Progress report on the reform of the European schools (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the progress report on the reform of the European Schools, by Katerina Batzeli and Erna Hennicot-Schoepges - B6-0454/2008).
Erna Hennicot-Schoepges
author. - (FR) Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for having agreed to address this question, which was tabled some four months ago. Let me remind you of the responsibilities of the EP Committee on Culture and Education, which, according to Annex VI, Section XV(2) of the Rules of Procedure, include 'promotion of the system of European schools.'
Those schools give priority to educating the children of Community officials. Those children, classed as category I, make up around 70% of the total, pay no enrolment fees and the Commission contributes about 60% of the funding. Category II children, who make up 5%, and category III, who make up 25%, pay school fees of between EUR 4 000 and 16 000.
The 14 existing schools teach nearly 21 000 pupils, from nursery school to baccalaureate level, out of a total of 100 million in the Union of 27, in 14 official languages with an identical curriculum in all the language sections. Compared to the situation of all the other school children in the European Union, these pupils are, therefore, highly privileged.
In 2006 the Commission promised to reform the system - a laudable undertaking - with a view to establishing a European education system applicable to all types of school that wished to award the European baccalaureate, based on a common curriculum and, where possible, tuition in the mother tongue.
The school in Parma, which is approved by the Board of Governors of the European Schools, will be the first school of its kind to award a European baccalaureate in June 2009. For its part, the Board of Governors of the European Schools undertook an in-depth assessment of the baccalaureate with a view to the ongoing reform.
A study commissioned by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education, which will be available in October, shows that 94% of those who have passed the baccalaureate go on to higher education in the main European universities and that 62% of them study in a university outside their country of origin. There is, therefore, far greater mobility among these students than among others.
That means we have at our disposal a European educational system that has proved its worth. In its resolutions of 2002 and 2005, the European Parliament advocated a profound reform of the schools system with a view to better governance and greater openness.
Given the successive enlargements of the EU and the increasing number of EU agencies and places of work of its staff, surely it is urgently necessary to reform the model of the European schools system and to begin to transpose it into the general educational systems?
Is it not time to offer European citizens a well-tried, multilingual and flexible model of schooling that responds to their concern for mobility and to draw on the experience gained from the European schools? Of course I know what the reply will be: that is not within our powers. At least we should work on this because surely the perception of the European schools as elitist and the categorisation of pupils within those schools are incompatible with the objectives of a single market, mobility and greater social cohesion?
What progress has been made in the process of reform and greater openness to ensure that the European schools system can move towards a system of European schooling, while maintaining everything that has been achieved to date? What kind of Community funding systems could be envisaged to improve the running of the accredited schools? Parma may show us a way forward.
Lastly, I would like to ask the Commissioner what progress has been made in the field of education for children with special needs? I am well aware that this subject is of interest to a large number of fellow Members and I thank the Commissioner and the President for this opportunity to hold a public debate on it.
Siim Kallas
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I thank the honourable Members for these questions and for this opportunity to discuss these issues in the European Parliament again.
For the Commission, the reform of the European School system is a priority issue, and this is one of the most complicated items we are dealing with. The Commission has always strongly promoted the wider opening of the European School system, and progress has been achieved. Political agreement on this issue was marked at the ministerial meeting of November 2006, under the Dutch presidency of governors of European schools.
Following formal approval by the Board of Governors in April 2008 of the concrete modalities to achieve this goal, any accredited school in the Member States can now teach the European curriculum and deliver the European Baccalaureate. It is up to the relevant authorities of the Member States to take initiatives to concretise this opening of the European School System in their national schools.
The opening of the European School System is in line with the European Parliament's wish to ensure that this would be possible both in places where an EU decentralised agency is located (so-called 'type-II schools'), and in locations without a direct EU presence (so-called 'type-III schools').
After almost 50 years of existence, the European Baccalaureate has indeed acquired a high intrinsic value. The Commission wants to maintain the high quality of this diploma.
The Board of Governors of the European Schools approved in April 2008 a revision of the European Baccalaureate Agreement. Accredited schools can now deliver the European Baccalaureate.
In 2007, Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education initiated a study to analyse the academic and professional careers of former pupils of the European Schools, as the honourable Member just mentioned. This study will show the specific benefits and possible difficulties experienced by former pupils of the European Schools.
