail and time, which is difficult. Part two

President. − Question No 34 by Brian Crowley (H-0548/07) Subject: The operation of the EU budget Can the European Commission make a statement as to how it believes that procedures for agreeing how the EU budget is spent annually can be simplified and streamlined in future?

Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. − I would like to respond and to repeat my response which I already sent to Mr Crowley about the annual procedures and budget procedures in general, and how they can and could be improved. I would like to give my answer in two parts. The first for the current reading, what can still be done, how we can use funds more efficiently, and, of course, the future proposals in our revised treaty, which arose from the June Council this year. In the current Treaty procedures, we can say that we are satisfied in general with the results, because under the current Treaty we have the possibility of improving and finding the fast-track solution if an urgent situation occurs. A recent example is last year’s tsunami, and this year it was Palestine and partly Kosovo. We were able to find the solution by fast-tracking one reading – but it takes some time, and very much depends on consolidated, trilateral negotiations between the two budgetary authorities and the Commission. But of course the honourable Member is right in saying that, in this Treaty, there can already be a lot of room for improvement, and one of the examples concerns the pragmatic timetable in the annual budgetary procedure – followed since 1975. We, on top of the treaty request, we altogether – I mean all budgetary authorities and the Commission – agreed to add two and a half months to the procedure, mainly because at that time there was no electronic mail. Now we do not need this time schedule but still, inertly, we have this time schedule on our tables and nobody tries to deal with this question. Of course these productivity gains can be drawn already on this example. But another element which is very interesting and we have adopted together in negotiations with Parliament and Council, and the Council has finally adopted, the new Financial Regulation and its implementing rules, 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 73

which have been in force since May of this year, 2007. Here, already, we have some simplification and streamlining in the implementation of the European budget on an annual basis. But of course probably the best messages I can transfer today to you are the revised treaty proposals. And, here, I would like to point out four elements which can improve democratic scrutiny, accountability and transparency in the budgetary procedure. The first innovative proposal in the revised treaty is that the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure is proposed to be eliminated, providing one procedure for the adoption of the annual budget by the budgetary authorities. Secondly, the so-called ‘maximum rate of increase’ in Article 27 of the EC Treaty – usually a source of conflict in the annual negotiation process – will no longer be in use or necessary because the substitute in practical terms for the maximum rate of increase, the multi-annual financial framework, will be enshrined in the treaties, which is not the case today. Finally, in future financial regulations we will have a different adoption process. This will be adopted by codecision with Parliament. Until 2007 it was decided unanimously only by the Council – by the Member States. That is a huge difference which we envisage. So all these proposals, together with the possibility of improving on an annual and everyday basis, will give more powers to the democratically elected European Parliament and will further democratise the decision-making process.

Brian Crowley (UEN). – I thank the Commissioner for her response and for her facilitation of a further question. It concerns the question of what the new Reform Treaty presents to us with regard to the multiannual funding aspect and the functioning of the budget. As you know, every year we have the usual arguments with regard to certain own resources that are being made available as well as what other funds we have made available and how those monies have been distributed to the different headings, whether it is agriculture, social structure, structural funding, regional funding and so on. One of the biggest complaints we always get here in Parliament is that people do not know where European money is being spent. They do not know where exactly the funding they are giving, as they see it, is being distributed amongst the different countries. I know Member States have a responsibility themselves to say that, but is there some mechanism whereby the Commission could be more forthcoming with regard to highlighting the areas of expenditure?

Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. − I would like to announce that we obtained an agreement with the Council precisely on the new Financial Regulation, under our transparency initiative, whereby Member States have agreed to report and make public all information on all recipients of funds – not only for agriculture but for all funds. The agriculture agreement will take effect from 2009 and the others from 2008, 2009 and 2010. This is a huge step for transparency, responsibility, openness and communication with citizens. Citizens will be able to know who will receive each penny and why, so it will also be much easier for Member States to answer.

Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, my question concerns the late payment directive. Many small and medium-sized undertakings, and many researchers too, constantly complain about the length of time it takes from authorisation of a project to actual payment. Pre-financing is far too difficult for many small and medium-sized undertakings. Do you think the European Commission might also bring its payment conditions into line with the late payment directive, which applies throughout Europe and which we all agreed?

Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. − We know the problem and have applied new regulations and implementing rules to these questions. We hope that the new ones, which have been in place and in force since May of this year, will simplify the procedure and, of course, will allow for a more responsible response from the Commission also. We understand that the rules need to be the same for everybody, not only for Member States and recipients but for the Commission also. 74 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, you referred to political crises. This year we have seen countless natural disasters in Greece, the UK and elsewhere. It is most important for budget funds to be made available rapidly in such cases. Are the instruments we have now adequate or could improvements perhaps be made? Might there be ways of increasing the overall financial volume, given that the figures for this summer show that the funds we have at present will certainly not suffice?

Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. − Concerning Greece in particular, we are looking for at least three sources of possible accumulation of funds. From the regional policy funds, we have a special fund of over EUR 1 billion annually which we can use. We are also looking into some re-programming – redirection of programmes which had been previously planned, and the Greek Government next week will negotiate with our technical people on what programmes they want to change or replace by others and where to prioritise. Also, agricultural funds can be used for restoring the land, especially land which was used as agricultural land on this peninsula. So we are able to look into three or four possible sources and to accumulate them. But on the procedural side, referring to the question of the main questioner, sometimes procedures take a lot of time, if we are being open with ourselves and do not fear saying that. Of course, we will receive a final concrete request from the Greek Government approximately 10 days after all calculations, but the response and procedures will take a lot of time. Usually, we pay, on average, between six and eight months after the event and that, of course, is not the best solution for the Member States and for the situation to be resolved. While the procedures which we have today in the Treaty make it possible for us to be faster, the political will of all the budgetary authorities needs to be in place. Plus, of course, the proposed new treaty can make this faster. But, in general, on the amounts – that is an absolutely different question. We are all the time being asked to use the budget more flexibly. For example, we have some lines of new spending and some reserves which, by the end of the year, will have been returned. This flexibility is not yet given, by the Council or by Parliament. I would be happy to have this flexibility, and I am sure my fellow Commissioners would be happy to have it because, yes, sometimes this rigidity of the budget leaves us with our hands tied. So there are a few sources: flexibility, general amounts and speed and rapid response from all budgetary procedures. These are the three sources where I see we can gain more efficiency in the final result.

President. − Question No 35 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0521/07) Subject: Planning of subject disciplines and areas of learning under the 'Education and Training 2010' programme Having regard to the aim of establishing a sound basis for cooperation and support in the education sector, in particular through the 'Education and Training 2010' programme, in order to promote a strategy of lifelong learning, will the Commission say what position is occupied in the overall scheme by subject disciplines and areas of learning which are not directly related to the labour market, such as ancient Greek, Latin, history, archaeology and linguistics? How will European citizens be persuaded of the value of continuing to teach and learn subjects which have no strictly practical application, in particular classical languages and literature, and historical studies?

Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − As we are all aware, under Article 149 of the EC Treaty, the content of the education programme is the responsibility of Member States, which means that decisions on the design of the curricula delivered by the educational institutions, as well as the subjects taught, are therefore taken solely by the Member States. The Commission has the role of supporting the Member States in their development of quality education. Under our Education and Training 2010 work programme, the Commission plays a central role in facilitating the exchange of best practice between Member States in order to help ensure that their education and training systems can meet the challenges of the 21st century. Because labour market issues are an important part of the Lisbon Strategy, it is clear that aspects of education policy that relate to labour market, and more generally to competitiveness, play an important role in this respect. This said, it does not follow that subjects such as ancient Greek, Latin, history, archaeology and linguistics are unrelated to the labour market. Apart from direct employment opportunities in many of these areas, the study of such subjects entails the development and transmission of a range of generic skills, such as analysis and reasoning. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 75

One of the reference texts for the work programme in the recommendation of Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning, these competences include ‘communication in foreign languages and cultural awareness and expression’. The latter includes an awareness of local, national and European cultural heritage and their place in the world. Civic competence as defined in the resolution includes knowledge of contemporary events, as well as the main events in transnational, European and world history. So I think this is a very direct and explicit contribution to the orientation which is asked for and supported by Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, and, I believe, by many other Members of this Parliament.

Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Commissioner, thank you for your answer. You have assured me of your continued interest. How much of the funding is being allocated for the promotion of the ‘Education and Training 2010’ programme, however? You are the Commissioner responsible for Culture. What part of the research from the 7th programme is to be used in the areas you have mentioned – that is, in furthering knowledge in the fields of language, culture, history and linguistics?

Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − There is no specific subdivision now, but as you know from the legal base we have the programme is divided into four main pillars concerning lifelong learning: Erasmus, Comenius, Leonardo da Vinci and Grundtvig, plus horizontal actions or transfer selections. One could more or less say the same about research and development and cooperation, but it is very important that partners – institutions – engage themselves in areas which are close to humanities, to cultural awareness, to nurturing of values. So, in a concrete sense, for example, we support, in the lifelong learning programme, the European Standing Conference of History Teachers’ Association, and it is important that such an association exists, that it complies with the rules, that it is eligible, and then we can provide support. I will not encourage divergence or too much separation of the soft sciences and hard sciences. Civic education comprises basic competences plus the very horizontal natures of skills, knowledge and attitudes that are needed not only for the labour market, but also for living together in a more and more diverse Community and at local, regional or European level.

President. − Question No 36 by Silvia-Adriana Ticau (H-0522/07) Subject: Education drop-out rates According to the official statistics published by Eurostat for 2006, the education drop-out rate among young Europeans aged between 18 and 24 is 15,3%. In 14 Member States, however, that indicator exceeds the European average. The highest education drop-out rates are in Malta (41%), Portugal (39,2%), Spain (29,9%), Iceland (26,3%), Italy (20,8%), Latvia (19%) and Romania (19%). The European Union has proposed to raise the employment rate to 70% by 2020 through the Lisbon Strategy. Against the backdrop of the increase in labour productivity, however, the workforce requires ever more training. What measures does the European Commission envisage taking to reduce the education drop-out rate?

Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, in 2000, the millennium year, 17.6% of the population aged between 18 and 24 had not gone beyond lower secondary education. By last year, 2006, the level had fallen to 15.3%. Six new Member States had already beaten our 2010 benchmark, which is 10%. Under Article 149, as I previously mentioned, this is the full responsibility of Member States. The content and organisation of education is the competence of Member States. Our role is to support and supplement the action of Member States. We have done this in a number of ways. I will mention just some. In particular, the Commission has supported the development of the evidence base on which policy measures can be built, sponsoring a number of studies around this problem. Further, last year, in our 2006 communication on efficiency and equity in European education and training systems, the Commission stressed the importance of pre-primary, pre-school, education as an effective means to reduce school drop-out rates, and pointed to the dangers of tracking pupils too early. The Commission has also launched a public consultation process quite recently on the modernisation of school education. This includes seeking the views of stakeholders on how best to tackle early school-leaving. 76 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

In the framework of the analysis of the Lisbon national reforms programme, the Commission issued specific recommendations to Member States about early school-leaving, where it was deemed necessary. Through the education training 2010 work programme, it has used the open method of coordination to develop good practice and peer learning on early school-leaving. Member States have also been encouraged to make use of the Structural Funds for targeted interventions to tackle particularly high rates of early school-leaving and to participate in projects funded under the lifelong learning programme, which addresses this issue. In conclusion, progress has been visible and measurable, but not yet enough, and we need to really continue and improve the dynamics.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for your answer. Even if education is the Member States’ responsibility, the Commission should involve itself in ensuring the future of the European Union. Recommendations are part of soft law. The European Commission has to explicitly request the Member States to develop action plans for fighting against school drop out. The European Union needs skilled human resources. It is unacceptable that young people originating from poor families or from a rural environment are obliged to leave school because of their financial situation. The EU population is growing old and in order to ensure the sustainability of the social welfare schemes increasing work productivity is necessary. Here is my question: Commissioner, what are the measures you are taking in order to support Member States to financially assist those children who deserve to continue their studies, especially those originating from poor families or from a rural environment? This is really a problem and we are talking about the future of Europe.

Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − This could be a long answer but, in short, we try to cooperate, pool resources and policies in order to promote better conditions for young people. Tomorrow, for example, the Commission is going to adopt a written procedure – a policy paper on youth employment. We believe that youth is our future and the future starts now. We encourage especially the new Member States to use more structural funds for the support of educational policies for mobility. Of course, in saying that Member States’ basic responsibility is the system and the content, we believe that quality or efficiency and equity followed by Member States could deliver more concrete and better answers for our citizens, including the young. I am sure the investment in human resources, especially via education and training, is the most valuable and efficient investment in society’s cohesion and future competitiveness. I say that not only as the Commissioner responsible for these areas, but also as a politician and a father. So we do not doubt that we need to do more together.

Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – You referred to the Structural Funds several times. What can you, as Commissioner, do to encourage countries to use those funds for their people, for social programmes etc.? Certainly, in Ireland, I know that the bulk of those funds were used for roads and for big infrastructure projects. Virtually nothing was spent on people.

Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − We are free people, free societies, and it is an invitation to be reasonable in this freedom. I said that investment into human potential is the best. I am not against investing in modern infrastructure, in transport and in the environment, which is important. But even in the communication I mentioned in my introductory answer, we say – and this is based on scientific evidence – that investment in pre-school attainment of children from a poor socioeconomic background is the most efficient way of dealing with their worsened conditions for cohesion. The rate of return into education at pre-school age, for example, is higher than the rate of return from investing the same amounts in the longer term in financial institutions.

So, that said, this is an invitation for ministers and Members to behave like reasonable fathers and mothers and to think about future generations, not just about tomorrow, the immediate future or polls in the next elections. I think that this kind of generational, long-term approach is highly needed and very efficient even in financial terms, but sometimes we just behave according to short-term, even narrow-minded approaches. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 77

Europe is full of examples; it is a mosaic, and some Member States show examples that are now a world reference. Look at the PISA study, and I invite you to look at the next study, which will be published by the OECD in September. We will see where we are after three years and some European countries are amongst the best performers in the world. We need such performers, and we need more of them.

President. − Question No 37 by Esko Seppänen (H-0528/07) Subject: EIT As the Community institutions move to set up the European Institute of Technology they have been negotiating about the funding for the project. The intention is to obtain money from the private sector as well. How can the Commission ensure that the EIT does not suffer the same fate as the Galileo programme, to which the private sector has made no financial contribution?

Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, this is the question on EIT private sector funding. We believe that public and private partnerships are instrumental in driving information in the knowledge-based economy. If not, we do not succeed. The private sector provides not only additional financial resources but, more importantly, can bring about changes in the strategic direction of innovation. So I would say it is not so much about money itself, but the way we cooperate, how we put together partners and interests. Many EU countries have taken action to facilitate structural relations between the public and private sector with a view to promoting knowledge transfers between universities and industry. In this context, the activities of the EIT and, notably, knowledge and innovation communities will be implemented through innovative public-private structure partnerships and financed through a variety of public-private sources. The precise arrangements for their funding cannot be determined in advance and will clearly evolve over time, but the objective is to maximise the share of contributions from the private sector. The Community contribution, which was agreed at EUR 308 million for the next Financial Perspective, is intended to act as a catalyst to draw forth resources from the private sector. The Commission has been particularly attentive in seeking to facilitate and attract private sector participation in the financing of the EIT and knowledge innovation communities (KICs). For example, a key criterion for the selection of the KICs will be their capacity to ensure long-term and sustainable financing, including a substantial contribution from the private sector. It will be important for the governing board to identify fields for potential KICs that will attract the interest of a wide range of participants, including those in the private sector. Moreover, the EIT will be empowered to establish an EIT foundation with the specific objective of mobilising and leveraging resources from both individual and corporate donors.

Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL). – (FI) Madam President, Commissioner, it has been said that private funding would also come from the United States of America and Microsoft has been mentioned as an EIT sponsor. Is it not alarming that such large companies from the United States will try and benefit from the results of research produced at the European Institute of Technology? At the same time I would like to ask this: will these private sponsors possibly also be imposing conditions on the funding they provide?

Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − I would say it would be boring if there were only United States companies interested in dialogue and cooperation and possible investment. There are many more, and there are many more also from Europe. Many of these companies, whether European, US or international, already invest a lot in Europe. The EIT should create even more incentives and friendly conditions for innovation in Europe. I would not eliminate interest from outside, but I would encourage the commitment of Parliament, Council and Commission to finding the definite answer and agreeing on the full proposal in order to mobilise European investment in international cooperation. But all positive constructive signals, both inside and outside, are really welcome.

