Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
Frank Vanhecke
(NL) Mr President, I should just like to say that I did not endorse the resolution on the EU/China human rights dialogue for a number of reasons. In particular, I think that we in this Hemicycle have already churned out more than enough overblown texts, and that the European institutions rarely, if ever, follow these overblown texts and overblown statements with action.
With the Beijing Olympic Games around the corner, their European Excellencies will be once more attempting to curry favour with the Chinese authorities. This is already clear from the present resolution, which, alongside very many sensible elements, asserts that, at the recent Chinese Communist Party National Congress - and I quote - 'perspectives ... arose towards the implementation of higher international human rights benchmarks'. How unworldly of this House; as the reality in today's Beijing is one of intimidation, deportations, arrests and labour camps. It is time the European Union abandoned its policy of double standards towards China.
Dimitar Stoyanov
(BG) I voted against the resolution on extremism because it is the fruit of that hatred it is called upon to condemn. And who is lecturing us on extremism? Comrade Schulz and Comrade Cohn-Bendit, these champions of Marxism and Leninism, that very ideology which massacred dozens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians in the beginning of last century? Or Comrade Vigenin whose party held the Bulgarian people in its clutches for fifty years and killed thousands Bulgarians in its concentration camps? Are you the ones to teach us what extremism is like? Thank you.
Frank Vanhecke
(NL) Mr President, yes, that is the way it goes in this House. Unless your name is Mr Schulz, you have to use the explanations of vote to be able to express your opinions. This House has once again laid its periodic egg about the 'necessity' of combating 'extremism' - but is not talking about real extremism and real violence, for example that of the rising Islam in Europe. Instead, it is talking for the umpteenth time about curbing the freedom of expression of those peacefully standing up for the right to individuality, the right to protect and preserve our languages, identities, cultures and freedom.
It is little short of tragic that this House is constantly speaking about freedom and human rights whilst imposing the severest, most drastic muzzling rules on people who have differing opinions on the matter and, for example, do not simply join the rest of this House in worshipping the sacred cow of the proverbial multicultural society. I, for my part, do not take this resolution seriously and, as far as I am concerned, there can be no freedom without total freedom of political expression.
Philip Claeys
(NL) Mr President, I too voted against the resolution on extremism. This is not because I feel that the term concerns me - the reverse is true - but because, for the umpteenth time, a legitimate political discourse against further mass-immigration and for a firm adjustment policy is being consciously bound up with extremism and violence.
Even the title of the resolution is misleading and biased. Left-wing extremism is evidently something that by definition cannot exist, and clearly no-one here has heard of the rising Islamic fundamentalism. This is straight out of Kafka. It would be funny if it were not so depressing. Anyone not falling into line with political correctness is criminalised. Perhaps someone could explain how this kind of thing relates to the Charter of Fundamental Rights we signed yesterday.
Koenraad Dillen
(NL) Mr President, I too voted wholeheartedly against this resolution, as when the fox preaches, look to your geese. I have rarely set eyes on a more hypocritical document than this motion for a resolution on 'rising extremism' in Europe - and God knows that Europe and this House have already broken records for hypocrisy.
After all, as my colleagues have already said, there is no such thing as left-wing extremism. Indeed, the finger is not even pointed at Islamic extremism. The suburbs of Paris burned, but the problem apparently lies with the small nonconformist minority that has become the bane of the life of this lofty institution.
Perhaps we should open the gates of the Gulag again for those who still dare to criticise the cult of Europe and the sacrosanct multicultural society - complete with an inquisition and banishment to Devil's Island for the heretics. Only then will Europe be purged of its last critics, and the cult of Europe will be able to continue its conversion mission undisturbed.
Mogens Camre
(DA) Mr President, this resolution contains a justified critique of neo-fascist and fundamentalist movements in certain European countries. However, it appears that as a whole it is unilaterally oriented towards a problem that is described as European citizens with fascist and racist attitudes, and it makes the resolution meaningless. Repeated opinion polls in Denmark have indicated that immigrants from non-Western nations do not feel that they are being subjected to any form of racism or hostile treatment. However, some immigrants from non-European nations have perpetrated very widespread violence towards both Danish citizens and other immigrants. In the official crime statistics, immigrants from non-Western nations are disproportionately over-represented.
Week after week in recent months there have been many shooting incidents on the open streets involving immigrant gangs, as well as individual attacks. Immigrant officials, who are themselves of non-Danish ethnic origin, have had their lives threatened and been told to leave their job, not by Danes, but by people from foreign cultures, who they are trying to help integrate into Danish society. We have a prominent immigrant politician of Syrian origin. He must be protected 24 hours a day, not against Danes but against fundamentalists of an Islamic background. Our intelligence service is constantly involved in preventing violent attacks against Danes and Danish social institutions, not from Danes but from foreigners. Therefore, from a Danish perspective this resolution is absurd. In Denmark, violent racism is directed towards democracy and human rights. On this basis I have been unable to vote in favour of this resolution.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) Mr President, the Black Sea is becoming one of the main routes for increasing oil exports in this region and in recent years has unfortunately often been a place of frequent accidents involving tankers and cargo carriers. Twelve vessels sank or ran aground here during a severe storm. These events had serious consequences, affected people's lives and caused large-scale ecological disasters.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska more than 18 years ago is an example of a large-scale disaster, the consequences of which are felt to this day.
Considering that approximately 200 tankers travel the world's seas every day, I am of the opinion that the situation should be regularly and closely monitored not only in the Black Sea but also in other seas. The Member States, as well as other countries neighbouring the European Union, should ensure more rigorous application of existing Community legislation and maritime safety standards. In this context, I am calling on the Council to speed up its deliberations and to adopt common positions on the remaining legislative acts in the third maritime package on maritime safety.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Mr President, abolishing quotas and introducing monitoring of Chinese textile imports next year will undoubtedly result in improved control mechanisms. However, I do not agree that woollens should not be subject to monitoring. Our resolution is a political appeal to the Commission, an expression of our wish that greater emphasis be placed on demanding that international obligations are met, and it is a protest against Chinese barriers to imports of European products. I welcome the fact that China will have to issue import licences, which will make it possible to carry out control procedures in Chinese ports and so better protect Europe from counterfeit goods. At the same time it is the Commission's duty to protect European consumers against toxic substances, for example azo dyes that are sometimes present in Chinese goods. Therefore, I call on the Commission to push for the confiscation of textiles presenting health risks at the borders of the European Union.
Written explanations of vote
Bastiaan Belder
The Council and the European Parliament have reached agreement on the additional financing for the Galileo satellite system and expenditure on foreign affairs, including the police mission in Kosovo. To this end, they have increased the 2007-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework and used the flexibility instrument, and there have also been redeployments within the existing budget lines. These redeployments could have been more far reaching.