The Secretary-General of the European Schools has also launched a study to make an external evaluation of the European Baccalaureate. I trust that the combined results of both studies will provide key elements to assess how to further improve the European School System in order to best adjust it to the changing needs of its pupils.
Finally, I can inform you that the European School System has considerably increased its efforts to integrate children with special educational needs (SEN). In the school year 2004/2005, the European Schools had 274 pupils with special educational needs. In the last school year, there were 411 such pupils enrolled in the European Schools. The SEN budget allocated for 2008 is EUR 3 123 000; in 2004, the SEN budget spent was a little over EUR 2 million.
The Commission would like to thank the Disability Intergroup of the European Parliament for taking the initiative to set aside a reserve of EUR 200 000 for a pilot project for a SEN resource centre. This initiative gives the European School system the opportunity to better fulfil the needs of SEN children.
The Board of Governors of the European Schools approved in July 2008 the proposal to use the European Parliament reserve of EUR 200 000 to make an evaluation of the existing SEN policy in the European Schools. This study will allow the European Schools to improve the quality of integration of SEN pupils.
The European Commission launched in July 2008 the financial procedure for the liberation of the European Parliament reserve of EUR 200 000. The transfer to the budgetary authorities is currently being initiated.
Progress has been achieved, but it is crucial that the European Parliament supports the reform process initiated by the Commission in order to finalise this reform and put it fully into practice as soon as possible. Again, the crucial role must be played by Member States. I would like to underline that we have good contacts with the Member States.
I hope that the Swedish presidency - which is not the presidency of the European Union but the presidency in the European Schools Board - will develop these initiatives. I would like to stress that the report drawn up by Mr Bösch, a Member of the European Parliament, has been very useful and he has been very instrumental in this issue.
I myself will do everything to develop the system of European Schools, because we are experiencing great difficulties with a system that was designed in 1953, and we must therefore implement some serious changes to make this system flexible and work well.
Cornelis Visser
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Madam President, I have asked to speak because I am concerned. We are talking about the European Schools today, and I am grateful to Mrs Hennicot for that.
I should like to draw the attention of Commissioner Kallas to a specific aspect of the European Schools, namely religious education. During the course of last year a number of worrying reports reached me. As you all know, the Board of Governors of the European Schools ruled last year that a minimum of seven pupils of the same language was needed in order for a subject to be taught in the mother tongue. For general subjects such as geography and maths this is not a problem, but it is very different when it comes to religious education.
This raising of the minimum number means that there are now European Schools where pupils are no longer able to receive religious education in their own language. I am most concerned by this, especially at primary level. I think that religion, talking and learning about the standards and values we all prize so greatly in Europe, is extremely important. In religion, feelings are very important and as we all know, children are best able to express feelings and emotions in their mother tongue.
I find it unacceptable that, depending on their language and nationality, some pupils can and others cannot receive religious education in their own language. So I ask the Commissioner to give thought to this and to set clear guidelines. All pupils, whether their mother tongue is English, German or Dutch, must have the same opportunities and the same quality of instruction.
Consideration should be given not only to the pupils but also to the position of teaching staff. The 'minimum of seven' rule means that every year the question arises of whether there are enough pupils, and teaching staff are not sure whether religious education will be provided in the following school year. This professional uncertainty has consequences when it comes to finding good teachers of religious education in all languages. I urge the Commission to emphasise the importance of religious education for European School parents and pupils and to hold out for the continuation of religious education in pupils' mother tongue at the European Schools.
Maria Badia i Cutchet
on behalf of the PSE. - (ES) Commissioner, we have already noted here that the European Schools were, as official centres of instruction, established jointly by the governments of the Member States of the Union to provide multilingual and multicultural education primarily to the children of the staff of the institutions and that for many reasons they now need to be reformed, essentially in the light of new needs.
The Union's institutional development, enlargement, and the proliferation of agencies have led to changes in the profile of the pupils in the European Schools both as regards culture and language and in terms of numbers of pupils; applications to register have risen sharply.
Moreover, increased flexibility in employment contracts has led to new family and employment circumstances which affect social and family profiles and families' needs.