John Purvis (PPE-DE). – Commissioner, do I detect from your answer to Mr Seppänen just now that you actually have indications of major interest from companies wishing to invest in the EIT? Because, if not, if you do not achieve substantial or sufficient funds from the private sector, will you refrain from attacking the EU budget and will you take it as a lesson that perhaps there is not that much interest in funding the EIT? 78 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

But I would like your assurance that perhaps you have these sincere expressions of interest.

Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − We had and we have an increasing interest, especially now we have reached the current stage of the proposal itself, because at the beginning this was more of an idea or a concept and now it is a concrete text. It has not yet been finalised formally – we hope to do that by the end of this year – but the messages from individual businesses or business organisations have been more and more concrete and positive, in the sense of possibly deeper involvement in the future. We had talks with the European Round Table of Industrialists, Business Europe, Eurochambers and many other associations, like the European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO). I really can say that the messages were more and more concrete. Of course, nobody writes a blank cheque or makes commitments in advance, and what we do should not replace what is going on in a positive sense in some centres or in partnerships, but the EIT should create still further momentum, incentives and scope for a more innovation-friendly Europe Union. That is the intention and this is a shared responsibility.

Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) The idea of the European Institute of Technology is to generate innovations which would contribute to the enhancement of the competitiveness of the European Union. If large private companies were to participate in the activities of the Institute, would innovations be accessible to other market participants? What about the Member States? Should the Member States and the European Community not be the main financing bodies of a European institution?

Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − We have to define the role of the EIT itself, which is the institution for running the competition selection, the evaluation monitoring and organising the framework for a whole range of knowledge and innovation communities. However, regarding innovation, the core partnership is at the level of KICs. There, one can imagine considerable cooperation with SMEs, and the internal arrangement is not only their right but also works to their advantage because they must build trust to increase or to start new cooperation under the umbrella of the EIT and for the basic relations around the intellectual property, the proposal refers to the principles of the Seventh Framework Programme. I am sure that there must be enough freedom and flexibility to arrange intellectual property rights between partners for the benefit of their cooperation and of the relation between KICs, vis-à-vis or with the EIT, and also for the benefit of course of further application of innovation. We have many models in Europe. I think we can use a lot of inspiration for real encouragement and actually EIT could be a kind of an icebreaker to open better conditions for a knowledge-friendly Europe, including intellectual property friendliness or Community patents or policies which are very much needed and important for a real transfer of knowledge between partners.

President. − Questions 38 and 39 will receive written answers. Question No 41 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0532/07) Subject: Absolute prohibition of conversion of fixed-term contracts into contracts of indefinite duration in Greek public sector

It is six years since Directive 1999/70/EC(1) entered into force in 2001 and Greece has not yet complied therewith. Despite final judgments in favour of workers on fixed-term contracts, the Greek Supreme Court has ruled, with reference to the Greek Constitution and setting aside previous case-law, that it is absolutely prohibited to convert fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of indefinite duration in the Greek public sector. This ruling is totally contrary to the spirit and the letter of Directive 1999/70/EC and to the judgment of the Court of Justice (Case C-212/04), which stresses that Directive 1999/70/EC 'precludes the application of national legislation which, in the public sector alone, prohibits absolutely the conversion into an employment contract of indefinite duration of a succession of fixed-term contracts that, in fact, have been intended to cover ‘fixed and permanent needs’ of the employer and must therefore be regarded as constituting an abuse.' What are the Commission's views on the evident refusal of Greece to implement Directive 1999/70/EC? Will it initiate proceedings against Greece before the Court of Justice?

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 79

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work requires the Member States to adopt such measures that would prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts. However, the Member States are not obliged to replace fixed-term contracts with open-ended contracts assuming that there are other effective measures in place that would prevent or sanction such abuse. The European Court of Justice confirmed this interpretation in its judgment of 4 July 2006 in Case C-212/04 (Adeneler) pertaining to Greek legislation. The European Court of Justice also stated that interpretation of the relevant national legislation does not fall within its competence. It is entirely for the Greek courts to provide an interpretation of relevant Greek legislation and to determine whether this legislation complies with the requirements of the Directive regarding the existence of effective measures that would prevent and sanction abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts. Greece implemented the above-mentioned Directive through Presidential Decree No 164/2004 concerning the public sector. The Commission carried out a thorough analysis of this Decree and concluded that it was compatible with the requirements of the Directive. Since the Directive was implemented at a late stage, on 19 July 2004, the Presidential Decree contained an exceptional temporary provision that makes it possible under certain conditions to change successive fixed-term employment contracts concluded before the date on which the Decree entered into force into employment contracts of indefinite duration.

I am aware that the legal situation concerning the abuse of fixed-term employment contracts in the Greek public sector was a subject of disputes over the last few years. This was confirmed by the recent judgment of the Greek Supreme Court of 11 June 2007 in which the court annulled its previous case-law. As already mentioned, according to the judgment of the European Court of Justice, the national courts are responsible for interpreting and applying the relevant Greek legislation, including the Constitution, in relation to the circumstances of particular cases submitted to them. However, in doing so the courts must duly observe the applicable EU legislation, in particular Directive 1999/70/EC. The Commission is closely monitoring the development of the situation in Greece. It will carefully examine the latest ruling of the Supreme Court and will monitor subsequent measures adopted by the Greek authorities. To conclude I would like to mention that according to the information supplied by the Commission, several Greek courts have already submitted preliminary questions concerning this matter to the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice will thus get the opportunity to deliver an opinion on the interpretation of the relevant Community legislation.

Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Commissioner, you are well aware that Greece is the only country that has still failed to implement a directive that has been in force for six years. Tens of thousands of contractors are cursed with a government that you say ought to respect the decisions of the courts but nonetheless passes laws whereby it refuses to respect the final decisions of the courts and the case-law of the European Court. Many of those who died in Greece’s fires this year in were contracted forest fire-fighters with more than 10 years’ service, employed on a temporary basis, and with deficient training. For months now you have claimed to be studying this question. As guardians of European legislation, do you intend to do something?

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Of course the European Commission is a guardian of the European Treaties and European law, and of course for this reason we are prepared to take all the necessary steps. The Commission has identified many problems regarding the first Presidential Decree, including those that were considered in the Adeneler case. Because of these problems the Commission contacted the Greek authorities in 2004. I can therefore confirm that we are attentive to this issue. We examine very carefully the most recent judgments of the Greek Supreme Court and if we find out that action has to be taken by the Commission, we will not hesitate to do so. 80 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Of course many questions arise about the abuse of the fixed-term employment contracts concluded before the date of adoption of the Directive, including those that were already in force on 10 July 2002, the day on which the Directive was to be implemented, unless a temporary provision applied to these contracts. Essentially I want to say that we are pay adequate attention to this issue and that we will take such steps as are necessary to protect the Treaties.

President. − Question No 42 by Sarah Ludford (H-0534/07) Subject: Equal opportunities Is the Commission satisfied, in European Year of Equal Opportunities, that real progress is being made in ‘new’ as well as ‘old’ Member States towards equality of people of different ethnicity and sexual orientation? What specific initiatives is the Commission taking in the light of continued homophobic actions in certain EU as well as non-EU European states, such as the ban of a gay pride march in Vilnius and the attempted break-up of an equalities demonstration in Romania? What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that EU institutions and states live up to their commitments on racial non-discrimination and protection of minorities, especially as regards Roma people, in the face of some disturbing electoral success for extremist and intolerant parties?

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 10 years after the inclusion of Article 13 in the EC Treaty we have made important progress in making sure that all citizens of the European Union are protected from discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin or sexual orientation, among other things. However, this protection is not yet complete, nor have we yet the real ‘equality’ mentioned by the honourable Member. All the Member States must abide by the so-called Racial Equality Directive and Employment Equality Directive and it is the task of the European Union to monitor the correct transposition of both Directives into national legislation and their effective application. Consequently, on 27 June 2007 the Commission issued Reasoned Opinions to 14 Member States that have not transposed Directive 2000/43/EC correctly. I want to state that the factual grounds that gave rise to these reasoned opinions vary of course from country to country as does their gravity. In any event, 14 states have received these reasoned opinions. 2007 is the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All and it has given the public authorities and civil society an incentive to organise actions and campaigns focusing on the benefits of diversity and non-discrimination. The fight against discrimination must constantly be at the forefront of our mind. In 2008 the Commission will submit proposals for the European Year of Equal Opportunities follow-up programmes: these may contain measures for finalising the framework of anti-discrimination legislation. An on-line consultation that was launched in July and will last until mid-October forms part of preparations for assessing the corresponding impact. I would also like to state that the Commission rejects all forms of homophobia and promotes a society based on tolerance and respect. It welcomed the European Parliament resolution of 26 April 2007 on homophobia in Europe. In this context the Commission regrets that local authorities did not grant the necessary permissions for the truck promoting diversity in Europe to visit Vilnius on 25 May as had been planned, and banned the accompanying gay parade. The Commission also regrets that the participants in the march for diversity during the Romanian GayFest 2007 festival on 11 June (which received moral support and used the European Year logo) were intimidated by extremist groups and needed police protection. The Racial Equality Directive I mentioned earlier prevents discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin. I would like to stress that this applies in full to the Roma as well. Furthermore, the Commission is of the opinion that in order to be applied properly, the EU legislation must be complemented by information campaigns that would inform the Roma of their rights, and by events that will inform the general public about the rights and duties resulting from the anti-discrimination law. In 2007, the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All, events focusing on the Roma are taking place in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Finland and Slovakia. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 81

Actions aimed at combating discrimination against the Roma are also financed under the auspices of the European Social Fund and PROGRESS 2007–2013, a programme for employment and social solidarity, which supports capacity-building among the Roma.

Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Although it is regrettable that 14 Member States have had to have reasoned opinions, I am, at least, delighted that the Commission is taking forceful infringement proceedings, because at the moment we have had a complete gap between the letter of the legislation and what is actually happening. Commissioner Špidla has mentioned some of the problems relating to the Equality truck denied access to Vilnius. Apparently, half of Lithuanian MPs think that homosexuality is a perversion. You have real problems in the public and governmental sector. Last week, the Fundamental Rights Agency said that many Member States were failing to properly enforce race discrimination legislation, so I hope that toughness goes on because we really need it. Will you take account in the infringement proceedings of the various pronouncements and the tolerance of extremism by ministers and public officials?

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) I do not think that the speech by the honourable Member contained any questions but I would like to endorse the opinion she expressed in any case. Both of the Directives on non-discrimination are fundamental European laws. We must ensure that they are fully transposed and we must ensure that non-discrimination, equal opportunities and tolerance continue to be fundamental values that are actively implemented. That is why the European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against 14 Member States.

However, I also want to say that in general the individual Member States accept these high values and that the majority of problems we have been debating, problems that necessitate the initiation of infringement proceedings, are of a legislative and therefore a technical/administrative nature. They do not represent a trend of a Member State rejecting the Treaties.

President. − We now have a series of five questions relating to persons with disabilities. I understand that the questioners were possibly expecting a block answer. I would not want to deprive anyone of an individual answer, but if you wish to deal with the questions together, Commissioner, I would be happy for you to do so. First, however, I should like to take some guidance from one of the questioners before we proceed.

Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – I too would be happy if the Commissioner would answer all the questions together, if that were possible. But, if not, perhaps you might allow him to read the answers to all five, if he has separate answers, and we will take all of the supplementaries at the end of the five replies.

President. − I am happy to do that. I am happy to do whatever the Commissioner feels comfortable with to make sure that Members all get an answer to what they have asked, but I am also clear that the questions are linked and that we would otherwise risk going around in circles. But I am happy with whatever the Commissioner feels he can best deliver to us.

President. − Question No 43 by Richard Howitt (H-0560/07) Subject: Backing independent living with action Will the European Commission join me in welcoming people with severe and multiple disabilities who form part of the European Network for Independent Living (ENIL) to Strasbourg this week? In response to Parliament’s resolution (P6_TA(2006)0527) on the Commission’s biennial report on disability, what progress has the Commission made in promoting the concept of ‘independent living’ for disabled people, including the right to retain funding for ‘personal assistance’ when moving between EU Member States for employment, education or residence? Will the Commission bring forward a Europe-wide policy on personal assistance? Question No 44 by Evangelia Tzampazi (H-0562/07) Subject: Promotion of independent living for persons with disabilities De-institutionalisation and greater autonomy are among the priorities of the European Union Disability Strategy. What progress has the Commission made to date as regards the recommendations of the study drawn up on the de-institutionalisation of persons with disabilities? Does it agree that an increasing number 82 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

of persons with disabilities are being institutionalised? What further measures does it intend to take to tackle this challenge? Question No 45 by Proinsias De Rossa (H-0569/07) Subject: Rights of people with a disability Welcoming the Commission's commitment to a 'human rights' approach to disability since its 1996 Communication, and acknowledging the presence in Strasbourg of the European Network for Independent Living, does the Commission accept that the human rights of people with a disability are abused in the European Union as well as across the rest of the world? Which further steps does the Commission plan to take to address such abuses in the EU? Question No 46 by Grazyna Staniszewska (H-0570/07) Subject: Mainstreaming for disabled people Welcoming the Commission's support for the principle of mainstreaming for disabled people, on how many occasions has the Inter-Service Group organised by DG Employment and Social Affairs met during 2007, and which Directorates-General of the Commission have not been present at these meetings? In connection with this week's visit to Strasbourg by the European Network for Independent Living, and welcoming the Commission's commitment to 'ring fence' a fixed percentage of its overseas development assistance to health, education and social services, which steps is the Commission making to make sure community development projects for disabled people benefit from these funds?

Question No 47 by Kathy Sinnott (H-0589/07) Subject: Representation of disabled people Could the European Commission describe which arrangements are in place to guarantee representation of disabled people and organisations of disabled people in EU social inclusion strategies? In line with the principle endorsed by the Commission of ‘nothing about us without us’, what further steps does the Commission plan in this regard?

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Since I am going to try to give a very brief reply to all of the questions together, I will concentrate only on the most important issues. A program focusing on the active integration of disabled people has been developed since 2006 as part of the European Action Plan for people with disabilities. At the heart of this program is the right of disabled people to independent living. Since the Commission advocates de-institutionalisation and since the general opinion in this area is similar, the Commission is also examining alternatives to care provided in sheltered institutions. The Commission supports research into suitable methods for so-called de-institutionalisation. Independent living for disabled people must be supported by the provision of quality community services to these people; not only of a physical nature but also respect for human dignity. Drawing on my own personal experience I can say that educating the people who provide these services to persons dependent on them is very important for the quality of the social services. The way in which the basic rights of disabled people are observed and the quality of their lives depend to a large degree on education. As I have already mentioned, the Commission is using its right to actively support the development of community services and I want to say that in this process the Commission always concentrates on the quality of life of individuals. Indeed, de-institutionalisation itself does not automatically guarantee an improved quality of life and autonomy: they are only guaranteed when de-institutionalisation is replaced by community services of a corresponding quality and standard. In this context, the Commission has requested a study on social integration, the purpose of which is to assess the situation of disabled people in large sheltered institutions where, as you know, there are many instances where the standards and way of life are not up to the standards and quality the people undoubtedly deserve. We must therefore monitor this situation to ensure that it is improved. However, the Commission cannot confirm the opinion that the number of people in sheltered institutions is on the increase. We do not have the figures at our disposal but, as I have already said, de-institutionalisation is the principle we follow and we will continue to follow that path. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 83

I would also like to stress that we welcome initiatives that concentrate on the basic principles of the quality of provision of social care at a European level. I would stress, too, that the fact that the issue of the rights of disabled people has been elevated to an international level thanks to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is, in my opinion, a huge step forward. The Commission encourages the Member States to ratify this Convention and to give a concrete response to it as quickly as possible. The Commission has pledged to take account of the needs and rights of disabled persons and to include them in all relevant EU strategies. The issue of providing for the needs of disabled people is dealt with, at EU level, by the Commission’s Inter-Service Group on Disability, as well as through cooperation with the Member States and parties concerned, including disabled persons, in the High Level Group on Disability in the European Union. Since 2000 the European Community has co-financed approximately 160 projects for disabled persons in developing countries amounting to EUR 100 million. These projects provide support for Eastern Europe, the Middle East and ACP countries and concentrate on people with mental and physical disabilities, capacity-building, community rehabilitation, the rights of disabled people, social inclusion, poverty reduction, de-institutionalisation, etc. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that the Commission implements active policies for disabled people and that we have achieved significant progress within the European Union. However, as I said when answering a previous question, we still have a long way to go. We have been working on the basic process of possible amendments to the existing European legislation. This is what I was talking about when replying to the question about the Directives on non-discrimination.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have tried briefly to touch on the most important issues and due to the rather improvised nature of this debate I may well have neglected some issues while there are others that I might not have explained quite clearly. Therefore, I would suggest – if this is acceptable – that I now listen to your supplementary questions and respond to them. However, I will respond again in writing to the questions that I have now answered orally so that they receive the attention they deserve.