The main things I have problems with are the adjustment of the previously agreed ceiling for EU funds for the period until 2013 and the use of the flexibility instrument for this purpose. The use of this instrument must be avoided, and at all costs must remain limited to very exceptional circumstances. Any changes in costs must be primarily absorbed by reducing other budget lines. I am thinking mainly of the expenditure that does not concern the central objectives of the European Union and the budget lines whose implementation is already falling behind in respect of the planned expenditure.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) The agreement reached between the Commission, the Council and Parliament for the 2008 EU budget reveals the true weight of the 'big countries' and the 'rich countries' as it responds to their demands to limit the EU budget ceiling as much as possible.
In spite of all the attempts to hide it, the truth is that the Commission's, the Council's and the EP's proposals for the EU budget, and this agreement, were below the figure for 2008 envisaged in the 2007-2013 financial framework. That was also the case last year and in the 2000-2006 financial framework.
In reality, this EU budget for 2008 represents a reduction of more than EUR 9 billion in terms of payments as compared with what was agreed in the financial framework for 2008 - that is, in terms of payments, the EU budget has been reduced from 1.04% to 0.96% of the Community GNI. On the other hand, the EU budget has progressively moved its priorities towards financing the neoliberal, federalist and militaristic policies of the EU.
We therefore reject this agreement.
Gunnar Hökmark
in writing. - (SV) We support the basic principles of the EU budget for 2008 and stress that it must give the taxpayers good value for money. The frameworks set by the financial perspective must be respected and we therefore welcome the fact that the budget will be kept within these frameworks by a good margin.
Agricultural support is one of the areas in which there is scope for cutbacks to the advantage of aims which are more in line with the Lisbon ambitions, that is that the EU should develop into the world's economically most successful region.
Gay Mitchell
in writing. - During Budget negotiations, Parliament decided with Council to redeploy EUR 50 million from the Decentralised Agencies to part-finance the European GNSS programmes (EGNOS/GALILEO) and the European Institute of Technology. It was not indicated which agencies would be affected.
The reprogramming concerns the agencies under heading 1A under which Eurofound, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Working and Living standards, belongs. Eurofound is based in Dublin. This foundation provides an important service in the area of the labour market and working conditions, and a cut would be intolerable and counterproductive.
José Albino Silva Peneda
in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the proposed 2008 budget, firstly because the proposal is clearly in line with the principles set out in the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective.
Secondly, because the proposal put to the vote, after being negotiated with the Commission and the Council, finally overcame the serious problems that arose concerning the financing of Galileo. The solution to this is also very positive, making it possible to provide a reasonable level of financing for projects included in the trans-European networks.
Thirdly, I think that the treasury solutions found are very positive as regards the budget for payments for items financing European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund projects, which are very important for enabling Portugal to develop the projects it needs to achieve much higher rates of economic growth than in recent years and thus to come closer to the EU average.
Carlos Coelho
in writing. - (PT) Approximately 50 years ago the Council of Europe devised a system of rules and legal and judicial instruments for the purposes of protecting and promoting Fundamental Rights that has become a benchmark for Human Rights, the Rule of Law and Democracy in Europe.
The Agency for Fundamental Rights, which is a legal successor of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, should help to enhance the coherence and consistency of EU Fundamental Rights Policy.
Since both institutions share the same objective (strengthening the protection of Fundamental Rights), it is essential to ensure that they collaborate closely.
This Agreement aims to ensure complementarity and added value and to avoid duplication with the activities of the Council of Europe, as laid down in Article 9 of the Regulation establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
I support the conclusion of this Agreement in a spirit of cooperation, transparency and complementarity, in particular the establishing of a cooperation framework between the two institutions entailing regular contacts and meetings, exchange of information and coordination of activities in order to avoid duplication and to guarantee the best possible use of resources.
Marine Le Pen
in writing. - (FR) The paradox, or perhaps the hypocrisy of the European Parliament, is that it goes about preaching democratic principles and values but flouts them by refusing to apply them when it is inconvenient to do so.
Such was the case yesterday when the European Parliament, meeting in plenary, formally proclaimed the Charter of Fundamental Rights amid general uproar, thus ignoring the protests from the separatists demanding a referendum for the adoption of the new constitutional treaty.
The European Parliament is discrediting itself by refusing any discussion and stigmatising its own elected Members who are committed to promoting the maintenance of national identity and sovereignty.
Freedom of expression only has value if one's political opponents enjoy it too. According to the conservative political groups, it seems that some speech is illegitimate and needs to be prevented at any cost. As the European Parliament compromises itself by laying claim to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the elected Members from the Front National are stating loud and clear that they do not have the same idea of human rights and will continue to fight for respect for the sovereignty and identity of the nations of Europe.
Duarte Freitas
in writing. - (PT) I am voting in favour of the report by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf since it is becoming urgent to introduce a system of electronic identification for ovine and caprine animals. I regret the 17 month delay in the Commission proposal.
I agree with the amendment to the Commission proposal to the effect that a specific date should be set for the system to come into force, 31 December 2009 being the most appropriate date, as Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's report suggests.
I do not agree with Amendments 4 and 5 which would delay the swift implementation of the system. Nor do I agree with Amendment 3, since in my view the document in question aims to set a timetable rather than discuss principles.
Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelström
in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted for the report since it is important to remove the current obstacles to the collection of maintenance contributions from a citizen with residence in a Member State other than that of the person entitled to maintenance. In this connection it is particularly important to protect the weaker party in the collection procedure. However, we are opposed to the wording of Amendments 9 and 26 which require the parties, after independent legal advice, to enter into a written agreement on the jurisdiction of the court and on the national law which should be applied in order that the agreement should be effective in the court. Such requirements are not compatible with the Swedish legal tradition.
Carlos Coelho
in writing. - (PT) Increasing mobility in the EU, combined with the growing number of couples separating, has brought an increase in the number of cross-border disputes regarding maintenance claims.
The current procedures for obtaining maintenance claims tend to be too long and complicated and in many cases impossible in terms of obtaining results. In the meantime, maintenance creditors, the large majority of them children, live in very poor circumstances and often do not even have money to survive.
This initiative is therefore very important, since it should facilitate the functioning of the internal market and freedom of movement, by the elimination of obstacles created by the discrepancies between the Member States, as regards enforcing maintenance obligations. It should ensure that such decisions are recognised and enforced throughout the European Union in the quickest and most effective way at the lowest possible cost.
It will simplify citizens' lives and should at the same time have positive social effects in that it will make it easier for maintenance creditors living in another Member State to take a claim to a competent court and, once the court decision has been given, it will be recognised in all the Member States without further formalities.