As Parliament has already noted in two resolutions, reform is necessary to modernise the schools so that they provide the required quality of service for which they were established, are accessible and overcome specific problems of access or segregation.
To that end I welcome the Commissioner's announcement on the two studies now under way, we will see if they bear fruit.
In short, despite the increase in the number of Community languages and the increased complexities we face on many fronts, progress must be made in the process of reform, openness and improvement of these schools while ensuring that their qualifications are recognised in all Member States of the Union.
Having said that, I would like to put two specific questions to the Commissioner.
The first relates to a number of complaints I have received from the parents of some pupils who have studied at the European School: it would appear that when they leave after taking the European Baccalaureate to continue their studies, one point is deducted from the average mark awarded; in other words they are penalised. I would like to know whether you are aware of this practice and the reason for it.
The second question relates to the children of Parliamentary assistants. I have also received complaints from assistants who have to send their children as category three entries if they want them to attend these schools; in other words, they have to pay school fees. I have visited the page which sets out all the information on how the Euroschools work; I have it here and shall read it in French because that is the language I found it in. It says, under category one:
(FR) 'The children of staff in the service of the Community institutions and of the organisations listed below employed directly and continuously for a minimum period of one year.'
(ES) A list of twelve points follows; point 4 says:
(FR) 'Persons with a directly binding contract of employment, governed by private law, with the European institutions'.
(ES) This, then, is the situation for people or the group of people who we might well think of as falling within category one. I would like to ask you why the children of Parliamentary assistants have to register under category three and pay school fees.
Hannu Takkula
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FI) Madam President, firstly I would like to say on behalf of my group that it is true that the present system is fairly complicated. It needs to be simplified, and we know that matters of education basically fall within the competence of the Member States, though in the case of the European Schools it also lies with the Union. Wherever there are EU agencies there must also be European Schools. That is a basic principle, and we should also remember that our various strategies allow us to tell the citizens of Europe that education is always an investment in the future. It is on that basis that we should act in the case of the European Schools.
I would next like to raise a few points concerning education. The first concerns the extent to which it is free. I think that we in Europe should have a debate on making all education free, whatever school we are talking about. Every child and young person should have the chance of a good education and the opportunity to benefit from good teaching, and not having to pay is one guarantee of that. I think that if the Member States want this and if we really believe that education is an investment in the future, we can achieve this goal.
It is also important that teaching is done in the student's mother tongue, as that is the basis of identity. Children and young people at European schools come from different cultures and different nations. It is important that they are taught in their own language, but is also vital to remember that we need special teaching facilities and also that students need to be taught cultural awareness, as they are often rootless, coming as they do from one country to another, which is a new and alien environment. For that reason we should also make sure of their overall personal development and growth as human beings. This is also the basis for European human rights policy and the European notion of humanity.
As for the special facilities I mentioned, class sizes are one thing that could be invested in. Class sizes must not be too large and every child should be given the chance to receive tailor-made options.
I will end by saying that the real educational standards amongst us Europeans will be measured in terms of how we treat those close to us who are worse off and how we look after children and young people, and the European schools are a shop window for the world. What are our actual standards of education and how do we look after our young people? Are we prepared to invest in them and their future? I hope that Europe can afford to do that and that it does actually invest in children and young people and in the European schools.
Ewa Tomaszewska
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, 50 years of experience in European Schools that are faced with the specific problem of different languages, cultural diversity and migration makes one consider whether this experience should be used to make this school model more widely available. It is not just the children of officials working in European institutions who need to be taught foreign languages at the highest level, as well as integration with their peers from other European countries. It is not just they, who, because their parents have taken up posts abroad, need a particular approach to schooling.
We are opposed to discrimination. Why then should children other than the children of these officials be excluded from those schools? I would also like to draw attention to the issue that is being considered by the Committee on Culture and Education, namely the need to reinstate the classics, Greek and Latin, in schools in Europe and also an emphasis on teaching Latin and Greek in the European Schools. I believe it is essential to give urgent consideration to the need to extend and reform European Schools as well as the principles according to which they operate.
László Tőkés
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Madam President, as a member of the Committee on Culture, allow me to extend my warm welcome to the initiative of Erna Hennicot-Schoepges and Katerina Batzeli, members of the Committee on Culture, to address an oral question to the European Commission and have this debate on the progress of the reform of the European schools.
