Mr President, we are now taking a stance on an important issue, an international agreement, which may influence the prospects for prosperity of many Member States. In my own country, Sweden, one of our biggest export industries is affected, namely the music and sound recording industry. It is about artists’ entitlement to copyright or to protection for their artistic products. It is about the WCT (World Copyright Treaty) and the WPPT (World Performance and Phonograms Treaty). Without protection under intellectual property law, creativity is inhibited and financial incentives obstructed. Forgeries are big business. It is estimated that, in Europe alone, income of EUR 4.5 billion is lost because of piracy. The problem affects a lot of jobs in the entertainment industry. This is an historic agreement because the EU is the contracting party. This is the case, in spite of the fact that it is not the EU, but only the Member States, which belong to the organisation. There exists a special clause which requires Parliament’s assent in two cases. With regard to the present agreement, both these conditions are fulfilled. A new institution is being created, an assembly which, in the future, will monitor the agreement and its consequences. The agreement also concerns questions dealt with in accordance with the co-decision-making procedure. Parliament must therefore give its assent, because the agreement concerns its sphere of competence. The future will show whether it is right, by means of this new parliamentary assembly, to reduce the Commission’s powers regarding these issues. Parliament cannot, in any case, at present do anything about the matter. The agreement complements the Berne Convention in regard to literary works. It creates international legal protection in connection with distribution, sale, rental, public reproduction and the making available of works. It also creates protection for software and databases. There are problems regarding the term “author”. For example, it has not been defined. Another issue, which is somewhat problematic, is that of intermediate storage. This too has not been solved. It is dealt with by means of a general clause which does not provide any definition. If no definitions are provided in questions such as this, it can lead to their being dealt with differently around the world, with no uniformity of approach. That would not be a good thing. The question of arbitration procedures is still to be resolved, too. Parliament cannot change these details. We can only say yes or no to the agreement as it stands. Yes or no to an agreement which contains deficiencies. Both myself, as rapporteur, and the committee think we ought to say yes. We have here an agreement which, in spite of its defects, constitutes a significant step forward for the issue of copyright. We have of course discussed at length whether Parliament and whether the EU should have powers in regard to patents under intellectual property law. I think they should have. However, there is still no Community legislation in the areas of patent law and protection of designs, and there needs to be. A European patent is in the offing, and that is a good thing. Now, the Union and the Member States are combining to take the first steps in the area of intellectual property law. It is good for us that we have the power to do this, in spite of the fact that we are not completely satisfied. In that way, we can act as a model for the applicant States. We have a direct financial interest in these issues being settled before enlargement. I want to thank the Commission for its efforts in this area and for the cooperation with the Commission’s officials, which has been quite excellent. Finally, I also want to thank this Chamber for being so good as to listen to these words at this late hour.

Political group: PPE-DE