Bogusław Liberadzki
in writing. - (PL) Mr President, I am voting in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations - C6-0079/2006 -.
Mrs Grabowska is correct in her assessment that there is currently no common, harmonised system of recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions at EU level.
I agree with the initiative for the quick, free-of-charge enforcement of maintenance claims, especially in the context of cross-border movements of persons.
The report rightly stresses the need for the introduction of such actions in order for a decision to have the same effect as it has in the Member State in which it was issued, without any additional formalities.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) Since 1997, when the Ottawa Convention was signed, on the basis of data available last November, 156 States have signed the Convention. Significantly and regrettably, the USA is not one of those States.
Quite correctly, the resolution adopted today points out the inconsistency between the European Commission's action in announcing its intention actively to strive for the destruction of anti-personnel mines and support for victims who for the most part, remember, are children, whilst at the same time deleting the specific anti-personnel mine budget line at the end of 2006.
In view of the importance of this action and the fact that victim support is nowhere near sufficient to respond to their needs, we think that a specific anti-personnel mine budget line for the financing of anti-mine actions, victim assistance, and stockpile destruction should be reinstated; furthermore, we would add that there should be a substantial increase in the funds allocated.
We regret the failure to adopt the proposal by our parliamentary group calling upon all countries to immediately halt the production of landmines and urging that under no circumstances or conditions should EU troops make use of mines.
Robert Goebbels
in writing. - (FR) I abstained on the resolution on EU-China relations because I am not keen to associate myself with these paternalistic reprimands or with the moralising discourse that resolutions of this kind convey. A European Union that cannot adopt a Charter of Fundamental Rights that applies throughout its territory is ill placed to try and give lessons to the rest of the world.
Jim Allister
in writing. - As a representative from a region, Northern Ireland, where Sinn Fein, affiliates of a terrorist organisation which recently murdered a young man, Paul Quinn, has been admitted to government in a coalition with exclusively democratic parties, I was encouraged to note and vote for Amendment 14 which was in the following terms:
'Deplores the fact that some mainstream parties have seen fit to give credibility and acceptance to extremist parties by entering into coalition agreements, thereby sacrificing their moral integrity for the sake of short-term political gain and expediency.'
Gerard Batten
in writing. - Whilst opposed to extremism in any form, UKIP does not believe that we, the British people, need to take any advice on this issue from the EU, and nor would UKIP call for the EU to take any action. This, like all other matters, should be the prerogative of independent, democratic nation states.
Derek Roland Clark
in writing. - Whilst opposed to extremism in ny form UKIP does not believe that we, the British people, need to take advice on this issue from the EU, and nor would UKIP call for the EU to take any action. This, like all other matters, should be the prerogative of independent, democratic, nation states.
Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, Wojciech Roszkowski and Konrad Szymański
in writing. - (PL) Mr President, we are against racism, xenophobia and political extremism. Recent practice in the European Parliament, where these concepts are abused in the ongoing political struggle, giving rise to a threat to free speech, a flagrant example of which was the incidents in the Hemicycle on 12 December this year, however, leads us to believe that supporters of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in which, it must be said, there is a senseless prohibition on discrimination based on 'any political opinion', at that time violated the principles they themselves propound.
The lack of any precise definition of political extremism and xenophobia in the resolution, which is intended to combat extremism, leads us to abstain from the vote on this matter.
Bruno Gollnisch
in writing. - (FR) Front National, Vlaams Belang and FPOE are not extremist, racist or xenophobic parties. Lumping them together in a way that is unhealthy and wrong, all the so-called 'conservative' parties are still trying to accuse them of being extremists solely because they want to promote the maintenance of national identity.
Democracy is certainly in danger, but those who are pre-appointed by the system as guilty are not the ones threatening it. It is not in danger from the people who criticise and challenge policies, particularly on immigration, and who are therefore accused of being extremist. It is in danger from those who systematically gag freedom of expression in the name of human rights and political correctness, and who are really only masking their own failure to solve the problems they are facing of immigration, lack of security and identity.
By massively increasing the amount of legislation to combat extremism in Europe, Parliament could have been proud of helping to maintain democratic principles and values. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Far from targeting radical Islamism or totalitarian communist regimes, Parliament is just feeding its anti-national and globalist obsession once again.
Mieczysław Edmund Janowski
in writing. - (PL) Mr President, I categorically oppose racism, xenophobia and political extremism. I do think, though, that in documents adopted under the aegis of the European Parliament a clear definition should be provided of such terms as, specifically, political extremism and xenophobia. If this is not done, this may, under a noble banner, actually serve the opposite aims and become a field for abuses in politicians' public activities, drowning out free expression and the freedom to voice one's views.
One example of such selective interpretation of these concepts was provided by the situation that arose at the European Parliament's plenary session in Strasbourg on 12 December this year. How, for example, does the provision of an article of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that says that 'Any discrimination based on ... political or any other opinion ... shall be prohibited' square with the forcible snatching of pieces of paper with the legend 'REFERENDUM' from the hands of Members? This was a peaceful expression of opinion by a few elected Members.
In view of this situation, I abstained from the vote on the resolution on combating rising extremism in Europe.
Carl Lang
in writing. - (FR) It is astounding to see how hemiplegic the European Parliament can be: it can only look right! The various resolutions proposed by the PSE, Liberals, Verts or even Communists only consider extremism on the part of the 'extreme right'.
What about radical Islamism and all those Trotskyites and communists? Not once are these types of extremism mentioned.
This is an insult for all the victims of totalitarian communist regimes and for all those who suffer on a daily basis because of the dogma and practices of radical Islamism. The European Parliament does not believe these types of extremism are objectionable. They just do not exist, because they do not form part of the current standard vocabulary of political correctness within these walls.
Out of respect for the principles and values of democracy, equality and tolerance, the PSE Group is quick to welcome the dissolution of the extreme right-wing political group Independence, Tradition and Sovereignty (ITS) before calling for the conditions governing the formation of political groups within Parliament to be strengthened. The leitmotiv of these elected members is to systematically demonise their political opponents in order to impose their conservatism on everyone.
These resolutions are a hypocritical, blind and obscurantist chore. We will be voting against them.
Geoffrey Van Orden
in writing. - While I fully subscribe to genuine measures to overcome racism and extremism, this sort of resolution, generated by the Left, is not helpful and is merely intended to take forward their own distorted agenda. In fact, there is little to distinguish the extreme Left and the extreme Right and they feed off one another. However, the Left has been successful in taking the spotlight off its own extremes and promoting institutions and policies which assist its own objectives. The EU, in its continuous efforts to extend its own reach, is often complicit in this. I do not approve of EU quangos such as the so-called 'EU Agency for Fundamental Rights' or indeed funding from public money of the constellation of NGOs pushing the Left's agenda. I therefore abstained on the resolution.