Richard Howitt (PSE). – Madam President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for his flexibility. A number of us who are active in the Disability Intergroup of Parliament have chosen to table these questions to mark the presence in Strasbourg of some 200 people with severe and multiple disabilities, who are living in institutions throughout Europe and are part of what is called the European Network on Independent Living. I know they will be very proud that this Parliament is addressing their concerns and needs in this Question Time. I wonder if the Commissioner could join me and if you, Madam President, could join me in welcoming their representatives to the Chamber. I wonder if, Commissioner, you could confirm that the European Network on Independent Living, as a user-led organisation run for and by disabled people, represents a very important interest group for disabled people in Europe and that you would join me in hoping that they could benefit from the support for coordination of disability organisations Europe-wide currently benefiting organisations such as the European Blind Union and the European Union of the Deaf in the future. Secondly and finally, Commissioner, you said some very good words, which I thank you for, about independent living and community care for disabled people. The point in my question about a European strategy for personal assistance, enabling professional workers who are managed by and employed by disabled people to meet their care needs, is a very important objective of this freedom ride of the European Network on Independent Living, and I hope you will commit yourself to advancing their cause in this respect.

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, representatives of disabled groups: conducting a dialogue with those who should sit around the table, with those who have direct vested interests, is something at the very heart of practically all European strategies. I cannot imagine us developing any strategy, any plan without such a dialogue. This dialogue is comprehensive and valuable but I think that we should search for yet more effective methods and solutions.

The Commission intends to contribute to progress in this matter by coordinating the mutual exchange of opinions and other actions supporting the exchange of information. It will also provide an emphatic reminder of the need to develop important paths for the preparation of new strategies, jointly approved by the Member States, to be submitted in the autumn of 2008. In other words, we have a lot of work to do together. 84 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Evangelia Tzampazi (PSE). – (EL) Commissioner, contrary to the right of all European citizens, a significant number of disabled people are forced to live in institutions, regardless of their choice. Since the active integration of the disabled into economic and social life depends on their ability to live independently, I should like to ask whether the European Commission intends to adopt legislative measures to guarantee this right.

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am of the opinion that the current European legislation is of a high quality compared with the rest of the world. The adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is extremely important too. It is also clear that de-institutionalisation forms a part of all European strategies in this field, including those that are funded by our financial instruments. This transition is possible. There are countries that have done away with institutional care completely, to the benefit of disabled persons – there may be only a few of them but they do exist – and these prove that this goal can be achieved. On the other hand, it is a goal that has to be achieved gradually and in a very organic way because, as I have already said, de-institutionalisation that lacks corresponding safety provisions may conversely worsen the position of disabled people, as has been demonstrated in many countries around the world. I am thinking in particular of cases of de-institutionalisation in the United States where this route, in the absence of corresponding safety provisions, has proved to be very controversial.

Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Madam President, it is true that progress has been made but it has to be said that progress is painfully slow. Indeed, a lot of the progress would not have been made without the campaigning that has been undertaken by people with disabilities themselves. What I want to ask you specifically, Commissioner, with regard to the study you mentioned on integration into society: does this study deal with the issue of independent living? Of course, it is extremely important that quality community services are put in place in order to ensure that people can be taken out of institutions. However, these community care services need to be directed towards enabling people with disabilities to lead independent lives, which is a crucial demand for people with disabilities. Linked to that, as a European Union, we need to look at how, for instance, the right to personal assistance could be made available to people wherever they move to within the European Union. Could I ask if that aspect of independent living is being addressed by the study and, if not, would you undertake that a study of the availability of personal assistance and the generalisation of such a scheme across the European Union could be addressed, and indeed the portability of it?

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I think that have you touched on very serious issues that are generally linked to the issue of disability. Firstly, I would like to say that unfortunately at present we do not have as yet at our disposal comparable data that provides a good basis for a reliable European strategy. Acquiring data that can be interpreted as such is one of the Commission’s goals. We also have to realise that the debate you started and the issue you mentioned are very closely connected to the debate on services, on generally beneficial social services. Again, this is a related topic. I would also like to stress that a Directive concerning air traffic and the mobility of workers or mobility of people within the European Union has been implemented, and that of course there are plans to extend these regulations to other types of transport, which is logical. There is also the issue of the transferability and accessibility of social services or various social measures for disabled people. This issue is dealt with within the framework of implementation of Regulation 1408/71/EEC on the coordination of social security schemes and in the Directive on the portability of supplementary pension rights. The aim of all of these tools is fundamentally to reinforce the values of, and opportunities for, an independent life, with a corresponding degree of safety, anywhere in the European Union.

Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – I can be brief because many of my questions have been asked. Some EU Member States will be proactive in acknowledging the rights of their citizens with disabilities. Some, unfortunately, resist improvement of standards and even create or tolerate obstacles. We have strategies and action plans, which are well and good, but only an enforceable disability directive has a chance of bringing errant states – like the one I live in – into line. When can we expect this directive, Commissioner? 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 85

Could you confirm that you will be giving written answers to the five questions?

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in my first reply dealing with the Directives on non-discrimination I mentioned a study drafted within the framework of a process for the assessment of implementation and effectiveness, which examines whether and how it would be suitable to amend the relevant European legislation. One of the issues this study will certainly look into is the possibility of drafting a separate directive dealing with disabled people. This issue is under discussion and we are using the appropriate European means to determine which method is the most effective for achieving the goal in question. As I said in my previous remarks, of course I will reply to all questions in writing in case some questions were not answered sufficiently due to the nature of this slightly improvised session. That is clear. I will provide additional written answers to all the questions raised during this debate.

President. − Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you for the manner in which we have been able to conduct these last questions. I think that has been helpful and, I hope, satisfactory. Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers, apart from Question 58, which has been withdrawn, and Question 73, which is inadmissible (see Annex). That concludes Question Time.

18. Membership of Parliament: see Minutes

19. Documents received: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 19.35 and resumed at 21.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS Vice-President

20. Reducing alcohol-related harm (debate)

President. − The next item is the report by Alessandro Foglietta, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on a European Union strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol-related harm (2007/2005(INI)) (A6-0303/2007).

Alessandro Foglietta (UEN), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is very satisfying to see the culmination and conclusion of such an important report. I should like to offer my warmest thanks to colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs, the groups and the officials who have made this outcome possible. Reducing harmful alcohol consumption has in recent years become one of the priorities of health and social policies throughout the world, and the European Union is playing its part here too. The European Commission gave us a text that contained a great deal of food for thought, which we have tried to build on and supplement. Examination of the harm caused by alcohol abuse gave an extremely bleak and worrying picture: very high mortality among young people, in particular as a result of road accidents, ill-treatment in the family, growing numbers of cases of foetal alcohol syndrome, increasingly widespread liver disease and alcohol dependence, among young people as well, in all the Member States. The costs of health treatment amount in Europe to EUR 17 billion, alongside the EUR 5 billion spent on treatment and prevention. It should be stressed that it is alcohol abuse that is the problem; alcohol consumption cannot be demonised per se since it is part of the culture, history and traditions of many Member States and the quality of some alcohol products in many cases makes them the jewel in the crown of the producer countries. The employment aspect should not be forgotten either. It is estimated that alcohol production and processing provides jobs for over a million people in Europe. The European Commission, which I thank, presented a communication focusing on a number of priorities which we have taken up while attempting to extend their scope through various key points: in-depth examination of the problem of consumption by young people, comprehensive provision of information, 86 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

assistance and prevention, better public information campaigns making the community aware of the risks that they run when they consume alcohol irresponsibly, and examination of the problems of violence, especially domestic, connected with alcohol consumption. In particular, measures to counter the harm resulting from abuse include: awareness-raising and risk education campaigns in schools, targeted on parents as well, making more public transport available as an alternative to private transport for people leaving night-time venues and support for initiatives by individual States focusing on the ‘don’t drink and drive’ principle, a European prize for the best information campaign run in schools, financial support for the dissemination of instruments enabling people themselves to monitor their blood alcohol content, and strict action against ‘alcopops’. Another of the innovative points of the report, which has been welcomed by the Commission, is the idea of using the so-called brief intervention to disseminate a responsible and informed approach to alcohol consumption. General practitioners, through the daily and direct relationship that they have with patients, could be a valuable resource for identifying alcohol-related problems even before patients themselves become aware of them: a simple questionnaire, known as an audit, which is already being tried out in some European cities, could supplement such personal action. Other measures in particular include the promotion of measures to reduce the road accidents caused by alcohol abuse, for instance by stepping up checks on drink-driving, disseminating tests enabling people themselves to monitor their blood alcohol content, offering incentives for ‘designated-driver’ programmes, lowering admissible blood alcohol contents and introducing harsher penalties for drink-drivers.

The report proposes, and here it seems to have the support of all the European Parliament’s groups, a blood alcohol content limit which is as close as possible to 0 for new drivers, in order to provide a concrete foundation for the strategy which goes beyond the simple statement of principle and the caution shown by the Commission in its text, even though many of the measures that could be adopted to counter alcohol abuse come within the competence of the individual States, especially measures in the health and safety field. The European Union can try to stimulate, offer incentives for, promote and suggest the adoption of some of these measures. One of the issues on which consensus was lacking was undoubtedly the question of labelling to highlight the risks and dangers of excessive alcohol consumption. On a personal level, I feel that I should ask the Commission for a detailed study from which the various systems of information and communication, including labelling, can be drawn up. In conclusion, the strategy, as amended by Parliament, could provide substantial added value over individual national policies, especially as it would be possible to direct the work of the Member States towards common objectives. In the text of the report, I have tried above all to tackle this issue in a balanced and common-sense way, avoiding any demonisation of moderate alcohol consumption in order to take account of the centuries-old tradition of responsible drinking, and by trying to suggest measures likely to counter the problems which are unfortunately now so common in Europe and throughout the world. I should like to thank everyone for their support and cooperation.

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for the excellent work and the very good report that he has produced, and also the other members of the committee who have supported him and worked with him in producing such an interesting, useful and positive report. I do not want to repeat much of what has been included in the communication or in the report, and I begin by saying that I am very happy that we see eye to eye as to how we can solve and deal with such a difficult and important problem. We know the statistics, which are worrying. Almost 200 000 people a year in the European Union die of diseases related to excessive alcohol consumption. We have 43-45 million people who drink at hazardous levels in the European Union which amounts to 70.4% of all ill health and early deaths, and this is one of the largest causes of death among young people. So the statistics are worrying, but we have to emphasise from the outset that we are not dealing with alcohol as a product on its own: it is the excessive consumption and the abuse of alcohol that are creating these problems. Sometimes it makes it more difficult to educate and teach people how to consume, in moderate and more responsible ways, a product which has been around for centuries; it is the excess or the abuse that is causing the problems. I am very happy that Parliament agrees with the need for a European strategy and for European action in this respect. It is true that we have to complement the policy of the Member States, as is stated in Article 152, 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 87

but that does not mean that we do nothing. On the contrary, we are there to support, complement and add to the actions taken by the Member States. It is also true that we have different cultures and different traditions in the Member States but, unfortunately, we now see the problems that until recently existed only in some Member States spreading everywhere in the European Union. Unfortunately, bad habits travel fast and are very easily copied, especially by young people. The possibility exists to exchange best practice through cooperation and working together, before it is too late. We can take action before the problem gets out of hand, and this is one of the most important aspects of this strategy. We should focus on young people. Binge drinking is now a main concern regarding young people, but drink-driving is also one of the highest causes of deaths among young people. At the same time, it is extremely important to focus on the priorities, and I am glad that the report agrees with the Commission on the main priorities, as I said, especially regarding young people, but also pregnant women. Unfortunately, it is still a problem in the European Union that we still have children born with problems because of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. One would have expected, in this day and age, with the highest level of education in the European Union, this would not happen, but unfortunately it does. I have noted with great interest the reference made in the report to the problem among elderly people. This will be seriously taken into consideration for the next actions because I can see that this can also be a serious social and health problem.

The European Union as a whole will work on two levels. Firstly, there is the Committee on National Policy and Action, where the Member States are represented, and this will coordinate national alcohol policies and develop further policies, especially those identified in the communication. But, at the same time, we also have the European Alcohol and Health Forum, where all the stakeholders are present and there we will develop concrete actions at the appropriate levels. However, it will not be a debating society or just a ‘talk show’. On the contrary, we are asking for firm commitments which will not only have to produce specific results but also will have to be made public and closely monitored, and the results of the monitoring will also be made public. We are optimistic that this will be able to deal with some complicated issues, for example responsible marketing, responsible advertising – as identified in the report – and, at the same time, other aspects, like responsible serving, because it is not just the producers but also the retailers who have a serious responsibility in this area, and we will focus on this as well. Most of the issues raised in the report confirm the policy orientations set out in the strategy outlined in the Commission’s communication. Some points strive to further develop this strategy and, of course, I will pay close attention to these; other points go beyond the recommendations of the Commission’s communication on some issues, such as labelling and taxation. We will reflect on these issues as well. Concerning the warning labels on alcoholic drinks, which I know has been an issue of great debate both when the communication was being drafted and in Parliament as well, we will study the experience obtained by Member States which are already in the process of introducing them and we will explore the possibility, in cooperation with the Member States, of developing official common approaches throughout the Community regarding this issue. We have evidence that warning labels raise awareness – and that is why Member States introduced them – but, at the same time, they have to be part of a broader strategy; on their own, they cannot achieve the goals we wish for. Therefore, we need campaigns for raising awareness of education programmes. For example, we can put warning labels on bottles, but what happens to drinks served in restaurants, bars and homes where the consumer does not see the bottle and, therefore, does not see the label? So we have to come up with new ideas, for example leaflets accompanying purchases of alcoholic beverages and advice from doctors, as was mentioned in the report. These are important aspects. Responsible communication, responsible sales and responsible marketing are also important aspects, and we have what is provided in the audiovisual services legislation. However, through the forum, we can develop a code of conduct to be complied with by all stakeholders. I should like to finish by saying that addressing alcoholic-related harm is a difficult challenge, precisely because we have to deal with one particular aspect, the excessive consumption and not the product itself. However, I believe we are moving in the right direction, before the problem becomes unmanageable. So I am looking forward to achieving concrete results, in the bodies I mentioned earlier, but, most importantly, in close cooperation with Parliament, and I am looking forward to your support in this continuous effort. 88 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Renate Sommer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a fact that harmful and risky alcohol consumption has a considerable health, economic and social impact. It is, however, also a fact that alcohol forms part of the European cultural heritage and the majority of Europeans take a responsible attitude to it. So we do not want to condemn alcohol as such or lay down new laws. What we want to do is to focus on groups at risk and risky situations. A young person who drinks him or herself into oblivion, a pregnant women who damages her unborn child because of alcohol consumption, or a drunken driver who puts himself or others in danger: it is in precisely those areas that we need to act. This report provides an excellent basis for doing so. It is balanced, targeted and includes all stakeholders: Member States, the alcohol industry, retailers, the catering industry, doctors, schools and parents. It clearly demarcates the various powers. The Member States are the main players. The EU only has a supporting role. Its task is to collect data, point to well-established procedures and draw up and support information campaigns. It is up to Member States to improve the implementation of existing national legislation. What, after all, is the point of strict youth protection legislation if it is not observed and if offences go unpunished? We also recommend a 0.00% limit for young newly-qualified drivers and professional lorry drivers. The alcohol industry should undertake to refrain from directing alcohol advertising at young people. My Group is not, however, in favour of obligatory warnings on alcoholic beverages, which is why I ask you to support the draft amendments deleting provisions to that effect from the report. It is well known, and surveys confirm it, that warning labels have no effect in this case. On the contrary, people need to be informed as early as possible about the dangers of alcohol abuse. We must inform and we must convince, rather than prescribe and prohibit. I think we have reached the point where we must realise that we are the representatives of the people, not their educators. I thank Mr Foglietta, the rapporteur, for the close collaboration.