Speaking of multilingualism and its importance, let me use this opportunity to raise a serious concern we have in Romania, where the recent initiative of the Ministry of Regional Development to complete the translation of the EU's regional operational programme from Romanian into Hungarian met serious attacks from the Romanian Social Democratic Party run by several leaders of the former communist regime. Please note that this is happening in one of the 27 EU Member States in the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, at a time when Commissioner Leonard Orban issued a policy document entitled, 'Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment'. In the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, a debate on the reform of the European Schools could not be of greater importance, as we live in a multicultural and multilingual Europe, where different cultures and languages coexist. We need to encourage and enable such cultural interaction for successful European integration.
Therefore, our European educational system needs to reflect this multicultural characteristic and allow a healthy and easy coexistence. European schools in particular were set up to meet these needs - to provide multicultural and multilingual education while also strengthening European identity. However, in an enlarged EU with greater citizen mobility and more agencies being created in different Member States, it has become a challenge to meet these needs. As the questions in today's debate underline, there is a great need to focus on reforms, as it has proved to be more and more complex to provide multilingual and flexible education of high quality.
Allow me to stress the fact that only by allowing students to express and practice their own cultural identity and use their own mother tongue throughout their education and formation can we allow them to evolve as true European citizens. If students studying in European Schools are not able first to develop their national identity through the use of their mother tongue and culture, I believe that they will not have a strong basis to build their European identity.
Thank you for your attention and I wish you good luck in the reform process of the European Schools.
Kathy Sinnott
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, a number of years ago two problems were identified with the European Schools. One was that they were lagging far behind in inclusiveness and integrated policies for special education needs (SEN) children. The other was that when parents would make an application to the school for a child with special needs, they had a practice of saying that they were not really able to meet their needs and the parents should go and find something else. This really was not good enough.
In December 2007, Parliament set money aside in its budget to 'contribute to the financing of first-class education for SEN children and to promote the concept of inclusive education and that this sum is to be released upon presentation of a proposal for the launch of a pilot project for the SEN resource centre comprising qualified personnel with relevant experience and appropriate teaching materials'. In the time I have I will not go through the negotiations, the back and forth, that have gone on about this pilot project. What has come about is that the pilot project has become several half-posts in psychology and some other resources, but it is not what I would see as a pilot project: actual classes, integrated classes throughout the European Schools.
I feel it is time for us to be very clear about the goal. The goal is inclusion and the goal is to integrate children in a way that is possible for them. There are now 411 SEN pupils in the European Schools in the SEN project. This is 2%, and yet disability in the general population is 17%. We are still not allowing enough children with special education needs into the schools, so we are still missing out on 15%. I cannot believe the figure for the population of people entitled to those schools is different from that in the general population.
We certainly need to have a project and assess the situation but we could do that for ever - we have been looking at the situation for ever! It is time to move beyond the pilot schemes. It is time to make a real approach to children as standard practice in all the schools. We are a long way from doing that.
This is the other meaning of diversity. It is not just about languages and cultures: it is about peoples' needs and their abilities and catering to the wide diversity of that as well.
Roberto Fiore
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, while there is no doubt that the attempts to develop a European School have to be welcomed, we must not forget that the strategic objective is in some ways to make Europe into a guide from the scientific and social points of view, and into a model of cohabitation.
In that sense, we then have to build on Europe's cultural roots, for instance what Rome gave us in terms of law, what Greece gave us in terms of philosophy, and what Germany gave us in terms of music. However, it also has to be said that those languages considered to be dead, such as Latin and Greek, now need to be revived - and there is clear evidence of this - since they are languages that the most sophisticated American companies, such as General Motors or Yale University, consider fundamental for the modus operandi of entrepreneurs or, if you like, heads of family. It also has to be said that Christianity and the Christian values of our roots are fundamental elements in any genuine European School.
Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou
(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, my fellow Members have presented you with a series of requests for more progress in European schools, which serve as examples for other schools in the Member States.
Please answer my question about how much local legislation affects European schools. We have found that there are differences between the schools in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg. We have identified these differences specifically in the approach to children with learning difficulties. They have received different treatment depending on whether they are in Brussels or in Luxembourg.