Thomas Wise
in writing. - I am opposed to extremism in any form, but I do not accept that the British people must take advice from the EU on this - or indeed on any other matter. I was not elected to have the EU extend or expand its control over the UK. This matter should remain in the control and prerogative of independent, democratic nation states.
Erik Meijer
In 1918, independent Montenegro voluntarily chose unification with the neighbouring countries of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia. In 2006, after the break-up of Yugoslavia, the electorate of Montenegro, the last state to remain united with Serbia, decided democratically to end this union. This made Montenegro the 49th independent state in Europe. Now it is important that Montenegro become a normal state, rather than a larger version of Monaco: a paradise for rich foreigners wishing to pay low taxes, launder money and build palaces. Montenegro must do more to combat environmental pollution and cigarette smuggling.
I am pleased that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has accepted my amendments concerning housing and jobs for Serbian and Kosovar refugees. Stateless persons cannot remain stateless for ever, and Montenegro must respect the agreements of the Council of Europe in this regard. Even my proposal regarding the restoration of the north-south railway connections to Nikšić on the Bosnian border and Shkoder in Albania has been accepted. Increasing road transport is not a valid solution. Fortunately, the rapporteur, Mr Vernola - unlike in his previous annual report - is not calling for swift accession to NATO, nor an economic policy that is even more neoliberal than is usual in the rest of Europe. Accession to NATO cannot be a prerequisite for admission to the EU.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) The resolution adopted today in the European Parliament expresses solidarity with the victims of the shipwrecks that occurred in the Kerch Strait - that is, the Strait linking the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov - causing an environmental disaster.
The environmental impact of the spillage of oil derivatives into the strait was exacerbated by the rapid dispersion of the pollutants due to the strong winds and high waves at the time.
In general, we agree with the positions contained in the resolution, stressing the important role of Member States in ensuring that ships on their national registers conform to international standards and in preventing maritime accidents and combating the consequences of such accidents.
Agreeing with the need to implement measures to reduce the environmental risk and to make progress in maritime safety, we think that any initiative taken at EU level in this framework should be based on enhanced cooperation between Member States, without compromising their responsibilities in this area.
Marie Anne Isler Béguin
in writing. - (FR) The enlargement of the European Union calls for our solidarity with the population of the 431 000 km2 around the Black Sea.
This solidarity is expressed by the agreement to open negotiations with Turkey, the implementation of the Neighbourhood Policy with Georgia and Ukraine, and the strategic partnership established with Russia. The violence of the storm makes us think about the effects of climate change, in our own neighbourhood too. A risk management policy is required that combines both prevention and the protection of biodiversity.
We remember that the storm trapped four vessels and caused the death of eight sailors. A Russian cargo vessel also broke in two, releasing 4 000 tonnes of fuel oil on a migration route for diving birds coming from Siberia. The European Union sent a team within the framework of the Monitoring and Information Centre. More should be done as part of this initiative. To prevent future disasters, the EU must make sure that high safety standards are systematically applied to the fleet of Russian vessels. The EU must impose the use of double-hull cargo vessels on its Russian partner, for transporting oil. As the parliamentary assembly of the BSEC meets, we should be demanding the application of the standards in the European maritime safety package.
Andrzej Jan Szejna
in writing. - (PL) Mr President, I am voting in favour of Mr Ehler's report on deposit-guarantee schemes.
The rapporteur has presented a very good report, in which attention is drawn to the new challenges facing guarantee schemes because of the increasing integration of markets. These challenges must be responded to if the stability of financial markets is to be ensured. Deposit-guarantee schemes are a very important part in the EU financial market system and their operation should continuously be improved.
The rapporteur rightly draws attention to the problem of crisis management and the safety net for cross-border deposits in crisis management.
I agree that crisis management should rest on the foundations of improved early risk detection, better defined and planned procedures of interaction between all parties involved, and clarification of the point at which burdens are to be shared. Differences between systems and the variety of parties involved in the public and private sectors must be taken into consideration.
Bruno Gollnisch
in writing. - (FR) Mass imports, the perverse role played by a strong euro against a deliberately undervalued foreign currency, social and environmental dumping, counterfeits, piracy, dangerous products, and the existence of non-tariff barriers that hit European manufacturing: in the textiles sector as in others, every report and resolution by this Parliament on trade relations with China looks the same.
Why was China's membership of the WTO accepted under these circumstances? We voted against it. Why refuse to see that liberalising trade with countries that have decided not to obey the rules - and you never challenge this liberalisation - only leads to economic disaster and social disintegration for whole regions and sectors? Why accept the end of textile quotas and the laying off of tens of thousands of European workers? You are worried about it now, but you only talk timidly of possible means of commercial defence, safeguard measures and joint surveillance of exports. It is not much, and it is not enough, but it is better than nothing.
Therefore, though this resolution is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, we will vote in favour.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) We are pleased at the adoption of our proposals that:
maintain that the double-checking surveillance system will serve no purpose unless it prevents any repetition of the situation that occurred in 2005 and that new safeguard measures are required;
repeat the proposal that a Community programme should be drawn up for the textiles and clothing sector, especially for the more disadvantaged regions that depend on it, and help for SMEs;
We regret the rejection by the majority of the European Parliament of our proposals that, for example:
referred to the serious consequences of liberalisation in the textiles and clothing sector at global level with firms closing down or relocating, unemployment and serious socio-economic crises;
pointed out that some countries have adopted safeguard measures applying until the end of 2008, and therefore failed to understand why the EU had not followed suit;
maintain that a regulatory framework needed to be laid down to penalise company relocations, making public aid to businesses subject to long-term commitments regarding regional development and employment, including the requirement to pay back aid if such conditions were not met;
called for a stronger role for workers' representatives in company boards and in fundamental organisational decision-making.
Carl Lang
in writing. - (FR) The textile sector in France and in Europe since the end of the Multi Fibre Arrangement has turned some of our regions into economic and social deserts. Poverty and deprivation reign there for the thousands of men and women who have lost their jobs.
The destruction of these companies, of this social fabric, in the name of globalisation and pro-European ultraliberalism, is the symbol of one of the greatest economic failures of the European Union.
For years, this approach has led to our manufacturing in all economic sectors, even where it was of a very high standard, being relocated to other countries throughout the world: to North Africa and especially to Asia. This global rebalancing will not actually have given these third countries anything, except to worsen economic slavery for the benefit of a small elite in Chinese factories and to establish long-term unemployment in Europe against a background of persistent economic crisis.