Edite Estrela, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, fellow Members, I should like first to congratulate Mr Foglietta on his work. He has produced a balanced report, showing a grasp of the problem and presenting sensible and generally speaking suitable proposals for dealing with the situation. We agree with the objectives of encouraging responsible patterns of consumption and avoiding alcohol abuse in general and especially in the case of minors, pregnant women and drivers – we are all agreed. The proposals presented by my Group are on the same lines: we are against alcohol abuse, but it is important to distinguish between moderate and responsible consumption and abuse. Moderate and responsible consumption is not bad, on the contrary moderate consumption of wine, for example, is positively good for the health. Also, habits in alcohol consumption vary widely in different parts of Europe. In the south, there is a culture of moderate consumption of beverages, such as wine and beer, with a relatively low alcohol content. Beverages of this kind are part of the culture in some parts of Europe and make an important contribution to the local economy. So, in our view, it does not make sense to attach warning labels indiscriminately to bottles of wine like the labels on cigarette packets, for example. Tobacco always damages health but alcohol only does in cases of alcohol abuse. We also think information and awareness-raising campaigns are needed, to alert people to the risks of alcohol abuse. These campaigns should start in schools. This is a subject that must be approached sensibly, without preconceived fundamentalist ideas. We are worried about the increase in alcohol consumption among young people, about the fact that they are starting to drink at an increasingly early age, mixing alcohol with drugs, and driving under the influence. These situations must be dealt with by all possible means, both at national and at European level, because the future of our young people is at stake. We agree with most of the measures proposed to address the risks arising from excessive consumption of alcohol by young people, and with the need for measures to tackle the harmful social impact of alcohol abuse, particularly domestic violence – we know that the incidence of domestic violence resulting from alcohol abuse is very high. In most Member States, the laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to young people are adequate; the problem is the low level of compliance. Member States must strengthen the control mechanisms and secure compliance with the legislation involving the business sector, in other words we must all take responsibility and fight abuse, but we must not demonise moderate or irresponsible consumption. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 89

Jules Maaten, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, the European Commission puts the total economic cost of alcohol abuse in Europe at 125 000 million euros a year and estimates that it is responsible for a quarter of all crimes of violence. Some more statistics: drinking alcohol during pregnancy is the leading cause of mental and physical defects in children. About 1% of the European population live with the effects of foetal alcohol syndrome. That means nearly five million Europeans, when foetal alcohol syndrome is entirely preventable. Sixty per cent of people who suffer foetal alcohol syndrome end up in prison or in psychiatric institutions. This afternoon we had a meeting, organised together with Eurocare, with a visiting specialist from my own country of the Netherlands, Dr Nico van der Lely. He said that the number of people requiring treatment for alcohol poisoning in his hospital, the Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis in Delft, had doubled over a five-year period and that in children between the ages of 10 and 15 it had actually increased six-fold. Binge drinking in particular, where you literally drank yourself under the table, seemed to be popular. During the first half of this year a good 80 juveniles had already been admitted to the Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis in Delft as a result of excessive drinking. There are many measures which can and should be taken. Probably the most important factors here will be cost and availability plus, of course, education and information. The question is: who is best placed to handle this? The situation varies widely from one Member State to another, as the Commissioner rightly points out. So very often help will be given locally by local authorities and measures will most effectively be taken by doctors or the Member States. And under the Treaty there is little scope for it to be otherwise. It is important to have an ambitious alcohol strategy for Europe, but not to get in the way of Member States' own plans. Europe must lay down broad policy lines, and they must be clear. Alcohol abuse needs to be tackled energetically, especially amongst the young, and Europe must give the Member States as much support as it can. I am very loath to announce legislation which we cannot then carry through, because that does nothing to increase confidence in our institutions. Mr President, I talked about foetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol abuse in juveniles. It is indeed a European problem, as the Commissioner rightly says. So I think the Member States must face up to their responsibility here and do so at European level. I think that European level is the right place for agreeing clear targets for reducing foetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol abuse in juveniles. And the resolution says as much. To my mind it could have been spelled out in more concrete terms than it in fact is, but if the Member States are prepared to agree this, then at least we shall have some kind of a clear-cut result, because I do not believe in saying that subsidiarity is important but then doing absolutely nothing. Lastly, I am keen to know what the results of labelling have been. In France labels now carry a warning against alcohol consumption by pregnant women. If we have those results and it appears that labelling works, I think we should consider similar action at European level. There are also single-market reasons for doing so. We can and should do this. But I think we should only do it if it is effective, in which case I shall be happy to consider it.

Roberta Angelilli, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should firstly like to congratulate Mr Foglietta for his excellent work: his report very effectively tackles a tragically topical issue, that of alcohol abuse, in particular by minors. It has already been said that the aim is in no way to criminalise consumption of alcohol which, when taken in moderate quantities, may well have health benefits. The aim is rather to take a strong line against the spread of alcohol consumption among the very young. Alcohol is often taken with drugs or alcohol itself may end up as a drug. Alcohol abuse is now a social emergency among young people because it brings with it very serious physical and psychological damage, not to mention the victims of road accidents which are increasingly being caused by drink-drivers. In Europe, Italy is sadly in the lead here with the highest number of road traffic accidents, half of whose victims are young people aged under thirty. In the majority of cases, they lose their lives at weekends, during the evening, during the night, often returning from a party or a discotheque after consuming excessive amounts of alcohol. In conclusion, Mr President, this is an excellent report, whose line we support as it is capable of reconciling prevention of the problem with appropriate action in terms of education and information and with zero tolerance for those failing to abide by the rules.

Hiltrud Breyer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, a European alcohol strategy is long overdue, but we would have liked to have seen it brought forward more boldly and courageously. We have heard about the horrendous costs of EUR 125 billion a year, not to mention the great human suffering resulting from accidents or domestic violence, or the 10 million children living in families with alcohol problems. That is why it is important not to bow to the massive pressure being exerted by the alcohol lobby. 90 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

I am hugely disappointed by the announcements made by the speakers from the two big Groups, who obviously do not endorse the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, whose key concern is to bring in warning labels together with bans on advertising. Mr Maaten told us about the risks, about the major problem of drinking during pregnancy, about the appalling effects of foetal alcohol syndrome and the irreversible damage done to the development of the child’s brain. We know about the experiences in the USA and today experts have again confirmed that warnings do have the required effect, especially in pointing out to pregnant women that drinking has devastating effects. Why then are we not courageous enough to say that we are prepared to implement these ideas transparently and to use warning labels as wake-up calls for the women concerned? Why do we bow to the pressure of the lobby industry? I beg you once again from my heart: we would be acting like cowards if we gave way and did not have the courage to introduce those warnings, which have proved effective, and to endorse the vote by the Committee on Public Health. The same applies to advertising bans. We know, and the WHO has said it, that the European Union would save EUR 95 billion a year if we really introduced advertising bans and warning labels. After all, we know that adverts are particularly persuasive in inducing young people to consume. That is why I really can only beg you from my heart to have the courage tomorrow to implement this report. Without legislative measures in the field of warning labels and advertising bans, the alcohol strategy will be a paper tiger.

Jiří Maštálka, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Mr President, when I was discussing the original version of the strategy with an expert in the Czech Republic, he made just one comment: ‘too little, too late’. I would like to congratulate and thank the rapporteur for improving this outlook and for managing to give the text of this strategy a very positive direction. I would like to stress the following points in particular. Firstly, the amended text takes a positive attitude to the fact that it is necessary to spend more money on information and prevention programs to combat alcoholism. Secondly, the strategy focuses on young people, who represent a category that is particularly at risk. In this context, I welcome and support in particular Article 7 on university students and Article 16, which makes it obligatory to include warnings on labels. Thirdly, I believe that the text of Article 21, which draws attention to the relationship between sick leave and alcohol consumption, is very important. We must not forget that if the European workforce is affected by alcohol, it will not be very competitive in a global world. I have a few doubts about the text of Article 2, which refers to a study by the World Health Organisation about the usefulness of alcohol in prevention of some diseases. With due respect to the WHO, I would like to point out that there are expert analyses available on this topic, such as the study by the team lead by Mrs Fillmore that was published in 2006: these studies show that analysis of the benefits of alcohol was based on the wrong data and that it also included, for example, older people who have stopped drinking and casual drinkers. The findings of this study are therefore fairly problematic. There is also the question of the message we want to convey to citizens with this text in Article 2. I hope that the message is not that if alcohol is drunk in small quantities, no amount will prove harmful. Although I have made this one criticism, I very much support the strategy, that is, the text that was amended in mutual cooperation with the rapporteur, and I believe that it will be beneficial for our fellow citizens.

Hélène Goudin, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) Mr President, in my capacity as shadow rapporteur, I want to thank Mr Foglietta for his excellent cooperation. The report describes in detail the measures that should be taken by the EU to reduce alcohol-related harm in the Member States. Criminal law is a national matter, however, not an EU matter. We cannot have opinions on what sort of penalties the Member States should issue for drink-driving or how long driving licences can be withdrawn for these types of offence. Criminal law is a strictly national preserve and must remain so. It is also proposed that information campaigns be run at EU level even through it is in fact recognised that each Member State has its own drinking culture. Each country knows best how to prevent alcohol-related harm on the basis of its own social experiences, traditions and resources. It is beneficial to exchange information but the initiative must come from the Member States and not from Brussels. The setting-up of a European prize is another way to increase the EU’s influence in these matters. We need to review cooperation where the EU is competent, for example through the internal market. The Environment Committee is trying to interfere with national matters. So I now urge everyone to rap the committee’s knuckles. And as far as the alcohol content limit is concerned, someone is equally dangerous whether they are a young driver, an old driver or a professional driver if they have been drinking and are out in traffic. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 91

John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I very much welcome this report and the compromise position that came from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, with the sole exception of the clause on labelling, which we will try to put right in the vote tomorrow. I start from the belief that alcohol can be good for you in regular and limited quantities, particularly at the years of discretion which you and I have reached. It is good for people as we approach maturity. However, it can be bad for us, and that is what this report is about: it is about the binge drinking, the under-age drinking and the drink-driving; it is about the consequences of alcohol consumption in terms of the deaths of 195 000 people in Europe from accidents, violence, liver disease, lung disease, breast cancer, mental disorders, addiction, cardiovascular, foetal and reproductive problems and so forth and so on. It is the third-biggest cause of early death. That is why we need a sensible drinking policy; that is why we urge the Commissioner to stick to that sensible message that he began with and why we would suggest that he does not go down the road of trying to harmonise criminal law, not least because you cannot harmonise the enforcement of criminal law, and we know that in drink-driving that is a major problem between Member States. Equally, it is a mistake to try to harmonise labelling. By all means, let us see what France does and let us learn from the lessons that it comes up with. However, our message tonight is: let us have a sensible policy for sensible drinking, recognising the benefits but also the risks and the hazards of alcohol, some of which can be drunk to excess, some of which can be drunk to such excess that it is alcoholism. But alcohol is with us and we need to learn to live with it.

Karin Scheele (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, our rapporteur and Commissioner Kyprianou made it quite clear in their opening statements that we are concerned not with condemning alcohol as a product but with its abuse. Nor is this discussion about offering our citizens alcohol, as the report also makes clear. Let me simply remind Members of the regulation on health-related information that we adopted in this House last year. It bans health-related labelling on alcoholic drinks. The European Parliament decided to endorse that too, on the basis of very good arguments. The resolution incorporates the priorities set out in the Commission’s communication of last October – to reduce the number of injuries and deaths resulting from alcohol-related road traffic accidents. The focus on alcohol abuse by young people and children is important, but it would be a strategic mistake to pretend that only young people are affected by alcohol abuse and its adverse effects in the European Union. Precisely because alcohol and the moderate consumption of alcohol are important components of our European culture – and that should remain the case and nor should it be criticised – we must give particular priority to raising awareness about alcohol consumption during pregnancy. The consumption even of small quantities of alcohol during pregnancy can adversely affect the child’s development. I do not think the discussion about whether or not to introduce labelling will come to an end with tomorrow’s vote, and in fact Commissioner Kyprianou has indicated that the Commission will very carefully observe Member States’ experiences and then possibly take measures at European level.

Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, alcohol-related mortality and morbidity affect hundreds of thousands of EU citizens every year and alcohol competes strongly with tobacco as a main cause of preventable serious harm to humans. Road traffic accidents, domestic violence, sexual abuse of children, hepatic cancer, liver cirrhosis and foetal damage are just some of the known detriments of alcohol. Yet alcohol is widely available at affordable prices everywhere in Europe. It is regarded as a necessary component in most social events, including many such events in the European Parliament. Its production is supported and subsidised by the EU. Its consumption is extensively and directly advertised on TV, radio and the press, and most alcoholic beverages carry no proper health hazard warning. Why is this so? Why are national governments, national parliaments and the EU so tolerant of alcohol? Is it because of the very strong alcohol industry-related lobby? Is it because there is, historically, a general degree of naivety as regards this substance? Is it because of an as yet not well understood psychological or cultural factor? The sad fact is that the EU strategy in reducing alcohol-related harm has fallen victim to the same factors. I dare say, respectfully, that this report, despite the noble intentions of the rapporteur, instead of tackling the problem drastically and effectively, merely scratches the surface and deals mildly mainly with heavy drinking and extreme drinking patterns, or drinking in particular circumstances, e.g. by children or pregnant women. I am not advocating alcohol prohibition, but I believe that our chance as MEPs to deal with alcohol 92 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

as a potentially killer drug of addiction, the use of which needs to be seriously, not mildly, restricted, has been missed. Unfortunately, the alcohol lobby has succeeded once again. This much watered-down alcohol strategy for Europe proved that the alcohol industry won and the EU citizens lost. Just as a piece of information, alcohol acts by interfering with the function of neurones in the central nervous system and by killing nerve cells which can never be replaced again in a person’s life. So, whether we drink little or much, the damage is there. It is just the degree of damage that differs.

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE). – (SV) I want to thank the Commission for its strategy. It initiates an important and necessary discussion about alcohol in Europe even though many practical measures that I had wanted to see are absent. Alcohol is not a normal product. It has side-effects on health and the internal market must therefore take health considerations into account. This does not mean banning alcohol. It means a balanced policy with health warnings and a fair policy on alcohol imports and advertising. No one is talking about a new EU competence here, only a better application of a competence. Is a warning label and time limits for television advertising too much to expect? Is it too much to expect, having due regard to the subsidiarity principle, to recommend zero tolerance of alcohol on the road, which saves many lives? Many seem to think that only young people, pregnant women, professional drivers and addicts can have problems with alcohol. That is wrong. Total freedom for the alcohol trade is not liberal. It reduces people’s freedom and increases the costs of healthcare unnecessarily. It reduces the freedom to feel safe on the road. It reduces the confidence in being able to go home safely from the pub and it reduces children’s safety in the home. It is anti-liberal not to take health considerations into account in alcohol policy.

Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Mr President, I should like to support the call in the report for society to address the problems of alcohol abuse. The social and economic impact of alcohol abuse on Ireland as a whole is almost incalculable. We should also look at good practice in other EU countries, for we could devise a much better long-term policy to tackle alcohol-related harm. The signs of alcohol abuse are discernible in the indiscriminate violence on the streets and in domestic violence. There should be interpreting! (The speaker continues in English.) People knew I was coming tonight, people knew I was speaking at this time, people know that my language is now a working language of the European Union. I gave proper notice. I would like there to be interpreting. I will be very unhappy if there is no interpreting for what I wish to say tonight. (The speaker reverts to Irish.) (GA) We need to exercise scrutiny. We have to deal with the matter of alcopops and the use of special offers and other marketing ploys designed to increase alcoholic drink sales among young people in particular. It would also be a good thing to put a warning on labels aimed especially at pregnant women. The sale of alcohol needs to be monitored more closely. (The speaker repeats her comments in English.) We need, certainly, a special focus on alcohol-related harm in young people. We need more stringent monitoring of the laws on selling alcohol to under-age children. We need to address the question of alcohol, alcopops, the use of special offers and other marketing devices designed to increase the sales of alcoholic drinks among young people in particular, looking at the availability of public transport at night, the encouragement of designator-driver programmes, and it would also be good to have labelling on alcoholic drinks specifically designed and directed towards women who are pregnant. (The speaker reverts to Irish.) (GA) I am most annoyed that interpreting is not available! (The speaker continues in English.)

I am very unhappy that there was no interpreting here. I have played fair with Parliament since my language became an official and working language and I had hoped that it would also play fair with me. (Applause) 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 93

Urszula Krupa (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, the resolutions that have been prepared and other preventative measures aimed at counteracting the negative effects of alcohol abuse cannot at the same time promote the consumption of alcohol advertised as being part of the European cultural heritage and lifestyle, as well as questionable WHO opinions about the health-promoting effects of alcohol, which are problematic, since the harmful effects of this product have been proven. A liberal law allowing children and young people to consume addictive substances, including alcohol in tubes or alcopops, at a time where there is an epidemic of psychological disorders would be both careless and reprehensible, and cannot be considered as counteracting, but rather as promoting, alcoholism and other addictions. Even the smallest dose of alcohol and narcotics given to a child is extremely harmful. It should be a priority to impose a strict ban on the advertising and supply of alcohol and narcotics to children and young people, including when this is done in a covert manner.

Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, alcohol abuse is currently a serious social problem in the European Union. In fact, the highest percentage of persons abusing alcohol is found in Europe. I do not believe, however, that one can make a comparison between tobacco products and alcohol. While it has been shown scientifically that tobacco products are harmful, alcohol is harmful only when consumed in excessive quantities or by persons who should not drink it. What is more, there is well-known research showing that small quantities of alcohol have a positive effect on circulation. The issue here is the drinking culture and the promotion of social responsibility by alcohol producers in Europe. Taking the above arguments into account, I believe there is no justification for labelling alcoholic beverages in a similar way to tobacco products. On the contrary, it would be much more effective for reducing alcohol consumption to avoid expensive procedures for harmonising the manufacture of packaging and invest money in information campaigns. It is our responsibility to reach high-risk groups such as pregnant women, young people and drivers through well-structured educational approaches. It would be worth extending standard campaigns to include alcopops, alcoholic beverages frequently consumed by young people, which are generally considered to be fairly harmless or even as not containing alcohol. Actions that I absolutely do support are moves to reduce to a minimum the permitted blood alcohol levels not just for young drivers, but also for persons working in public transport. All these measures, which are essentially hardly coercive, are however enormously effective and will help to limit the consumption of alcohol in Member States. It is also worth considering one additional issue: the consumption of alcohol and alcohol dependence, especially in young people, goes hand in hand with other addictions, which combine and often lead to tragedy. It would be worthwhile for Parliament and the Commission also to consider these other addictions among young people.

Dorette Corbey (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, alcohol-related damage is a growing problem. The figures speak for themselves. Five per cent of men and 1% of women are addicted to alcohol. Twenty-five per cent of deaths in young people aged 15 to 30 are alcohol-related. Child abuse is often the result of excessive drinking. These figures often conceal a lot of suffering. Addiction, medical problems, social misery, abuse, all these things are well known. Less well known are the serious consequences of drinking alcohol when pregnant. There may be serious harm to the unborn child. Children with foetal alcohol syndrome are damaged for life. It is increasingly recognised that drinking is extremely harmful to children and young people. Youth drinking can cause lasting damage and can adversely affect academic performance and IQ. Obviously, measures are needed quickly to dissuade youngsters and pregnant women from drinking. One of the most effective ways may be health warnings on bottles. So I urge Member States to bring forward proposals as soon as possible to make health warnings compulsory. In the absence of any European legislation each Member State is free to make its own rules. Warnings on bottles are effective, as studies in the USA have already shown. And I urge the drinks industry to take responsibility itself for warning young people and pregnant women about alcohol. Better to warn people now than face a whole lot of damage claims in ten years' time. Warnings are now a normal part of social responsibility, in which the drinks industry too must share.

Lastly, I call on the Commission to come up with adequate proposals at the earliest opportunity. It is hard to see why warnings on cigarette packets have not been followed by warnings against alcohol. So I urge the Commission please to waste no time in introducing measures to make health warnings aimed at young people and pregnant women compulsory. It is important to place the health of the public above the interests of the wine industry. 94 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur on this important report. I wish to draw attention to the role that alcohol plays in the incidence of suicide, with studies showing that over 20% of persons committing suicide used alcohol prior to death. Indeed, when the legal age for drinking alcohol was raised from 18 to 21 in the US, the most notable impact was on the reduction of accidents in the home, at work and on the roads, but there was also a 7% reduction in suicides. There are many excellent suggestions in this report that I support. However, I have one slight reservation concerning the part of recital K which states: ‘whereas measures should also be taken to prevent the consumption of alcohol by minors and pregnant women’. I know there are major issues with regard to foetal alcohol syndrome, and I am in favour of information labels, warning labels, curbs on advertising and pre- and post-natal support, but the suggestion that we should prevent pregnant women from taking a drink is a step too far. We are not in the business of prohibition – that does not work – but we need what is proposed in this report, and much more.

Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, the report fails to mention one crucial issue: a position on the price of alcohol and taxes on alcohol. In Finland we have identified a clear link between the price of alcohol and its consumption. The lower the price, the more it is used, and vice versa. Raising tax on alcohol reduces its consumption. In Estonia, our neighbouring country, the tax on alcohol is low. Because of this, and because the EU prevents quantitative restrictions on imports, Estonia is causing a huge public health problem in Finland. Finns can get cheap spirits in Estonia, less than 100 kilometres away, and that is stopping Finland from adopting what has been found to be the best approach, which is to impose a fairly high tax on alcohol for the sake of the health of its citizens. Estonia’s cheap spirits, its policy if you like, and the resulting reduction in tax on alcohol in Finland, has led to almost a thousand alcohol-related deaths in my country. In that way Estonia is killing Finns. In this context, therefore, we need to speak about prices and taxes.

Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, in the US there has been warning of the effect of alcohol on babies in utero for 20 years because they had a problem with alcohol-related harm. Only 20% of American mothers-to-be drink in pregnancy. In Europe, we do not label. Eighty per cent of Irish mothers drink. Seventy per cent of mothers in the UK drink. I know mothers in Ireland. I know that many of them would not drink if they understood the harm. Labelling may not be an instant solution, but, over time, it is proved by the US experience that it has an effect and brings down foetal harm. For adults, moderation is the key word, but for the child before birth there is no safe level. Even low consumption can create organic brain damage that results in hyperactivity, impulsivity and even an increased risk of suicide. There are learning and coordination difficulties as well. One of the results of foetal alcohol exposure is a tendency for the child to grow up and to binge drink when he or she gets older. That shows it becomes self perpetuating. It is time to break this cycle.

Pilar Ayuso (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, first I would like to welcome this strategy on alcohol which the Commission is proposing, precisely because it seeks to resolve the problem through prevention and education by publicising guidelines for moderate, responsible drinking. I would also like to congratulate Mr Foglietta on his prudent report, but I would say once again that it is not alcoholic drinks per se that should be criminalised but abuse of them. Moderate consumption of fermented drinks such as wine or beer by healthy adults is not only unharmful but even good for one’s health and can form part of a balanced diet. Moderate consumption may protect the body from cardiovascular and degenerative diseases, as has been shown in many scientific reports. Consumers are entitled to full, truthful information on the risks and benefits to health of alcohol consumption, but the appropriateness of health warnings on wine and beer labels must be called into question given that they have been shown to be ineffective in countries where they have been adopted. Specifically, there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of health warnings on labels in terms of preventing abusive consumption. Moreover, specific labelling for pregnant women would also appear to be ineffective. The best ways to achieve the objectives set out are good awareness-raising and educational campaigns directed especially at pregnant women and young people. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 95

I would also like to say that the recently established Forum on health and alcohol, which brings all interested parties together with the objective of combating excessive, abusive alcohol consumption, appears to me to be a very appropriate initiative and I hope that the Forum’s conclusions can also help to resolve this problem. Finally, I would like to point out that the phenomenon of drunkenness in young people has gone hand in hand with a reduction in the per capita consumption of wine in the European Union. I think that this is something to bear in mind because the issue is a good deal more complex than it would appear.

Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Mr President, tonight’s debate on an EU strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol-related harm should be wholeheartedly welcomed. It carries on the work that I conducted in my report in 2001 on young people and alcohol and its negative effects. The globalisation of the alcoholic drinks market and the increase in binge drinking across the EU is a phenomenon that politicians and health bodies alike are trying to grapple with. In order to share best practice and to see how other countries are coping with similar problems, cooperation at EU level is essential. For starters, one accident in four can be linked to alcohol consumption, with 10 000 people killed in alcohol-related road accidents in the EU each year; 35% to 45% of traffic accident deaths are of young people aged 18 to 24. Drink-driving accidents are even more revealing: two thirds of the people involved were between 15 and 34 years old and 96% were male. Alcohol is estimated to be the causal factor in 16% of cases of child abuse and neglect. Take the subject of foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) or foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD): prenatal alcohol abuse is the commonest acquired cause of mental retardation. More recently, medical professionals have stated there is no such thing as a safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. In 2001, at the time of my report on young people and alcohol, FAS was relatively unknown. Six years later there would appear to be more than acceptance of the argument that, if the same alcoholic beverage in the USA has an FAS health warning, why cannot the exact same product in the EU have the same warning? There is no difference between the two products: just that one is sold in the US and the other is not. As Ms Sinnott said, the rates of women drinking whilst pregnant are 20% in the USA, where FAS labelling has been used, whereas in Ireland they are 80%, in the UK 75% and in the EU as a whole 40%. FAS warnings on alcohol products would be easy to introduce and their impact, combined with public health education and information, would be important in preventing FAS in the EU.

Jean Marie Beaupuy (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, various figures have been quoted this evening, and in the report by Mr Foglietta. I would like to point out that behind these cold statistics there are, first and foremost, human tragedies. I was head of a psychiatric hospital for some years and many of our patients were alcohol-dependent. Paragraph 26 of the report states that we need to know the causes. We have not talked enough about that this evening. If we want to decide on the right action to be taken with young people, old people, men and women, we have to know the causes. I am therefore urging that, in any action that is taken, more research is done in each of the Member States and in the European Union as a whole to find out more about why these young people feel the need to drink to excess. Why, too, do old people, isolated at home, drink too much? Why do men drink at work? Until we have found out the real reasons for this over-consumption, we shall not be able to provide proper answers.

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, overall I welcome this report. I think it finds the right balance between recognising established cultural habits and the very worrying trend of harmful consumption of alcohol, particularly the growth in the hazardous binge-drinking culture among our young people. The Commission in its approach identified key targets – protecting our children, combating binge-drinking, reducing injuries and deaths from alcohol rage, road accidents and the whole area of suicide. My colleagues have pointed out the areas of concern extremely well. I would now like to emphasise myself the need to add the serious risks of pre-natal alcohol exposure as a key target in the Commission’s list to be worked on, and for the health and alcohol forum proposed by the Commission particularly to take up this issue. This is because the area of the pre-natal damage done by the consumption of alcohol is one very poorly understood by the public at large. No amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy, because alcohol is a teratogen. In fact it is more dangerous during the second and third trimesters, which is what most pregnant women do not understand, because it 96 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

is usually the first trimester that is the area of concern in terms of taking medication or drugs or any such substances. Alcohol is particularly dangerous in the second and third trimesters. Without shaming and blaming, we need to get an educational information campaign out through the Member States, through the GPs, to alert pregnant women immediately to the dangers of alcohol in this area. Colleagues have mentioned ADHD. There is also Asperger’s Syndrome. The medical research community has had difficulty in getting published in this area, owing to the politics of alcohol. Let your forum take over this issue and go further with it. A final word on alcohol abuse as part of polydrug abuse. In Ireland a fifth of those treated for problem alcohol use also misuse drugs, and a recent study in France found that driving under the influence of cannabis doubles the risk of being responsible for an accident. The increasing prevalence of polydrug use needs to be addressed urgently by your forum too, and by each Member State, and the necessary technical supports to detect polydrug use, particularly at roadside police checks, need to be enhanced, with technical support being given to our police authorities.

Daciana Octavia Sârbu (PSE). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur. The results of the report are meant to reduce the damage caused by alcohol and to protect the health and welfare of EU citizens, as we all know very well that alcohol is one of the most dangerous factors causing disease and premature death in Europe and also a series of social problems. I appreciate that attention is paid both to reducing the harmful effects of alcohol on consumers and on third parties, vulnerable social groups, such as children, young people and pregnant women. We can also add to all these, social damage such as domestic violence, neglected children, unemployment and social exclusion.

The importance paid to education, to information and education campaigns in order to prevent the dangerous and harmful effects of alcohol consumption, such as exchanges of best practices at European level, are important elements in reducing the harmful effects caused by alcohol. The general approach of the report succeeded in bringing out the essential problems of alcohol consumption in the European Union and is an important step in the fight against excessive consumption.

Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the problems resulting from the dangerous and harmful consumption of alcohol have grown alarmingly in recent years in all the Member States of the European Union. Our society pays a hard price for this every year, in terms of both direct and indirect costs. The most acute problems of alcohol consumption relate to young people. The young are more prone to physical and mental problems and to the social harm caused by their own drinking and that of others. The problems of alcohol use, however, do not just concern the young. Alcohol plays a part in the majority of homicides, and it causes 17 000 needless deaths on the road a year. In the 1970s 200 people died of cirrhosis of the liver every year in Finland: now it kills 1 000 people a year. At European level we need to take urgent action to harmonise the tax on alcohol upwards. I would like to urge the Commission to draft ambitious common targets for the Member States to reduce the dangerous and harmful consumption of alcohol.

Christa Klaß (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, European need not, may not and cannot regulate everything. Member State subsidiarity and less bureaucracy are the slogans of the moment, which we keep repeating when we speak with members of the public. The European Union’s competence is constantly being questioned, but Europe should and indeed must be the motive force for development. The Commission’s right of initiative is a documented right. Where no legislative instrument exists, it uses that right of initiative to focus on a thorny subject, draw Member States’ attention to abuses and call for action. That is the legal basis of this Commission proposal, and we must use it. We must curb the adverse effects on health of risky and excessive alcohol consumption and its social and economic consequences. A European strategy is to be formulated in order to support the Member States in their endeavour to reduce and prevent alcohol-related damage. That includes research into its root causes, as has just been said. It also includes, however, informing, instructing and raising awareness among the public; that is the crux of the matter, those are the key points. Every individual is free to decide. But individuals can use that freedom only if they are informed about the consequences and effects of their actions. Upbringing and education are the key factors. Upbringing within the family lays the foundations for a well-ordered and solid way of life, and we should put the focus on that, followed by schooling and advice. The same applies to alcohol awareness. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 97

I support Parliament’s report, which improves the Commission document in many areas. I am, however, resolutely opposed to the calls for health warnings. There are clear rules on the labelling of alcohol. The labels indicate the alcohol content. Transposing and understanding what it says on the labels is the basic way to pass on information. That, ladies and gentlemen, is general knowledge! Everybody must be in a position to use that information for themselves in a responsible manner. The same applies to most things in life: to eating and drinking just as to exercise, sport and fitness.

Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva (PSE). – (BG) Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, it is a gratifying fact that the European Parliament is adopting this strategy as a timely and important measure. The use of alcohol, which often turns into abuse, affects many people, including children and adolescents. This is a threat which society still fails to recognize, probably due to information deficit. The abuse of alcohol affects not only the individual health condition and reproductive health but it also damages healthcare systems, increases anti-social behaviour, leads to growing crime rates and drop-outs from school and, for this reason, to decline in the education rates. Therefore we need public awareness, educational and preventive programmes to form a specific type of behaviour. I find two key words in this report: risk and security. For the purposes of achieving solidarity in the policy, the European Commission could discuss two important measures: to propose a targeted programme to be implemented by the Member States for a large-scale study of the impact of the use of alcohol and the impact of the awareness of this problem among citizens, and to establish a specialised fund for preventive programmes, where part of the revenues from advertising alcohol could be allocated.

Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) The battle against the harmful effects of alcohol is as old as time. The Dry Law and various prohibitions that were applied in some countries did not produce positive results. However, the Commission Communication on an EU strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol related harm is a very important initiative. The Commission, having generalised the experience of the Member States and identified the problems common to them all, has introduced the priorities for reducing alcohol-related harm. It is believed that implementation of the important priorities introduced, such as the protection of young people, children and unborn babies, the prevention of drinking when driving and other restrictions will make our society more responsible, healthy and abstemious. I wish to emphasise the huge risks faced by young people drinking alcohol. It is sad, but the permissible age for drinking alcohol is getting lower and lower in many countries. Good practice is therefore very important. I would like to propose linking the practice of reducing alcohol related harm in young people to EU programmes for young people. The development and implementation of such programmes would help to occupy their leisure time and help to protect them from malignant alcohol consumption.

Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I believe alcohol was dangerous in the past and alcohol is dangerous today. In paragraph 5.4.1 of its proposal the Commission rightly states that moderate alcohol consumption appears to offer some protection against coronary heart disease among people over the age of 45, but I believe it is a myth, based on very weak scientific foundations, to say that a little alcohol is good for you. Alcohol is dangerous. It is a poison and even small quantities affect health. Of course tolerance thresholds must be laid down. We in the various European countries have learned how to handle the drug that is alcohol. The British, for instance, seen in terms of consumer habits, are what is called binge drinkers. Consumption per capita is relatively low, yet there are sometimes these excesses, which lead to serious damage. We in Austria are so-called integrative drinkers. We have a relatively high per capita alcohol consumption but fewer excesses. There are, therefore, very wide national differences depending on national historical developments. The Commission is taking the right approach to the problem. It is saying that it will not relieve the Member States of their responsibility. Yet there are European tasks that can be tackled together. One example is the attempt to create a proper database. The statistics vary widely. It is a mistake to believe that we saw less alcohol-related damage in the past. The diagnostic approach was different at the time, and there was less public awareness of the issue. That is why I believe it is important for us in Europe to know what we are actually talking about. It is also important to tackle new phenomena in consumption patterns. One is the fact that growing numbers of young people begin to drink at a very early age, which causes very serious harm. On the question of labelling in general, let me say that I think that falls short of what we need. It would be wrong to believe that a phenomenon as complex as alcohol consumption can be resolved simply by putting a label on a bottle. That would be an easy way of shirking our political responsibility. 98 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

Anna Hedh (PSE). – (SV) Mr President, I welcome the strategy even though I think that it has been watered down. At last there is a single document with targets which can hopefully only be developed. The positive thing about the strategy is that it shows which methods work in reducing alcohol consumption and thus in reducing damage and tragedies caused by alcohol. But if the methods proposed by the report are to be used fully in the Member States, the EU’s legislation must be adapted. First of all, import quotas must be reduced. Each country’s efforts to work with restrictive measures are undermined or made impossible when alcohol may in principle be freely imported from other countries. In addition, minimum taxes should be raised on public health grounds. I would also like to see health warnings introduced on alcohol just as on tobacco. I would therefore urge you to vote against amendments that weaken the text.

Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, one of the most common proverbs in my country describes alcohol as the drink of the wise. This is certainly not a message that alcohol would make anyone wise, but that it only suits those for whom a sense of occasion and moderation are familiar concepts. I therefore have no problem agreeing when our Group’s shadow rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, draws attention to a strategy for preventing the dangers associated with alcohol. We need to start by recognising the various alcohol cultures that exist and finding effective solutions to real problems, i.e. abuse and underage drinking. There is no need to stigmatise the products themselves or moderate consumption. We therefore need cooperation on the part of different agencies and national solutions to local problems. On one issue I nevertheless want to see EU action, and that is an upward adjustment of the taxation levels for alcohol across a broad front. We need to acknowledge that the costs of alcohol abuse to public health are massive, and they will not be held in check unless we have common economic policy instruments.

In this respect my own country is an unfortunately good example. EU membership compelled Finland to lower tax on alcohol, when the right to restrict imports of alcohol ended. A recent study shows that the number of sudden alcohol-related deaths has clearly increased since the tax on alcohol was reduced in 2004 and consumption began to rise sharply. The rise was 17% up on the figures for 2003, and that does not take account of the other consequences. Our public health problems are so serious that we are once again compelled to raise taxes. At one time I myself simply proposed disobedience on the part of individual Member States, which is to say restricting imports after the transition period had ended, on the grounds of Article 30 or 95 of the Treaty. Nothing was done at the time, unfortunately, and now the whole nation is paying the price, a nation which is obviously not wise enough.

Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) I was recently watching a television report about young people in Scandinavian countries who go on a boat trip on Friday evening to Estonia, for example. Once there they buy two big cases of vodka and drink themselves into a stupor on their way back. That said, similar and other variations on drinking to excess can be seen in all countries of the European Union. There is no doubt that measures leading to lower alcohol consumption will have a positive impact on the health of the population, social conditions, accidents both at work and outside work, and traffic accidents. I would like to focus on the damage done to health by excessive consumption of all types of alcoholic drinks. It is necessary to keep pointing out, to young people in particular, that even regular consumption of beer leads to alcohol addiction that is no less serious than the alcohol addiction caused by wine or spirits. It is terrible that people keep on frivolously underestimating the seriousness of liver disease, which can result often in cirrhosis and frequently in death. Regular drinking gradually changes not only an individual’s desires and character traits, but can also destroy one’s family life, in addition to causing serious neurological changes on many occasions. A young alcoholic loses his ability to strive for higher aims and ideals and his emotions become so numb that he finds it difficult to form healthy relationships or to have a healthy family environment. Foetal alcohol syndrome seriously harms not only the mother but above all the child, causing developmental disabilities and malformations in new-born babies. It is surprising how little attention is paid to informing pregnant women about this in many Member States. Finally, the number of people who drive a car or a motorbike under the influence of alcohol is shocking. I personally advocate the possibility of harmonisation right across the EU, where zero tolerance for blood alcohol levels in drivers should apply.

Cristian Stănescu, on behalf of ITS Group. – (RO) Mr President, dear colleagues, alcohol consumption is a habit transmitted from generation to generation. In several countries there is a saying related to alcohol consumption, according to which it should be the exclusive concern of men. There are not many approaches for reducing the harmful effects of the dangerous and noxious consumption on children and pregnant 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 99

women. Alcohol has more numerous and more various consumers than tobacco, traditional production techniques, meaning uncontrolled marketing methods and related risks. In this case it is necessary that article 16 of the report encourage the approach of innovative means of disseminating information and awareness-raising related to alcohol consumption. Instead, using warnings on the labels of alcohol products, similar to those for tobacco products, cannot be viewed an innovative approach since it has not proven adequately effective for tobacco. It is necessary to carry out a European survey on the influence of this warning procedure for addicted consumers, regardless of their age, occupation and gender, but also for the internal market. The European Parliament must put forward a resolution without any ambiguity, to give some time to draw up other information and awareness-raising methods so that it provides the Member States with an efficient framework for combating abusive alcohol consumption and promoting moderate and responsible alcohol consumption.

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I should also like to thank all the Members for a very interesting debate. I would like to tell you a story from Greek mythology. You can find this story depicted in mosaics in Pathos in Cyprus. It is the story of the first wine drinkers. A servant of the god Dionysus stole wine to give it to humans for the first time. They drank it, got drunk for the first time in human history, thought they were poisoned and killed the servant who had given them the wine.

In this day and age the solutions are much more complicated, and we must come up with a different approach. Everyone has chosen a different approach. Some say that we have gone too far, others that we have not gone far enough. Some would have wanted us to legislate on everything, others that everything should be done by the Member States. The fact is that the solution lies somewhere in the middle. We are to complement Member States and support them in their policies, but that does not mean that there is no role for the European Union, as was reflected in the report and what Members have said. At the same time, not everything can be solved through legislation. We must, therefore, give the forum a chance to work and produce concrete results, which we will monitor. However, at the same time, as has already been said, legislation exists in the Member States on many of these aspects. It is implementation that is lacking and causing the problem. Therefore, putting pressure on the Member States will help us to achieve positive results. No matter what each side expected, we should not underestimate the importance of the fact that, for the first time, we have acknowledged at European level that there is a problem regarding alcohol-related harm, that there should be a European strategy – which has been adopted today – and that we now have a European debate, a European initiative and European action. This is important. No Member State can solve this problem in isolation and no Member State is immune from this problem. There is now binge-drinking in Spain, which used to be a north-western European problem. Therefore, one sees that, given cultural interchanges and other reasons – a social analyst could explain why this is happening – we have the same problems moving across borders, and there are no geographical barriers to such problems. They exist everywhere in the European Union. This is the first important step, though not the last one. If we do not see a result within a reasonable time then we can re-evaluate, reassess and re-examine this strategy and take a different approach or a different course. However, we are on the right track for now. Once again, I would like to thank the rapporteur, the committee and the Members for supporting this strategy. I look forward to working with you to achieve the results that we all desire.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow. Written statements (Rule 142)

Gyula Hegyi (PSE), in writing. – (HU) The excessive consumption of alcohol is a blight in European societies. We are losing innumerable lives to illnesses caused by alcohol consumption, and the number of victims of drink-driving is also extraordinarily high in the Member States. Alcohol consumption and habits vary from country to country and indeed from region to region and so it is proper that defensive strategies are created in the Member States. There is still a need for individual EU directives. Minors have to be protected in every 100 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

possible way from alcohol, and to achieve this even more stringent sanctions are needed. In the spirit of ‘don’t drink and drive’, zero tolerance and a 0.00% blood alcohol level must be introduced for drivers throughout the entire EU. But we will not make progress with prohibitions alone, as is so well demonstrated by the ignominious failure of the American Prohibition. We must popularise good habits in alcohol consumption and the consumption of low-alcohol beer and wine. We must act robustly against the trade in types of alcohol that are adulterated, fake, of poor quality and harmful to health.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. – It is a worrying trend that in recent years alcohol manufacturers are targeting under-age drinkers with products such as ‘alcopops’. Binge drinking is increasing amongst young people and it is important that we tackle this development effectively. I believe that a good way to do this is to encourage supermarkets and shops to better separate alcopops from soft drinks. Alcopops, along with other alcohol drinks, should also carry adequate health warnings. I am pleased that my amendments along these lines were incorporated into the report. Of course, to tackle under-age and binge drinking effectively, national governments must also focus on the consumer through changing attitudes towards alcohol. I therefore welcome the focus on information and awareness-raising campaigns such as through school-based educational programmes. I also support the recommendations that the limit for blood alcohol content (BAC) should be set as close to 0.00% as possible, especially for new drivers. I believe that the widespread availability of breath analysers, suggested in the report, can help to deter potential drink drivers. National governments can do more to ensure the availability of public transportation for drivers who have consumed alcohol.

21. Dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption - Common organisation of the milk and milk products market - Additional rules on the common organisation of the milk and milk products markets (debate)

President. − The next item is the joint debate on - the report by Elisabeth Jeggle, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2001/114/EC relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption (COM(2007)0058 - C6-0083/2007 - 2007/0025(CNS)) (A6-0282/2007), - the report by Elisabeth Jeggle, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (COM(2007)0058 - C6-0084/2007 - 2007/0026(CNS)) (A6-0283/2007), and - the report by Elisabeth Jeggle, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2597/97 laying down additional rules on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products for drinking milk (COM(2007)0058 - C6-0085/2007 - 2007/0027(CNS)) (A6-0284/2007).

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me start by thanking Parliament, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and in particular the rapporteur, Ms Jeggle, for this constructive report on the milk mini-package. The package provides amendments for three legal acts. The first concerns the Directive on preserved milk, in which we now allow standardisation of the protein content, totally in line with the Codex standards. This meets a longstanding request from our dairy industry and exporters of milk powder, and their position vis-à-vis their competitors in third countries will clearly improve. Not only industry and trade, but also milk producers – our farmers – stand to benefit because this standardisation of protein can yield a higher valorisation of the milk. Furthermore, the forecasted strong demand for proteins will easily absorb the increase in the available quantities of proteins. I welcome your full support for this proposal. The second proposal concerns the common market organisation for milk and for milk products. Here we propose a whole series of adaptations on which the European Parliament has expressed its full support. These include the proposal to reduce the intervention price for skimmed milk powder as a mathematical result of lower protein content owing to standardisation. It contains an elimination of the price-trigger system per Member State in the butter intervention system. It also contains the abolition of the national quantities for 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 101

butter as an eligible criterion for aid, removal of the obsolete aid for military forces and abandoning the compulsory use of import licences. Your amendment for maintaining the private storage of cream and skimmed milk powder is a little surprising because these schemes have never been used in practice and can be considered obsolete. Furthermore, private storage for butter is maintained, so there is really no need to maintain the scheme for cream. Concerning your amendments on the school-milk scheme, we are on the same wavelength. As we have proposed, the system will be simplified by introducing one single rate of aid. DG AGRI was already exploring the different possibilities of reviewing the school-milk scheme and had invited Member States to provide suggestions for trying to improve the system, as well as for additional products to be covered by the scheme. The resulting changes in the system will soon be presented in the Milk Management Committee. I hope that an agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission can be found on the increased aid level for school milk, up EUR 18.15 per 100 kilograms. Concerning your amendment that would introduce a milk fund to finance a restructuring programme, I would underline that the proposals contained in the milk mini-package are really not of a restructuring nature. I therefore have great difficulty in correlating these basic technical and simplification measures with a perceived need to establish a new ‘milk fund’ budget line. Discussions on the need for appropriate measures for the milk sector should take place in view of the upcoming health check discussions and the various discussions we will have on the future of the common agricultural policy. The third act concerns liberalisation of the drinking-milk market, where I note that we are also on the same wavelength. The suggestion to delete the 0.2% tolerance for the fat contents seems to be acceptable. You also propose that a reference be made to Directive 2000/13/EC. Please be informed that this Directive automatically applies. So, all in all, I note with pleasure that our views are in line with one another. Thank you for all your work. I look forward to our continuing discussion tonight.

Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, everyone is talking about the good and stable market situation for milk and milk products at the moment and the resulting rise in milk prices. The rise in milk prices urgently needed by farmers is providing new fuel for the much-disputed question of quotas. Today I want to discuss the mini milk package and begin by taking the opportunity to thank the Commissioner and her colleagues for the good cooperation. They have presented three good and well-thought through proposals and Parliament is, therefore, not tabling many amendments. I do believe, however, that our draft amendments provide some food for thought and I hope the Commission and the Council will endorse them in the same way as the Committee on Agriculture. The first report submitted by the Commission contains amendments to the Council directive relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption. In this report, the Commission proposes standardising the protein content at a minimum of 34%, expressed in fat-free dry matter. That standardisation will make it possible for European manufacturers to compete with manufacturers in third countries under the same conditions. This simplification of international trade is welcome and is one reason why the Committee on Agriculture adopted this report without amendments and with only one vote against. Such standardisation saves money, which is why in the second report I proposed a milk fund programme to ensure that the milk sector could retain any saved money. The Commission proposal amending the regulation on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products provides for several important technical adjustments, which will clearly also lead to improvements. Firstly, it will reduce the intervention price for skimmed milk powder by an average of 2.8%. By removing the intervention trigger for butter, abolishing national quality classes for butter, introducing a standard quality definition, removing disposal aid for military forces and abandoning the compulsory use of import licences, we are reducing the red tape.

I am, however, quite definitely against abolishing private storage for cream and skimmed milk powder. It represents a safety net and I believe we should discuss this in the context of the Health Check and not of the mini milk package. Aside from that, the proposal to introduce a single rate of aid for school milk is no doubt right. Given the nutritional importance of school milk, however, the aid for products falling within that 102 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

regulation should be increased substantially, from EUR 16.11 per 100 kg to EUR 18.15 per 100 kg. It is also urgently necessary to broaden the range of products. Some fantastic new milk, quark and yoghurt products are now available, which can cater for everyone’s tastes and likes, and if we introduced innovative school programmes we could whet children’s curiosity about those products while also doing something for nutrition. The potential EUR 117.3 million in savings resulting from the standardisation of protein for the period 2008-2013, or possible further savings within the milk market organisation, should be used to accompany and support milk sector reform. I would be quite prepared to discuss that too in the context of the Health Check debate. This measure is intended to facilitate our proposed milk fund programme. The resources could be used, in the context of promoting milk sector sales, for better nutritional information and also for further accompanying measures such as modernising milk production, in areas where conditions are more difficult and in mountainous regions. The committee unanimously adopted this second report. The third report concerns drinking milk. It proposes increased flexibility in the definition of drinking milk. The current regulation recognises three categories of drinking milk that can be produced and marketed in the Community. These are skimmed milk (maximum 0.5% fat), semi-skimmed milk (1.5% to 1.8% fat) and whole milk (at least 3.5% fat). The Commission’s proposal to allow the production and marketing of drinking milk that does not comply with those three categories, as long as a clear and easily readable indication of the fat content is given on the label, is right. This liberalisation measure will not only mean that transitional national derogations can be removed but also broadens the consumers’ options, which could certainly help revive intra-Community trade. To avoid any uncertainty, the fat content percentage of the milk should be clearly visible on the packaging and directly linked to the product description. Yet I think it is unnecessary to set a tolerance margin of +/-0.2% when indicating the fat content, since that would not improve clarity but be more likely to hinder implementation. These two draft amendments, like this third report, were also adopted unanimously in committee. Given the clear position taken by the Committee on Agriculture, I am confident that the entire mini milk package will be endorsed by a clear majority during tomorrow’s plenary vote too. I cannot, however, accept the ALDE Group’s three draft amendments. They do not substantially improve the report. The third draft amendment refers only to school milk, which would go against what we want, namely to improve supply of the entire range of products. That is why I must, unfortunately, reject that draft amendment too. I extend warm thanks to all colleagues in the Committee on Agriculture and in the Group. I thank them for their trust and for the good working relationship.

Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mrs Jeggle on her three reports – the mini-milk package. It was very clear right from the start that there was general agreement on her reports, and that was demonstrated by the Commissioner. Members asked for this debate so that they could discuss the wider issues affecting Europe’s dairy industry, and I will be no exception to that. Until very recently, dairy farms were the Cinderella sector of the UK farming industry. Thanks to murky economic practices, which allow supermarkets to squeeze down the price of milk to 17p per litre while they sell it on to the public at 50p a litre, many of our dairy farmers were going out of business. It is worth remembering that even at 50p per litre, milk is still half the price of bottled water in our supermarkets, and you do not have to calve a bottle of water or send for the vet to attend to its needs. Until quite recently, of the 27 EU Member States, only Slovakia, Estonia, Hungary and Lithuania had lower milk prices than the UK, and the result has been that in the last five years in my constituency in Scotland we have lost around 500 dairy farmers. There are now an estimated 1 400 dairy farms left in Scotland – that is all. It is estimated that across the UK one dairy farmer is leaving the industry every day. It is only now as world cereal prices – in particular wheat – have almost doubled, forcing up the price of feed, and as pressure on productive farmland grows for biofuels and other non-food crops, that some supermarkets have finally begun to panic at the prospect of an actual milk shortage and, as a result, have started paying 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 103

dairy farmers a slightly higher price. At long last, dairy farmers have begun to see some light at the end of the tunnel and they are at least getting more than the cost of production for their commodity.

Rosa Miguélez Ramos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I would also first like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent work which has allowed us at all times to feel comfortable with her proposals. I would also like to thank her especially for allowing the oral amendment I tabled on the school-milk scheme. Having said that, what I would like to do is reiterate my criticism on moving this mini-reform forward when major reform of the COM is anticipated next year and November will see a CAP ‘Health Check’, and as yet, Commissioner, we obviously do not know whether this will have any consequences for the sector. But today, Commissioner, reality, and Mr Stevenson explained this, is taking us in other directions. The price crisis in agricultural produce has resurrected the debate on the issue of agricultural food production in Europe. My assessment of the milk crisis differs from yours. In my opinion, the main cause of the rise in milk prices lies not in increased consumption in Asia but in low Community productivity. Indeed, yield last season was the lowest of the last 15 years. Some organisations say that Europe is likely to need an extra thousand million litres per year to satisfy its needs. Certainly, today, consumers are overwhelmed by the increase in prices of basic foods and farmers in turn by the price of cattle feed. Although like you I am of the view that producing biofuels is neither the ultimate nor the main cause of the rise in prices, we should not be fooled, there are others. Neither a fall in set-aside nor a reduction in fallow land will be enough to stabilise prices. The Commission should be very alert to other types of current speculation, such as the speculation on the stock markets. Large groups will easily be able to pass the increase in prices of raw materials on to the consumer, in fact they are doing this already, but this will be much more difficult for local producers to do, and therefore the rise will penalise the more fragile SMEs most of all. Indeed, as Mr Stevenson has just said, the increase is not being reflected in the price charged by farmers; they blame the gap between the price paid to them and the price paid by the consumer on a Common Agricultural Policy based on promoting set-aside. That being the case, Commissioner, I would advise you not to come here and tell us that quota removal will be implemented gradually. Low morale among farmers who feel insecure about the future of something which they viewed as their own, as a capital asset, namely the quota, whose forthcoming removal has been announced, is one of the barriers to relaunching milk production in Europe; the same was true in its day of the sharp drop in milk prices which led to many producers moving to more profitable, but less labour-intensive crops; those producers will no longer be able to benefit from the price rise. The arduous job of the dairy farmer is compounded by difficulties in obtaining a quota, difficulties in obtaining cattle… Were you aware, Commissioner that at present European dairy-farmers are having to go to countries like Canada or the United States to buy dairy cows because they cannot find cattle to buy in the Community market? In view of all this, Commissioner, I would ask you to react, and I am sure you will, appropriately to these new circumstances, circumstances that were unthinkable only twelve months ago and whose consequences for the agricultural food production sector we should begin to debate. In my opinion we should not merely hope, as I have read in your blog, that the competitiveness of European farmers in world markets will not be too badly affected, but react rapidly to prevent that from becoming the case.

Kyösti Virrankoski, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, first I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Jeggle, for her excellent reports. Milk is one of the most important areas of agricultural production. It is all the more important as beef production is largely dependent on the calves which dairy cattle farms produce. Milk production is also eminently suited to areas where natural conditions are poorest. For example, dairy farming in northern Europe can effectively exploit the fact that the arable land there is an excellent source of coarse fodder, which also makes production resistant to rain, frost and other unfavourable natural conditions. 104 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

The proposals before us will simplify EU laws on the dairy industry. The quality class system for butter would be simplified, the strict classification for fat content abolished, aid for school milk made independent of its fat content and the intervention system clarified. These measures seem positive ones and I want to thank Commissioner Fischer Boel for these reforms. The big question is the overall reform of the milk sector, which is to take place in the near future in connection with the Health Check, the mid-term review of the CAP. Its main focus is milk quotas. The current balance in milk production has been achieved thanks to milk quotas. It is because of these that the 1 300 million kilo butter mountain, which we still had at the end of the 1980s, has melted away and at the same time it has been possible to guarantee consumers a steady supply and diverse range of agricultural produce. A predictable framework within which milk producers can develop production has also been established. In my opinion, it is the EU’s obligation to guarantee such predictable frameworks for milk production in the future too. This is important because the necessary investments are made to cover periods of time lasting decades and they are massive sums for family farms. Furthermore, the regulation of production is a slow process because it takes around two years before cows are ready for production. That is why it is in the interests of both the consumer and producer to continue with milk quotas. If the quotas are abolished it will mean the investments that farmers have made buying quotas and thereby stabilising production conditions will have gone to waste. With these observations, we would like to support the reports presented.

Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk, on behalf of the UEN group. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, in taking the floor in this debate, I would like to draw attention to the following issues: first of all, I would like to support the rapporteur’s proposal that the savings made as a result of this reform, i.e. the sum of EUR 117 million, could be used to create a milk fund. Secondly, this fund should be allocated primarily to those milk producers and processors who, as a result of the increasing market liberalisation, have to carry out restructuring at their farms or companies, and also to promote the consumption of milk and milk products, and, particularly, to increase financial support for supplying milk and milk products to schools. Thirdly, the Commission’s proposal concerning abandoning the three categories of milk that have been marketed to date, i.e. skimmed, semi-skimmed and full cream, also deserves to be supported. As a result it will be possible to market milk with any fat content, provided that this is marked clearly on the packaging. While supporting the solutions contained in the reports prepared by Mrs Jeggle, I would however like to remind Commissioner Fischer Boel that a serious debate is needed on the subject of the amounts and the future of the milk production quotas that are in force in the European Union, since these are glaringly unjust, especially for the new Member States. Commissioner, you promised us this debate when responding to my question on this matter, which was addressed to the Commission in October 2006. A country such as Poland, with 38 million inhabitants, has a quota of about 9 million tonnes, giving 0.23 tonnes per inhabitant, whereas this amount is 0.33 tonnes in Germany, 0.39 tonnes in France and as much as 0.67 tons in the Netherlands. Poland, which even now has excellent possibilities for developing milk production, just three years after joining the EU, is already very close to the maximum limit and cannot develop it further. This has a very negative effect on the profitability of farms that have specialised in milk production.

Alyn Smith, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I shall be no exception in this debate in offering my group’s congratulations to the rapporteur for an excellent piece of work which has achieved the fairly unusual feat of keeping everyone pretty well happy. I would also praise the Commission for acting on this ahead of the health check, because this is a good piece of work which is long overdue. I shall summarise our own view on the initial comments here from the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland briefing. The proposed changes do not necessarily have a direct impact on farmers, but they will lead to simplification, cost savings and efficiencies further up the chain, all of which will improve dairy sector competitiveness and as such should lead to an indirect benefit to farmers through the marketplace. In my view, the simplification of the school milk regime is particularly to be welcomed. What better way to fulfil so many agricultural, economic and health aims than by encouraging the drinking of milk and milk products by Europe’s children? Making the system more logical is, if we are honest, long overdue. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 105

In praising this package I must agree with my Scottish – if not political – colleague, Mr Stevenson, in pointing to the elephant in the room that is the poor prices that farmers still have to endure, because the supply chain is beyond breaking point and too many of those involved in the market are abusing their position. We in the Commission and Parliament here tonight have done our part by making the system simpler. We could just as well ask why it was so complicated in the first place, but we have done our job tonight. Now national and EU competition authorities must intervene forcefully on the side of farmers who, because of de facto abuses of dominant positions in the market by supermarkets in particular, are continuing to receive a pittance for their quality products. As the Commissioner says, the health check is a good opportunity, because until the EU takes action to tackle that elephant in the room, all the good efforts like this package will continue to be overshadowed and lose out in the noise.

Ilda Figueiredo, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Generally speaking, we agree with Mrs Jeggle’s proposals in the three reports she has presented, notably the proposal to use the budgetary savings to set up a restructuring programme which could be used for marketing support and nutrition information on quantities of milk and milk products. Similarly, we think it is important to strengthen the scope and quality of the school milk scheme by extending the range of products that can be included in the scheme, operating as a genuine programme to encourage consumption of milk and milk products, more in line with the tastes of children and young people and paying due attention to nutrition and balanced diet. We also agree that there should be very clear rules on labelling drinking milk, as it seems to us quite right that the fat content should be included in the so-called ‘product description’.

Lastly, a note on the times we live in, when milk production is failing to meet current demand because of the need to support less prosperous farmers and milk producers and increase milk subsidies in the areas most in need, notably in Portugal, bearing in mind that in the islands in the Autonomous Region of the Azores, for example, milk production could be increased without expanding the stock density and that this is an extremely remote region where the conditions for milk production are excellent.

Peter Baco (NI). – (SK) In the context of the dairy ‘mini-reform’ being debated, I would like to put special emphasis on the need to adopt at this sitting Amendments 5 and 7 to the Regulation on the common organisation of the market in milk. Amendment 5 provides for a single rate of aid of EUR 18.15/100 kg of all milk in the school milk scheme. There is no doubt that by increasing the aid and simplifying the regime we will help to achieve the goals of ensuring healthy eating and combating obesity among young people. Amendment 7 sets out the main objectives of the milk fund restructuring programme. The objectives of this programme, such as strengthening nutrition awareness measures and increasing milk consumption, as well as modernising milk production for example in mountain regions, are an incentive for the new Member States in particular. After all, in recent years many new Member States have seen an incredible reduction in milk production and in the number of cattle of more than 50%. Unfortunately, milk consumption has fallen as a result, to below the amounts recommended by doctors, particularly among children. By approving these three texts the European Parliament can help to achieve a balance between the consumption and production of milk in all countries of the European Union.

Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to join the rapporteur in extending thanks, for I think the overwhelming endorsement in committee is enough to show what good work has been done here. The mini milk package is an important step not just for European farming and the milk sector, but above all for promoting the use of milk in nutrition. Balanced nutrition is especially important for children, and here milk and milk products have a major part to play. The healthy development of our children is determined by the supply of healthy foods, such as local milk products. That is why it is most important to promote milk and all the various milk products, from yoghurts to soft drinks and low-fat products, which children and schoolchildren love so much.

One reason why it is important to promote sales of milk and milk products is that it is becoming increasingly clear that unhealthy eating is leading to a growing number of health problems among Europeans too. The advertising budget contained in the mini milk package will increase people’s awareness, which will in turn benefit the population as a whole. 106 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

It is vital to ensure that the savings resulting from the reform remain within the milk sector. In conclusion, let me say that direct production prices for farmers are finally rising, although this is certainly not due to the fact that we are now producing bio-energy but is mainly the result of environmental disasters and better markets within the EU and outside it, i.e. in third countries.

Bernadette Bourzai (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to congratulate Mrs Jeggle on her excellent work. I particularly support her objections to the abolition of private storage aid for cream and skimmed milk powder and the wish to introduce a single rate of aid for milk distributed in schools. However, along with some of my colleagues, I should like in particular to mention the current milk shortage, which is undoubtedly due not just to an increase in worldwide demand but also to a reduction in supply which could have been anticipated because it was, in my view, foreseeable. Due to the reform of the CAP and the fall in the price paid to milk producers, some farmers, such as those in France, have got rid of some of their dairy cows and are focusing more on beef and veal or, in Germany for instance, have given up rearing cattle altogether and are growing cereals instead. As a result, France has 100 000 fewer dairy cows than it needs to fill its quota and the European Union needs one billion litres of milk to meet European demand. That shortage is already having and will continue to have serious effects on the prices of milk and hence milk products, as well as on the prices of various other food products. In addition to those increases, the price of other basic foodstuffs such as cereals and meat will rise as a result of the rising prices of animal feed. Obviously that is going to cause extra difficulties for consumers. It therefore seems to me necessary to introduce price stabilisation instruments. In particular, there is a need to build up further stocks as soon as possible to make the market more secure; increase the milk price paid to producers to encourage them to continue and increase production and help them cope with the rise in animal feed prices; provide more support for marketing and distribution channels; increase European milk production quotas as quickly as possible; and evaluate the CMO for milk in the 2008 review of the CAP, in the light of the current shortage and before any consideration is given to abolishing milk quotas in 2015. Finally, I should like to draw attention to the even more difficult situation of milk producers in mountain areas, the producers I represent. Their production costs are higher and supplies are more difficult. What is more, in some countries such as France they are faced with a reduction in the collection aid that offset part of the extra cost of collection in mountain areas. Milk production is one of the sectors that make the biggest contribution to land conservation and land use planning, especially in problem areas. I hope, therefore, that proper consideration will be given to the specific problems of the mountain areas in any future debates on the CAP review and the new CAP.

Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ‘milk is good for you’ and today everyone is talking about it. Milk is the oldest energy drink in the world, it is a particularly important product, and it is good that we are debating it today. What we call the mini milk package, made up of three documents, is only one, albeit very important, building block in the further simplification of EU legislation in agriculture, and in principle the Commission’s reform and simplification measures in this connection are most welcome. As we know, reforming the Common Agricultural Policy is a long-term, continuous process and the proposed mini milk package is a step in the right reform direction. Rome was not built in a day, however. The Commissioner knows that better than anyone. I would like to address an important political aspect that some colleagues have already discussed: school milk. Here the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has called for an increase from EUR 16.11 to EUR 18.11 per 100 kg. That is a sensible correction and we were right to call for it. Perhaps we could now seriously consider a school fruit programme, which would probably also please the Commissioner’s colleague, Mr Kyprianou. I also welcome the standardisation of the protein content of milk and milk production because it allows European producers to enter into fair competition with their third-country competitors, given that competition is a basic liberal concern. At the same time it is right, important and also urgently necessary for milk producers and dairies to pool their resources even more, so that it becomes even easier for them to assert their interests on the market. A good deal of work on the ground is still required here too. Let me put forward an idea from the consumers’ point of view, and looking towards the future. The demand for milk has risen worldwide. It is particularly clear that living and eating habits are changing in Asia as a whole, i.e. demand is rising and prices are rising. It is a pity that the higher prices are attributable above all 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 107

to trade. Yet we must also be honest with our citizens. To some extent the higher prices tell the environmental truth. For instance, it is not comprehensible that a litre of milk now costs less than a litre of water. Butter is cheaper now than it was 20 years ago. We certainly must tell the citizens that there are of course also some improvements. The money should remain in the sector, however, and not go to trade. A word on the quota. Evidently we will still have the quota for some time. That has been debated here and the reasons for having that quota have been given. Yet the current milk quota must expire in March 2015, and not just for German farmers who could then profit from the rising global demand for milk and products. What the Commissioner said when she was thinking out loud of considering actually raising the quota could be taken to mean it needs removing. We should be honest here and call for its removal. I thank Mrs Jeggle for what was, on the whole, a very good report. I wish the Commissioner all the best on the way to further reforms of the agricultural policy.

Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the proposed changes to the milk market and the creation of a milk fund are meant to provide support to farmers and consumers, not to damage the existing situation. There is no doubt that provision must be made for exceptional circumstances and a legal basis guaranteed for the storage of milk products in different conditions. A particularly important part of the battle for healthy food is to provide support for agricultural production in mountainous areas. Good quality milk is produced there because of the relatively low levels of pollution. It is equally important to give the public accurate information about the product, i.e. milk, as well as about the country and producer responsible for its manufacture. This should include information that genetically modified plants were or were not used during its production. This is particularly important when giving milk to children. Finally I would like to congratulate Mrs Jeggle on her excellent report.

Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, there are three points in the report on the common organisation of the market in milk which I strongly support. One: private storage of cream and skimmed milk powder should not be abolished, but retained as a safety net in the volatile world of milk production. Two: the school milk scheme is of critical importance, not least in the fight against obesity, and it should be widened to include new and healthy dairy products. Three: a milk fund restructuring programme should be set up for the purpose of retaining for the milk sector savings resulting from the implementation of the mini-milk package, with such a fund being used for marketing support and nutrition awareness. Though, at present, the outlook on milk is more optimistic, we need to be sure that no steps are taken that would remove the current safety nets or fail to expand the vision for milk. Nor should savings made be lost to the industry and its promotion.