While we are on the subject of pupils, why should they be separated into categories? Why do they have to make a careful choice of Baccalaureate courses before they have any lessons? Why do religious knowledge and classical languages have to be taught according to the number of pupils in the class? Why are children not taught the history of their country of origin? Why are children not taught in their national language?
Let us turn now to staff: meritocratic selection in all the countries will provide a uniform standard among teachers' associations. Do you check the selection process in all countries? There is a turnover of administrative staff, but there are people who remain head teachers for more than 20 years. Why is there no selection of head teachers?
Flexibility, as you have said yourselves, will bring better results. The authorities of the Member States must take care to ensure that they do not have schools exclusively for 'elite' immigrants, but ones that serve as models for other immigrant schools.
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Madam President, I have come here not just as a Member of the European Parliament, but also as a person with practical experience of the European School, as I am the father of a child that attended the European School in Brussels for three years and who last year took the baccalaureate. From family experience, as well as from my occasional observations, for example, at parents' evenings at this, which is one of the four European Schools in Brussels, I feel that I know what we are talking about today. I wanted to say just one thing: the number of these schools is increasing. When my son went to this school three years ago, there were three schools in Brussels and now there is a fourth one. The permitted number of pupils in classes in European Schools is 32.
It is worth noting that in many European countries the permitted number of pupils in a class is considerably lower than in the European Schools. Our interest in this subject is clear: we have to take an interest in something that, as the European Union, we pay for. More than 50% of the budgets of these schools comes from European Union funds. The conclusion, Madam President, is this: it is sensible to open up these schools, but this should not be at the cost of teaching quality or an excessive number of children and young people in these schools.
Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi
(RO) European Schools are recognised in Europe as elite institutions that provide quality education to young people. In 1953, Jean Monnet said that the purpose of these schools was to bring together European children, irrespective of their nationality, and to instill in them the European spirit and sense of belonging, so that they may eventually create a united and prosperous Europe. The reform programme of these schools must take into account the following important issues. All of the 23 official languages of the European Union must exist within these schools, and children must be given the opportunity to speak their native language. Unfortunately, there are still some official EU languages which are not spoken in any of the European Schools.
Furthermore, one of the objectives of European Schools is to foster unity within groups of children, to bring them together and to facilitate the development of a spirit of tolerance and communication among them. Therefore, I believe that dividing them into three categories is not a sound measure. Those falling into the last category, 'others', as it is called, get the opportunity to attend such a school only if there are places left after the children of European officials have been admitted. This categorisation is discriminatory and I suggest that it should be removed from the statute of European Schools.
Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański
(PL) Madam President, the concept of the 'European School' is become increasingly popular. This is a result of globalisation, which affects everything, including education. For this reason we have a guiding principle that we try to observe. This is where the problems begin. Finding an answer to the question 'what should the school be like' is very difficult. Should it be an elite school or universal, should it impose its own style and curriculum on all pupils, or should it be a school that moves in certain directions, but takes into account national and regional traditions; should it be a school where pupils are taught to appreciate and respect their own traditions, culture, history, religion and language, or should it teach openness to the cultures of other nations through multilingualism and appreciation of the whole world? There is one issue that, in principle, does not arouse any doubts. As there is a European Union, then diplomas issued by all the educational institutions of Member States should be recognised in the Schools.
Mihaela Popa
(RO) I believe European Schools to be the schools of the future in the EU, as they take into account increased mobility and the globalisation process and consequently give every student the opportunity to study in his/her mother tongue, thus promoting multilinguism.
I have researched this schooling system myself. I visited the oldest European School in Brussels, which was established more than 50 years ago, and I met over 40 Romanian students who have the opportunity to study in their native language. It should be said that European Schools foster social inclusion, as students of different nationalities get to know and help one another.
I would like to stress the effectiveness of the way in which the baccalaureate examination is organised, as it stimulates high performance and prepares students for their future lives as European citizens. I believe that the European School system should be extended to all the Member States, so as to become part of a common European policy in the field of education. Moreover, I move for the establishment and support of regional European Schools, which should take into account one basic principle of the European Union - regional policy in a mobile, knowledge-based Europe.