Clearly, global competition, as encouraged by the WTO, is the main reason for the widespread impoverishment and lack of dynamism of Europe. The European Union urgently needs to put an end to this madness, and finally to set up Community protection and preference.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) Amongst other things, this report contains a veritable misconception. It acknowledges that 'poverty remains an unresolved and deepening problem in Korea which, according to OECD statistics, ranks among the three OECD members with both the biggest income gap and the greatest widening of the income gap' (we might add that it is not the only case, since within the EU the income gap between rich and poor has also widened, particularly in Portugal, where the difference between the richest and the poorest continues to grow, with approximately two million Portuguese living on the breadline).
The report nevertheless calls for a 'free trade' agreement between the EU and Korea and for trade liberalisation, when it is known that such policies have favoured and will continue to favour the concentration of wealth on the large economic and financial groups both in the EU and in Korea. It is an agreement which will serve to place workers under even greater pressure to accept low salaries and lose rights and social advances gained in the name of 'competitiveness', and to increase the fabulous profits of the few.
In the meantime there is no mention of the shipbuilding industry...
Andrzej Jan Szejna
in writing. - (PL) Mr President, I am voting in favour of accepting Mr Martin's report on the trade and economic relations with Korea.
The rapporteur has drafted a very good report, in which he points out the importance of Korea as a trading partner for the European Union in economic terms. Conclusion of a Free Trade Agreement with Korea is part of the strategy to provide Europe with a global dimension.
A Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the European Union could constitute a basis for the promotion of high social and environmental standards and could serve as an example for other agreements that are currently at the negotiation stage.
I agree that every effort must be made to ensure that the European Union and Korea - under the aegis of the trade agreement currently being negotiated or through a separate agreement - themselves take on human rights obligations.
(The sitting was suspended at 12.50 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)


Import of poultry carcases (debate)
President
The next item is the Commission statement on the import of poultry carcases.
Androula Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, on this issue I had exhaustive discussions with my colleagues on the authorisation of the use of AMT substances as a decontamination measure to clean the surface of poultry carcases, during the college meeting of 28 May. As you know, the possibility of removing surface contamination with substances other than potable water was approved by Council and Parliament in 2004 in the hygiene regulations.
In order to approve substances for use in decontamination of any meat, the applicable law requires a positive, evidence-based finding in comitology, indicating that the use of the substances does not pose risks to health or the environment.
Let me remind you that there was a long-standing request by the USA for approval of four AMT substances for use in decontamination of poultry carcases. Against this background, we have requested various scientific opinions which have assessed the risk of the use of the four AMT substances from the point of view of health, environment and anti-microbial resistance.
On the basis of the outcome of the various scientific opinions, we decided to present a proposal. The scientific opinions allow us to proceed with a proposal for authorisation, but not at any price. Pursuant to the scientific opinions, a number of risk-management conditions had to be formulated. In proposing this text, my bottom line is very clear: no matter which commercial partner is at stake, no international commitment can be allowed to undermine the principles of food safety and the health of EU consumers.
Hence the need to ensure that any use of such substances would not replace the obligation to comply with the hygiene conditions along the food chain as set by Community legislation, and that such use would not make up for prior poor hygiene conditions. In fact, in its opinion, EFSA has indicated that AMT could be considered as a useful tool to complement the hygiene practices already implemented in the European Union.
This is why I have imposed strict, yet proportional conditions. Under these conditions, we can assure a proposal which is defensible from the point of view of public health and safety. The conditions that we propose are the following. First, one single substance is applied. Time of exposure and concentration of the substances are defined. The poultry carcases are rinsed with potable water. No residue is left on the final product after the use of the substance. The efficacy of the rinsing is monitored to ensure the absence of residues. By setting these conditions, we ensure that the use of AMT substances will not make up for poor hygiene conditions, and that no residues are left in the end product.
I would also like to stress that the use of AMT only reduces the number of bacteria and does not replace good hygiene practices as a core requirement, equally applicable in third countries as in Europe and applicable from the flocks to the processing of poultry carcases. We will maintain a holistic approach to the reduction of salmonella at all stages of the production chain: feed, farms and slaughterhouses.
Moreover, the proposal provides for appropriate labelling. As with other approved substances such as additives, the consumer has the right to be informed. Thus we suggest two alternative descriptions. Appropriate environmental medication measures on waste water effluent quality standards, as proposed by DG Environment. These consist of conditions for collecting and treatment of wastewater in slaughterhouses.
Last but not least, the proposal foresees a review within two years of the date of application of the authorisation, allowing further collection of data from food business operators regarding the use of the substances so that scientific questions on antimicrobial resistance can be addressed. This review will place the burden of proof on the food operators rather than on the Commission's scientific bodies.
That said, when the proposal was presented to the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health on 2 June, 26 Member States expressed a negative opinion and one abstained. The Commission will now transmit the proposal to the Council of Ministers to decide.
You will ask why the Commission went ahead with this proposal despite the EU domestic opposition to it. Firstly, because the legislative framework foresees the possibility of approving such substances. Secondly, because there has been a request for approval which could not be left unanswered, considering also our international commitments. Finally, because there are scientific opinions which indicated that we could proceed with the authorisation provided it is flanked by a number of strict conditions, as we did. It was, therefore, for the Commission to stand up to its institutional responsibilities and make the proposal.
What happens next is part of the decision-making process. In this sense, I have taken good note of your strongly held position. The Council will now be asked to pronounce on the text. As you know, if a qualified majority of Member States is against this proposal, it will not be adopted, so we will see the end result under the French presidency.
Robert Sturdy
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Commissioner said that this chemical chlorine is not dangerous. If that is the case, why is it banned for use on chickens in the European Union?
Secondly, Commissioner, you said that we have obligations to the United States. We are part of the WTO negotiations and part of the WTO, but - correct me if I am wrong - there is no ban on chicken meat coming out of the United States, provided it meets EU standards. Why on earth are we putting in place legislation in the European Union when we are in effect wasting our time?
We have just adopted a report on a directive on safe water. We have taken a number of chemicals out of the text and yet here we are, bringing chlorine back in. You mentioned quite rightly on 2 June that there was a vote of 26 to 1 against. The one that abstained was the United Kingdom. You have to remember that the United Kingdom is governed by the greed of the supermarkets and I would suggest to you that the reason the United Kingdom abstained is that it was pressurised for cheap food from the supermarkets. I believe that in actual fact this is having a detrimental effect.
You say there will be no residue left on the products. Can you wholeheartedly put your hand on your heart, Commissioner, and say that you will be able to monitor this, because in the past we have had problems with products coming into the EU? I was responsible for the report on chemicals in food coming into the European Union and food within the European Union, and we are having real problems monitoring them.