Esther de Lange (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, this late in the day, when only our dogged spokesmen on agriculture and the agriculture Commissioner are still with us – for which my thanks, Commissioner – milk may not be the most obvious refreshment we are thirsty for, especially after the previous debate. But we must not forget that we are talking here about one of the giants of European agricultural production. Every Member State of the EU is a dairy producer and dairy accounts for no less than 14% of Europe's agricultural output. Notwithstanding its relatively modest share of the farm budget, it must be said. The dairy sector also offers us quality products and a choice of regional specialities. General De Gaulle made a connection between this great diversity of products and his country's governability. 'How can you govern a country which has 246 kinds of cheese?' he asked rhetorically. What this French observation might mean for a European Union of 27 Member States and no doubt thousands of kinds of cheese, well, we won't go into that this evening. We must not forget the contribution which dairy farmers make to our countryside. A sector to be proud of, then, but one which has not had an easy time of it in recent years. It is tempting, in the light of those difficult years and present-day market developments, to dwell on questions which go beyond the scope of this debate. I shall be the exception to the rule and will not do that, though most Members have given in to the temptation. I will merely echo Struan Stevenson, who quite properly asks how much of the price rise actually feeds through to the farmers. Back then to the subject of our debate: Mrs Jeggle's most excellent reports. I specifically want to address the call to widen the school milk scheme. The link between fat percentage and support has rightly been scrapped, so to me it makes sense, in widening the scheme, to think above all about innovative and healthy products, especially in view of Europe's growing obesity problem. The Commissioner has already said that she is having 108 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

talks on this with the Member States, but maybe she can tell us when we can expect concrete proposals on the subject and consequently when this package is actually likely to be expanded. Lastly, I agree with the rapporteur that it is too soon to do away with existing safety nets altogether, even if they are not currently used, but that this too is a matter for the Health Check. 'To be continued', is the message, then.

Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – (HU) I warmly compliment Mrs Jeggle on her outstanding work and would also like to welcome the Commission’s mini milk package. In the new Member States it has so far been possible to deviate from the EU regulations on fat content, due to the hard-won derogations, but it is good news that after 2009 we will still be able to consume the milk products to which we are well accustomed. With the anticipated intensification of trade between the Member States as a result of liberalisation, we have to be ever more alert to the issue of food safety. I would like to draw the Commissioner’s attention to the fact that food safety poses an ever greater problem throughout the whole of Europe, and one which is particularly pertinent to the new Member States. I support the proposal adopted by the Committee on Agriculture that the budget savings from standardisation must remain within the milk sector. This money must be devoted to two aims. One is the reorganisation of the milk support and the other is the school milk programme which is an excellent initiative by the Commission. The programme is one of the fundamental elements of healthy nutrition in the fight against obesity and weight gain. Support for this programme must be increased.

I would like to point out to Mr Chatzimarkakis that he is knocking at an open door, since eighteen months ago I proposed a school fruit programme which Mrs Fischer Boel accepted to such an extent that it now forms part of the already completed fruit and vegetable reform. The school milk programme and the school fruit programme complement each other very well. Many people have mentioned the quota system. It is both evident and to be feared that the Commission will scrap it but nonetheless I would ask that what happened with the maize intervention should not be repeated. Let there be a ‘soft landing’, let there be a preparatory period for the milk producers. I am afraid that the increase in the national quota and the abolition of fines will lead to the devaluation of quotas in the years that follow.

Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the common organisation of the market for milk and milk products is an important issue both for individual Member States and for the entire European Union. We are all agreed that it requires certain changes, but these should be based on the results of thorough research, and not on industry or trade lobbying. We must remember that our objective should always be the good of humanity and in this case that of consumers, who have the right to expect us to protect their interests. In this context the proposal from the European Commission to abolish the tolerance of plus or minus 0.2% for the fat content in milk for human consumption in relation to the value given on the packaging is unacceptable. Improvements to the organisation of the milk market should begin with a review of milk quotas and then allocate them on the basis of consumption. We cannot have a situation where, for example, Germany, with 80 million inhabitants, has a milk quota of over 28 600 000 tonnes, whereas Poland, with 38 million inhabitants, has less than 9 million tonnes. The Common Agricultural Policy, including the milk policy, also needs questions to be asked such as: what model of agriculture are we supporting – is it family agricultural holdings, or farmers with thousands or tens of thousands of hectares? If it is to be the family holdings, which are the ones I am considering, then there is no need to finance private storage on the farms. These funds would be better used for the proposed milk fund, which would serve, among other things, to disseminate information on nourishment from milk and milk products, to support the ‘school milk’ scheme, to provide support for the production of regional products and for restructuring the milk industry.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – President, I too should like to congratulate Mrs Jeggle on her expertise in handling these reports. It makes sense to simplify but not to radically change at this stage.

I suppose it is a funny old world, because not that long ago, it was doom and gloom in the dairy sector and it is incredible how buoyant and resilient farmers are that this summer, for the first time in a long time, I saw smiles on their faces because milk prices are recovering. Consumers are noticing – and Tesco is actually saying – that the long-term trend of declining spend on food has stopped. Sir Terry Leahy, Tesco’s chief executive, recently said that there is a fundamental shift in the priority consumers place on food and I think 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 109

that is true, and it is welcome, and I hope it signifies a move away from the ‘slash and burn’ policy of supermarkets in relation to food. Obviously we are trying to be specific in relation to milk. All of us want to know what your plans are on milk quotas, given the market situation we now face. And we look forward to hearing that. I read too that China is anxious for its children to be able to have access to milk and it is extraordinary that with that in mind, our children in Europe are apparently drinking less and less of it. However, in relation to the school milk scheme, which is vital, can I just give you the views of Áine – who happens to be one of my own and who is aged ten. She has just opted out of the school milk scheme and I think it is interesting why she has done that – she actually loves milk – but she would rather be outside playing with her friends than sitting drinking milk, which she is forced to do within the school. So there are lots of reasons why this scheme might need to be looked at and we need to work with the schools, because average milk consumption in Ireland is low and we are worried about it in terms of the fight against obesity. As I say, I look forward to the future and the health check. My own health at the moment is a little bit dodgy and I think that a hot cup of milk for those of us who wait until this long hour would have been most welcome!

Wiesław Stefan Kuc (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Mrs Jeggle’s reports make a start on the reform of the market for milk and milk products. It is good that the proposal for and creation of a milk fund come before specific actions to reform the milk producers’ and processors’ sector. It is also good that some flexibility is being introduced, with the reduction in the number of regulations affecting the EU organisation of the market for milk and milk products.

What is not good is that this flexibility did not go further and that milk quotas, i.e. hands-on control over production quantities, have not been abandoned. It is also not good that standardisation in the form of the consolidation of protein and fat content has remained, since, unlike the situation with meat production, it separates the quality of the product from the producer. Finally, on behalf of producers, processors and all of us, I hope that this reform achieves more of the objectives set for it than the last one.

Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate Mrs Jeggle on her reports which have gone into the Commission proposals in detail and improved them, and I only hope that the technical agreement reached in the special agriculture committee does not prevent the Council from considering the amendments adopted by Parliament, such as the amendment on the non-abolition of aid to private storage. Furthermore I would like to stress that this package of proposals contains significant elements which herald the start of an intermediate stage leading to the abolition, in principle by the year 2015, of the quota system. I refer by way of illustration to decreasing the intervention price for skimmed milk powder. The announcement that milk quotas are to disappear has by itself created a situation of uncertainty among producers, as the Commissioner is well aware, and the quota market has been crippled as a result, making for a significant slowdown in the restructuring required in the sector, at least in Spain. On those grounds we are asking the Commission not to delay in presenting proposals on the future of the sector which reply to questions such as the rate of gradual increase in quotas or possible compensation for loss of production rights, or the level of direct aid following the new fall in intervention prices; these questions among others require an urgent response so that the sector can be brought out of this uncertain situation.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, we are discussing the mini-package of reforms to the market for milk and milk products. Mini-package is a good description for the proposed changes. A full and proper reform of this market is yet to come. The proposals contained in the mini-package are sensible and deserve support. They are concerned with the creation of a milk fund that will support reforming activities in this sector, such as the promotion of milk consumption, including consumption in schools, or support for milk production in mountainous areas. Support for private storage of milk products should also be maintained. But there is a fundamental question: what about the major reforms of the milk market? We see at present that prices of milk products are increasing, which will fuel inflation throughout the European Union. The requirement to export milk products from the EU is growing. 110 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

What is the situation within the EU? Production quotas and enormous fines for exceeding them. What should be done? Acting in a systematic but controlled way we should start to increase milk quotas by 2 to 5% per annum, depending on the situation in the country in question. Let us pave the way for the abolition of quotas by 2015 - this is what farmers are waiting for. The Commissioner has spoken about this on many occasions. Can we afford to wait for the Health Check? I do not think so. I believe we can start on the gradual process of increasing milk quotas from today. I repeat: slowly, gradually, and in a fully monitored way.

Albert Deß (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Jeggle has done an outstanding job with the three reports on milk, for which I give her warm thanks. I also thank the Commissioner for the proposals that form the basis of our discussion today. These three reports are of a rather technical nature. The crucial debate on milk will take place in connection with the Health Check. I would like to address a few points. I am pleased that the first report is concerned with standardising the protein content of milk powder, which leads to market adjustment. In the second report, I find it welcome that the 27 national quality classes for butter are to be removed and replaced with a single, Europe-wide quality definition. I am also glad that more attention is being paid to the question of school milk. It is better to make milk and milk products tasty for our children than to have to discuss alcohol abuse among young people, as was the case today. The third report indicates that drinking milk could be marketed more flexibly. Here I would insist to the Commissioner that the +/- 0.2% tolerance margin is far too high. Milk producers calculate the fat content of the milk they get from the farmers exactly to within 0.01%, so they must also be able to give consumers an exact indication of the fat content of drinking milk.

Milk is a valuable and healthy food. Milk and milk products form part of a healthy diet and I hope the upward trend continues for our dairy farmers and that the market grows. That is urgently necessary to ensure that our dairy farmers are rewarded better for working 365 days a year. The outcry about rising milk prices is not justified. Average consumption in Europe is 260 kg. If the consumer has to pay 10 cents more, that comes to 50 cents a week and surely we should consider milk production in Europe worth that much.

Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE). – (RO) Mr President, dear colleagues, the measure of simplifying the common milk market is, also from the Member States’ perspective, a great initiative that brings the European Union closer to the farmers’ real needs. This is possible especially by liberalizing production and milk marketing. This is good news especially for those countries whose farmers should make too large investments to produce just one of the 3 milk categories accepted until now. I do not think that under the present market conditions farmers could have adapted their production by 2009, the end of the transition period. Moreover, the European Union does not have to dictate the contents of milk products, as long as the phytosanitary standards are complied with. That is why I totally agree with this liberalization measure. Secondly, I support the introduction of one single rate of aid in the school-milk scheme. This is an important measure that will contribute to social cohesion in Europe as poorer regions will be favoured, and to the fight against obesity among young people. According to a Commission proposal, the aid should be higher because schools and kindergartens should not be forced to take part in financing a part of the cost. Moreover, this amount will be an advantage especially for those states which already have an aid system in schools. European funds can contribute to the quality of programmes and products provided to students and will remove significant budgetary resources of Member States, that could thus be used within the context of policies for young people. I also support the creation of the European Fund for milk market restructuring. It should also include a financing line for improving quality, according to which many farmers in the new Member States cannot sell their production any more after 2009. Least but not last, we have to see the changes in the common market organisation in the wider context of health control under the common agriculture policy. I think that this is the right time for restructuring the common milk market with the aim of removing the milk-quota system.

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking those of you who are still present for a constructive debate. As there do not seem to be major differences in our opinion on the milk mini-package, I would take the opportunity to use my final comments on the ‘elephant in the room’. 04-09-2007 EN Debates of the European Parliament 111

In the last couple of weeks, various stakeholders and media have put particular focus on the development of dairy prices in the Community during the summer. I shall be more than happy to have this opportunity today to put things straight in order to avoid potential misunderstandings. It is a fact that prices for dairy products have gone up substantially since the beginning of the year, in particular as a response to the market and, as rightly mentioned, not as a response to the increased production of bio-energy. Of course, there are some explanations for the increase in these prices, and I would like to come back to this a little later, but first I shall just put things into a more general perspective. We all know that the proportion of the income spent by European households on food has been going down gradually, year after year. Today we are in a situation where the Community is spending only about 12% on food and non-alcoholic beverages – a dramatic decrease, as you can see from the money spent. It was very interesting to see that a German newspaper made a very quick study, concluding that in order to buy one litre of milk a person had to work for 11 minutes in 1960 and only 3 minutes in 2006. While the average price for butter today is EUR 4.10, it was EUR 4.50 in 1982. These prices are nominal prices and do not take inflation into account. The current prices are coming from a historical low level, which was established after the 2003 reform, which for the industry provided a stronger competitive basis and for the dairy farmers provided compensation for potentially lower prices. Let me now come back to the fundamentals in the current market situation. First, most subsidies have been suspended for some time and these are mainly the export refunds, the intervention buying, the various different disposal aids.

Secondly, we are in a situation today where intervention stocks are empty – with all the quantities sold out into the internal market. Thirdly, the supply of butter has been reduced due to the lower production and empty intervention stocks. Cheese production was a priority use for milk fat until recently, when the improved prices for butter have led the industry to expand butter production again. Fourthly, although the cow’s milk collected this year is slightly higher than last year, it does not fully meet the increase in demand. I could continue naming other fundamentals, but basically we are today witnessing the play of market forces based on supply and demand. Gone is the pre-reform market attitude that the intervention level was the price leading. The industry is now taking genuine commercial decisions, providing maximum return for further investments, while also allowing higher prices to be paid to the dairy producers – the farmers. In that context, I am pleased to see the positive development of raw milk prices during the last few months: 15-20% has been reported in some Member States. However, we all know that the cost of production has been going up and milk production will only continue to expand if the profit margin can be maintained or even increased. Therefore, I would take this opportunity to draw a somewhat positive conclusion. In a historical perspective, the current wholesale and retail prices are not dramatically high. The return from the market for the dairy industry and for the farmers is encouraging, and the public market support spending in this sector is now more or less reduced to actions with some social character. We should not let our policy decisions be dictated by short-term developments within the dairy sector, and throughout the next 12 months we will have an excellent opportunity to discuss ways and means to make the dairy sector move forward in a sustainable way. We all know that the milk-quota system is due to end by 31 March 2015. As I have already mentioned, I will launch a debate in November on the ‘Health Check’, and following discussions – including here in Parliament – we will launch all the legal proposals during late spring 2008, so we can hopefully agree on the legislation to take place from 2009. In this context, we will take the opportunity to discuss in a broader context the whole dairy sector.

I will examine which measures could be appropriate to try to find a soft landing for the expiry of the quota system in 2015. A soft landing could be, as has already been mentioned, some sort of an increase of the quotas before or in the mid-term up until 2015. I am quite sure that we will have a huge opportunity to have some very interesting discussions, including as regards the dairy sector in a broader context, throughout the next 12 months. 112 EN Debates of the European Parliament 04-09-2007

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow. Written statements (Rule 142)

Bogdan Golik (PSE), in writing. – (SL) Mr President, the European Commission's proposal concerning a milk mini-package will definitely help to simplify the CAP and reduce the administrative burden. Most of the sections in this package deserve support, particularly as regards allowing the production and marketing within the Community of milk for human consumption with more graduation of fat content then was previously possible, as well as the introduction of a single rate of subsidy for milk distributed under the 'school milk' scheme. However, the elimination of subsidies for the private storage of SMP and cream raises some questions. The view of the European Commission is that EU operators did not use these support instruments for the milk market and, for this reason, they should be considered to be obsolete and unnecessary. At present it is difficult to predict with any certainty the future of the market for milk and milk products over the longer term, especially as the Common Agricultural Policy is currently undergoing changes, and for this reason the elimination of the above support instruments, even though they are not currently being used, would appear to be somewhat rash.

Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. – (SV) Many times in this Chamber the June List has had strong political objections to reports that have come from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. The report on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (A6-0283/2007) is another report from that committee which stubbornly maintains continued protection of heavy subsidies for all the different groups in the agricultural sector and continued protectionism against the outside world.

22. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

23. Closure of sitting

(The sitting was closed at 23.40)