Dumitru Oprea
(RO) European policies concerning the reform of traditional schools and their evolution towards the status of European Schools, with the involvement of local and national administrative structures, require, in my opinion, three major types of reform: systemic reform, including reform of the curriculum, based on quality and effectiveness; continual reform, involving evaluation of and capitalisation on previous results, adapting them to European Schools; and a third reform, based on the responsibility and ownership of all social actors.
In this last regard, I believe that European schools should be taken as the model for a world school, where an 'after-school learning' component should come into play. Young people should have a special programme from 14.30 to 17.00 during term time, as well as during the summer holiday.
Roberta Alma Anastase
(RO) In their 50 years of existence, European Schools have proven their quality as regards the education of future generations. However, I believe that in today's debate we should focus on the need to adapt European Schools to present-day requirements, taking into account the enlargement to the EU-27 as well as such phenomena as globalisation, migration, and increased professional and geographic mobility.
There are two major issues that I would like to stress. First of all, we need to open up European Schools to a greater extent, so as to integrate all citizens in need of such assistance. Secondly, I believe that the recognition of degrees in all European countries is a priority.
Zbigniew Zaleski
Madam President, a human being takes about one third of his or her life to get ready for mature life through education. The second observation that I want to make is that the construction of the European Union - what we are doing right now - also requires an adequate education. There are many technical aspects, like equipment, diplomas and so on, but the Commission, as executor, needs to uphold the idea of education based on more languages, on common principles and on respect for national values. This is very crucial. Education obviously requires the investment of money, but if you do not support making this investment, then you will have to accept ignorance, which I think will be more costly for us.
So the European School is an admirable project, and I support it.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Madam President, the European Schools exist on the basis of the Convention signed in 1957. There have been many changes in Europe over the past 50 years: a series of enlargements, an increase in the number of institutions and agencies and much more flexible employment contracts. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the European Schools system also needs change and reform.
There are a number of important areas that need changing. The issue that interests me the most is pupil selection, that is, the division into categories: one, two or three. After all, on the one hand the EU is trying to increase the mobility of European citizens in the labour market and to eliminate barriers and, on the other, it is blocking access to the Schools to children of potential employees of various institutions and companies from the whole of the EU. A solution needs to be found to the problem of overcrowding in certain schools. Measures also need to be taken as regards children with special needs.
Finally, I would like to ask for consideration to be given to the possibility of creating European Schools in the new Member States.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
(PL) Madam President, the education philosophy in European Schools and the teaching programme that leads to a European Baccalaureate should serve as an example of multilingual and multicultural education for all Member States. The growing number of student exchanges in European educational institutions and the globalisation of the world's economy mean that the true value of the European Baccalaureate would justify making it more widespread. It should also be recognised by institutions of higher education in Member States and also in third countries. Unfortunately this cannot be accomplished without a substantial increase in funding.
At present European Schools are perceived as elite schools that often exclude children whose parents are not EU officials. The exclusion of the greater part of society from the possibility of benefiting from European Schools is contrary to the objective of increasing the mobility of European citizens in our labour market. Member States themselves often try to create a new education system that will prepare young people better for the challenges associated with globalisation and a flexible labour market, while the system of European Schools and the European Baccalaureate have already long been in existence and, what is most important, have had excellent results, so we should duplicate them as much as possible.
Christopher Beazley
Madam President, I rise not merely as a Member of this House but also as a former schoolmaster. I wonder whether I might ask Commissioner Kallas, at his next meeting with the Council of Ministers, to have a particular word with the British Minister of Education to see whether or not it is possible that he might learn some of the lessons of the successes of the European School model. Perhaps in particular he might consider reversing the disastrous decision of the British Government to make the teaching of languages voluntary, in other words dropping European languages from the British curriculum.
Secondly, you might just remind him that Europe was divided for half a century, but that it has now been reunited for 20 years. Perhaps he might consider suggesting to his curriculum advisers that they remind the next generation of the history and the culture of Central and Eastern Europe, in which Britain traditionally was very much involved and did actually seek to support.
Mario Mauro
(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the stress should not just be on the criticism, from various sides, of the inadequacies of the current model of governance. I believe that we all have a duty to understand, after this debate, what is at stake, i.e. the model that the European Schools can represent for the European area of education; and since we want to overcome the challenge of the European area of education and are keen in this respect for good practices to win out, it is absurd and contradictory that we are sticking to a level and a model of governance unable to meet the challenges which we face. In my view, today's debate offers the Commission more than enough of a spur to realise that we have to undertake a radical overhaul of our schools.