I believe that you are laying yourself open to a real risk, and not just to public health. It is not a trade issue - it is about public health, public confidence in the product. The last thing we want to see is loss of public confidence in the European Union and in the food we produce.
Anne Ferreira
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to thank the Members who contributed to the drafting of this resolution. I would like to stress that this is supported by all the political groups. Why such unanimity? No doubt because it reflects our dissatisfaction with the attitude and approach of the Commission, which stems from a denial of democracy that the European Parliament has faced on this dossier for several weeks now.
The Commission's determination to disregard the opinion of MEPs and experts on the issue of importing chlorinated chicken is truly appalling. Yes, Mr Verheugen is in charge of negotiating with his US counterpart to promote trade between our two regions, but can he do it by sacrificing European health standards? How can the Commission have given the go-ahead for this kind of project, merely proposing compulsory labelling and a review of the provisions in 2 years' time etc.? Can the Commission explain why, after acknowledging that it lacked information about these substances, it is not adopting a precautionary approach? The absence of references to the conclusions of the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is also curious, since a few weeks ago it revealed an increase in contamination and infection from salmonella, listeria and other bacteria. Why should we import a method which has not already been tried and tested?
Another important point to remember is that the implementation of European food safety legislation required years of work and collaboration with industry professionals, who agreed to invest in order to meet the expectations of European citizens. This approach, which involves the entire food chain, is the most sustainable way of reducing the level of pathogens. This was the choice we made, and do you really think that a relationship of trust and a strong and reliable partnership can be built by failing to reaffirm our own principles and values to our US partners? I have one more question: would the imported products be subject to the same rules as European poultry?
Finally, I will finish by pointing out that this decision is all the more incomprehensible as the European Commission has decided to counterattack the WTO over the decision of its Dispute Settlement Body on hormone-treated beef. I find that there is enormous confusion and misunderstanding among consumers faced with this diametrically opposed position. It really calls into question the political line taken by the European Commission on food health and safety.
The European Council will shortly issue an opinion on the Commission's proposal. We ask it to take into account the position of Parliament and the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health: to put health before trade.
Bart Staes
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I can only endorse the words of Mr Sturdy and Mrs Ferreira. I do not actually understand why the Commission persisted in tabling these proposals on 28 May. The pressure from the United States must have been enormous. This pressure is of an economic nature. The United States is losing markets here in the European Union - including, perhaps, in the new Member States that joined in 2004.
What do I note from all the studies carried out? I note that the United States' approach to the use of antimicrobial agents is not really efficient. The number of cases of contamination with salmonella or campylobacter has not gone down. Our approach, on the other hand, is very effective. We have a 'farm to fork' approach, covering every stage from the farm to the consumer's table. Since the Commission White Paper in 2000, we have adopted strong legislation on foodstuffs. I do not now want to see this undermined.
Nor do farmers want this, as they have invested in this approach. They do not want unfair competition from competitors in other parts of the world. Besides, they do not stand alone; they have the support of the consumer and environmental movements. I would ask the Commissioner to have a rethink, therefore, and to withdraw this proposal: she has no support for it in the Council and no support for it in this Parliament.
Janusz Wojciechowski
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, I fully support the draft resolution that has been put forward. I identify with the full content of the proposals contained in the draft resolution. A very important matter has been raised in this document. In our debates on the situation in agriculture, but also in international trade, we have called numerous times for respect for the principle that requirements must be identical for producers in the European Union and for those entities that export their products onto the European market. This principle is not generally observed, and in particular it is not observed in the sphere of agricultural production. We must make a firm demand for this principle to be observed. We cannot continue with a procedure in which certain standards are required of producers in the European Union and different standards of those who export their products onto the European market.
The situation in the poultry industry is very difficult in a number of European countries. My country, Poland, is one of them. I have personally had the opportunity to take part in many discussions on this subject. Poultry organisations have pointed out that competition conditions are unequal, and that the European market is exposed to unequal competition in relation to other countries of the world. I am pleased that this initiative was raised, because this is exactly the direction in which it is facing to make for equal competition conditions, that being what elementary justice demands. I therefore support this draft resolution.
Konstantinos Droutsas
Mr President, by lifting the ban on the import of chickens from the United States, the European Commission is once again showing that it places the interests of the food multinationals above the health of the people and workers.
For decades, the United States has been pushing for the import of hormone-treated meat. Now it is doing the same for its chickens. In previous years the ban was based on the danger posed by the chlorine and chicken dips. According to the scientific community, chlorinated chickens endanger the health of consumers and slaughterhouse workers and make for dangerous waste material with carcinogenic residues.
The substances used in the United States have obviously not stopped being carcinogenic, just as the scientific community has not changed its mind. The question is, then, what has led the Commission to give in to pressure from the United States and the multinationals, and what does it get in return for this change in position?
The food production chain is increasingly in the stranglehold of the food multinationals. Just a few days after the scandal of sunflower oil mixed with mineral oils, and the discovery that legislation allows the transportation of oil in the same tankers used to carry fluids dangerous to health, the European Commission did not bat an eyelid in announcing the lifting of the ban on chlorinated chickens.
One food scandal follows another. The EU is shifting the responsibility of inspection on to those who should be inspected; it is abdicating its own responsibilities, just like the governments of the Member States; it is transferring responsibility to consumers, on the grounds that they have the right to choose, provided the products are labelled.
The workers demand properly inspected, healthy foods at affordable prices. The opposition by the workers, their organisations and the scientific community to the lifting of the ban must oblige the Commission to revise its decision. The ban on chlorinated chickens for consumption must continue to pertain.
Daniel Caspary
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transatlantic trade is currently worth about EUR 600 billion a year. Now the Commission is suggesting that we open the market to poultry that has been disinfected in a chlorine solution. I say strongly: I greatly regret that the Commission has not managed to claim - and gain - access to the market in the United States for our unchlorinated poultry at last. However, I would like to say that I support the Commission's suggestions in principle, because the scientific experts' reports are conclusive. The European Food Safety Authority provided a very conclusive expert report; we do not require any further expert reports.
Here, as on the other side of the Atlantic, nobody wishes to see people's health put at risk by food, but if there really are misgivings about the substances used in the United States, then I ask myself why these substances are permitted here in the European Union as an additive to animal feedstuffs, potable water and other foods?
I know how much importance many EU Member States attach to food quality and food safety, and just as well. What would France be, for example, without its coq au vin? This product, exported from France and famous the world over, is also prepared for export to the United States with a chlorine treatment according to the American method. Apparently, this method is so good that it is considered suitable for the export of quality products from Europe.
From my point of view, then, this is a rather dishonest discussion. The Commission has made clear suggestions to guarantee the safety of European consumers. I believe that labelling, in particular, must be clear and visible, so that consumers really know what they are buying, but I know, too, that consumers will choose European poultry anyway.
However, I call on everyone to stop hiding behind supposed environmental or health arguments and clearly state what this is really about. It is a question of honesty and honesty in politics is vital, especially when it comes to discussing a topic with friends like the United States.
Francisco Assis
(PT) I understand the need to improve trade relations with the United States and in this regard, I would like to congratulate the Commission on the work it has done in this area. There are, however, 'red lines' and one of these is safeguarding the legitimate interests of European producers and consumers. I believe that in this specific case, we are faced with a situation where these lines are clearly being violated.
There are two different concepts here, perhaps even two contradictory concepts, relating to health protection and environmental protection. From the European perspective, there is a core concern, which is ensuring safety throughout the food chain. From the American perspective, the idea is merely to deal with this matter at the closing stages of the process.
We cannot renounce our convictions, customs or standards in this area, and we must not just seek to have them respected in Europe, but should rather try to project them on the international stage. The European Union will be standing on very shaky ground in terms of projecting its standards internationally if it gives up on ensuring that they are protected within Europe.
For this very reason, I believe it is essential to highlight the need to express clear opposition to the Commission's proposal in this area.
Crucial issues are at stake that have to do with environmental protection, public health and the fundamental rights of European consumers. Yet they also have to do with European producers, as European producers have been made to respect these standards and over the last few years have had to make significant investments to make sure they respect these requirements. Now, suddenly, they would be left completely unable to resist competition at this level.
This is why, in the name of healthy and fair competition, too, it is our view that the European Union must make the protection of European producers a major concern. With this in mind, and without calling into question the efforts to improve trade relations with the United States (which are vital for the European Union), I believe that this proposal is a bad one and I naturally would like to express my support for the motion for a resolution.
Frédérique Ries
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the decision to lift the veto towards almost everyone on the import into the European Union of chlorinated chicken is a real textbook case of what the Commission, which is supposed to protect the higher public interest of Europe's citizens, can no longer and should no longer do.
As with all food sectors, poultry farmers, and particularly chicken farmers, have made enormous efforts in recent decades. They have invested heavily in order to comply with standards and are subject to no fewer than 70 regulations, directives and other European decisions.
The sector is also subject, as we know, to fierce competition in Europe but also from Brazil and the US. Need we remind you, since no one has mentioned it yet, of the bird flu outbreak in Europe - this was only three years ago - when poultry meat consumption fell by more than 20%? Why should we now subject this sector to such a distortion of competition in relation to US farmers, who are not in any way subject to the same health and safety constraints?
The purpose of this brief review is to underline the essence of this matter. Perhaps this is not an environmental and health issue, or at least so I have heard people say. However, I would like more clarification and research on the subject.
Our refusal, Commissioner, is essentially an industrial and cultural decision, and ultimately a political one.
It is a cultural decision because Europeans have the right to choose their food model; as we know, they are very attached to their traditions and to diversity, as the French Agriculture Minister, Michel Barnier, recently reminded us.
Secondly, it is an industrial decision. I have already mentioned the production methods, laws and high standards observed in Europe. A good trade deal must also be fair. The Commission stands no chance of convincing us that importing 300 000 tonnes of chlorinated chicken, without any compensation, is good news for the European poultry industry.
Finally, it is a political decision. Now I am coming to the crux of the matter, as it is above all a question of confidence: confidence among producers and consumer confidence. Given the current climate, can the Commission really allow itself to scorn - and I am coming to an end, Mr President the opinion of the Council, of Parliament, of operators on the ground and of a good number of your own Members? I think that just asking the question is an answer in itself.
Carl Schlyter
(SV) Thank you, Mr President. The job of the EFSA is to determine whether something is dangerous. The job of the Commission and Parliament is to determine whether something is in conformity with public policy principles such as good animal husbandry, not to mislead consumers, and to maintain a high-quality environment in accordance with the precautionary principle. Hence this proposal is unethical and inappropriate and is an undesirable method of treating chicken. Besides, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has come out almost unanimously against the method. I will add a further dimension: fraudsters have long applied chlorination to chicken in order to make it look pinker and fresher. Are we to favour fraudsters over farmers who have invested millions, not least in my own country, in order to improve the situation?
A few labelling rules will not work, especially in places such as restaurants.
Turn this into a victory now, withdraw the proposal and go forward on the basis of unanimity in Parliament and unanimity in the Council and say to the United States: no, we do not accept your methods.
Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, in rising to speak in the debate on poultry imports into the EU market, I have three matters to bring to your attention.
Firstly, agricultural products produced within the European Union have to meet very stringent environmental, sanitary and health requirements, and meeting these requirements significantly increases production costs, thus making European agricultural products relatively uncompetitive in price terms on world markets. Secondly, given this situation, the European Commission's proposals to amend the regulations to allow the import of chlorinated poultrymeat from the United States should be seen as a completely unacceptable proposal, especially for European consumers. Thirdly and finally, it should be pointed out that the European Commission's proposal on this subject is supposed to be a sort of special gesture by the Union aimed at ensuring a good atmosphere for the talks and making for more friendly contacts prior to the June summit between the European Union and the United States.
I am in favour of having warmer relations, but I would rather this did not take place at the cost of the health of many EU citizens.
Georgios Papastamkos
(EL) Mr President, experts in the EU Member States have come out almost unanimously against the Commission's proposal to lift the ban on the import of chlorinated poultry.
These imports, even under the conditions proposed by the Commission, run counter to the steady demand from European citizens for the distribution of safe, high-quality, high-nutrition products.
The European poultry-rearing sector has heavily invested in compliance with the Union's strict regulatory framework that applies to the entire food chain, from production to distribution. Quite apart from anything else, the matter of the European poultry-rearing sector's competitiveness is under scrutiny, and we know the Commission's proposal is an expression of support for US interests in the Transatlantic Economic Council.
As a member of the Committee on International Trade, I am basically in favour of smoothing out differences with our trading partners. However, I cannot under any circumstances accept solutions that endanger the health of citizens and adversely affect the European food model. This applies both to the case we are discussing and to the Euro-Atlantic dispute pending before the WTO regarding the import of genetically modified organisms.
The EU must comply with the strict rules on food quality, hygiene and safety. We are opposed to any relaxation of these rules. What we need is a strengthening of the international standards and production methods.
We therefore call on the Council to maintain the ban on the import of chlorinated poultry.
Rosa Miguélez Ramos
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, European poultry farming, along with other animal production sectors, is going through a difficult period. In this context it is even more surprising that the Commission has been so quick to ask for Europe to allow poultry meat treated with chlorinated products to enter its territory, a request that appears to be solely and exclusively aimed at satisfying the commercial needs and aspirations of the United States of America.
I do not need to remind you that, in Europe, the poultry sector does not receive any direct support from the CAP, despite the fact that since 1997 our producers have been banned from using the very same substances that the Commission now wants to authorise, and moreover they are submitted to exhaustive controls throughout the production cycle to prevent the development of bacteria and to comply with the high Community hygiene standards.
However, in relation to third-country producers, the Commission considers that a chlorine wash alone is more than sufficient, and in my opinion this means that the efforts made by our producers are and have been completely futile.
If you will pardon my saying so, it is not possible for us to be so stupid and them to be so clever. In my opinion, we need to oppose this request from the Commission.
Esther de Lange
(NL) Mr President, we have already heard a very great deal in this debate and I certainly would not want to repeat it all, but I think that two fundamental issues are at stake here.
The first is fair competition - the level playing field - between European producers and producers from third countries. On the basis of European rules, the European poultry sector has invested millions of euros in the advanced control of salmonella and other contaminants throughout the production chain. Authorising products that do not meet these requirements threatens this fair competition, which should be a keystone in our trade policy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as they say. If we required it recently of meat from Brazil, we must also require it of chicken from the United States.
The second is the precautionary principle. After all, reports on the consequences of this technique for both health and the environment still cast the appropriate doubt. The Commission proposal to authorise this for two years, followed by a review on the basis of new data, is of course totally at variance with this precautionary principle. We need clarity on safety first and a debate second, not the other way round. Even the idea of labelling chlorinated poultry from the United States is unacceptable, as there remains a disparity between farmers here and farmers there and, furthermore, processed products are likely to escape this labelling. These processed products include the considerable amounts of chicken nuggets and drumsticks that will be consumed in front of the TV this evening by Dutch, Romanian, French and Italian football fans.
I should like to conclude, therefore, by calling on the Commission to remain committed to these two basic European principles - the level playing field and the precautionary principle - in order to respect the wishes of a large majority in the management committee and in this House by abandoning this unfortunate proposal.
Esther Herranz García
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, now the European Commission wants to allow chicken from the USA treated with bleach and, moreover, it wants us to accept it without complaining in order to improve trade relations with the United States.
The frivolousness of the European Commission in this matter is very much at odds with the seriousness with which it produces new texts on food safety, which at times impose so many restrictions on Community producers that it is sometimes no longer viable for them to continue to operate.
The Commission is losing credibility with consumers and public opinion with this type of proposal, and I do not think that we should succumb to pressure from the Member States, trade pressure from the United States, even if the European Commission asks us to.
In January 2008 a study published in the US magazine Consumer Report revealed a 70% increase in the incidence of zoonosis in chickens treated with antimicrobial processes in the United States, compared to 2003. There has also been an increase in antibiotic resistance in infected people.
At the time in the European Union there was a decrease in the incidence of zoonosis in chicken, without using the US methods.
The European Union is doing its duty, because it is controlling zoonosis from the start of the production chain, and because it applies the principle that 'prevention is better than cure', which it is following rigorously, at a very high cost to producers and to the industry in the European Union.
In the specific case of the fight against zoonosis, in 2003 a very strict regulation was launched, which took a great deal of time to get off the ground, that increases the monitoring of diseases communicable to humans.
The result of implementing this regulation is a reduction in the incidence of these diseases. European producers and the European industry in general have to comply with these rules, because if they do not they could be penalised.
Why not continue to strictly monitor the US producers?
Françoise Grossetête
(FR) Mr President, this chlorinated chicken affair illustrates the divide that unfortunately exists between the European Commission and citizens who expect to have confidence in Europe. It is a blow to our food policy with its high level of consumer protection. There is a complete lack of understanding.
It is unfair competition for our farmers, who have made enormous efforts to improve production, and our abattoirs, which must abide by strict rules. All of this costs money, and so this competition is unfair. This will allow cheap chicken to be brought into the European Union, which will unfortunately affect the most disadvantaged people who shop in discount supermarkets, and we will find this chlorinated chicken in processed products, catering trays and school canteens. None of this is acceptable. It is unthinkable that we can even allow it. Please do not tell us that labelling will solve the problem, because unfortunately the labelling on processed products does not give any information.
Therefore, in view of recent food scares, citizens need to be able to have confidence in the food chain. Consequently, we must say a categorical 'no' to chlorinated chicken imports.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, back in April I sent a written question to the Commissioner, in which I firmly objected to the planned admission into the EU market of chemically disinfected chickens from the United States. Fortunately this proposal has encountered resistance from the Member States.
Commissioner, our farmers and processors comply with standards that are among the most restrictive in the world. They look after the environment, animal wellbeing and the maintenance of biodiversity. Adapting to these standards increases costs and weakens their competitive position. This is why I am surprised by the Commission's proposal. The American way of producing chickens does not meet these standards. The European consumer has no wish to see such food on his plate. If we are interested in taking care of the safety of our EU consumers, we cannot allow low-quality foods to be imported.
Marios Matsakis
Mr President, if we accept the chlorination of American chicken, how can we stop demands for the chlorination of other products in the future, for example other meat products - beef or pork - either imported or produced inside the EU? What about eggs, cheese, vegetables or fruit? All the conditions that the Commissioner has told us would apply, in exactly the same way, to all the products I have just mentioned.
What about the use of other antimicrobials? Perhaps in the future we will have demands from the Americans to be able to use penicillin or other antimicrobial agents on our imported chicken.
In any case, even if tests on the outside show that there are no microbes on the surface of the chicken, perhaps there are a lot of microbes inside the chicken and we will not be able to detect them because the surface would falsely show that the chicken is free from salmonella or other microbes.
Androula Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to say at the outset that I respect the honourable Members' opinions and I wish to repeat that this decision has not been taken lightly. There has been an exhaustive discussion in the college.
Secondly, I want to clarify once again that we are not putting aside our hygiene regulations. As I think I mentioned, EFSA said that this decontamination with AMT substances can only be allowed if the hygiene regulations are applied, by whoever produces the chicken. So in conjunction with preventive measures at farm level, cleanliness of the animal sent to slaughter, hygiene measures and control procedures based on the HACCP principles at slaughterhouse level, all these have to be applied.
I must tell you when the Americans heard about all these conditions, they were very displeased but we told them that these conditions cannot possibly be withdrawn.
The second thing I want to clarify is that the proposed measures would not be applicable only for American chicken, but will be allowed for our producers as well, so we are not differentiating between foreign producers and our own.
As I said, this decision now lies with the Council and from my experience in the Agricultural Council, where I was present, it does not seem very likely that we shall have a positive reply.
President
I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 19 June 2008.