Erna Hennicot-Schoepges
author. - (FR) Madam President, I would like to put two further questions to the Commissioner, who gave a figure but it is the current figure. Commissioner, are there also to be increases in appropriations for the next financial perspective; is there a system of funding in place that will ensure that these schools can continue to function? Apparently at this very moment they are short of 40 English teachers, given the financial problems experienced by Her Majesty's Government. May I ask you what solution can be envisaged in view of that situation? Secondly, the schools themselves would like more autonomy. Are you in favour of greater autonomy or would you prefer to keep to the present system, which is cumbersome and often ill-suited to local situations?
Siim Kallas
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, several very serious and important issues have been raised.
First of all I would like to remind you that the European Schools system is a completely independent body. It is based not on the Treaty of 1958 but on the Statute of 1953, it has its own Board, its own Statute, and all rules are adopted by this Board. The Commission is only one voice on the Board.
As for the content of the education, this is fully the responsibility of the Board, and all this, including the different proportions between the language sections, and the curriculum, is totally in the hands of the Board of Governors of the European Schools. So the Commission has not very much to say.
As to financing, this is the second thing I would like to say in reply to one important question. The infrastructure is provided by the host countries. So the schools are built by Belgium, Germany, France etc. This gives us the full picture of the limits we have in developing the infrastructure.
What about the content of education? The honourable Member mentioned in her introductory remarks that the quality of the education is high - and it is high. This is one of the main priorities of the European Commission, to give every possible support so that this quality will be high. This will really be a benchmark for European educational systems, that European Schools give pupils an education which is highly appreciated everywhere. So I do not have any information that pupils with a European School education have any specific difficulties in getting to university after school if they so wish.
Concerning teachers, they count as part of the infrastructure, so teachers are also provided by Member States. English teachers, for example, are provided by the United Kingdom; in other words, the burden for bigger languages is correspondingly much higher. We, the Commission - or the European budget - pay the operational costs for this. This gives us a combination that results in a rather cumbersome system, and one objective is therefore to reform the system and to bring more clarity to responsibility and financing. You can also see the problems with Belgium, where, it has been said, one of the four schools is still a temporary school. The construction of the fourth school has been postponed and postponed, and we are in intensive discussions with the Belgian Government about this.
On the openness of European schools, in our view the key issue is the European Baccalaureate, and the certification of schools which want to award the European Baccalaureate. We promote this idea, which has basically been adopted by the Board of Governors, so the basic rules exist. Now the question is how to put this into practice in the Member States. Again, the leading role lies with the Member States. So this will to some extent settle the problem of different pupils.
Today, as I said, I am meeting Parliament and I hear your observations that category III is something which must be excluded, but I also regularly meet our staff - it is the same size, comprising hundreds of people - and they of course have a clear demand, namely that education for their children must be guaranteed.
So there is a requirement - and this is emphasised very strongly in the Treaty, in the Staff Regulations, in the regulation - to provide places in the schools and then, of course, the question arises who will distribute these other places which are to remain free and definitely in Brussels? This is more and more difficult. This is for me a very complicated question. At the beginning of this Commission, we insisted on behalf of our staff that there must be more clarity, and so the Central Enrolment Authority has been established by the Board of Governors to settle these questions.
So this is the overall picture, and I must just repeat that the Commission's attitude is that we must bring clarity to the financial issues and clearly share the burden, have clear responsibilities, clear obligations, and then we can also find better solutions to the infrastructure questions, but we cannot have any kind of reduction in the quality of education.
About some specific questions, one honourable Member raised the question about disabled students. You said that there are many more of them but I do not know that anybody has been rejected when parents have asked for special treatment: it has always been provided. So, if you have facts that there are some hidden pupils with disabilities, please provide these facts and we will deal with them.
Now, about parliamentary assistants, you know that at present parliamentary assistants are not covered by the Staff Regulations, they are a kind of special staff members in Parliament, but you know also that negotiations are ongoing to settle this and to have more precise rules, and then we can also consider what to do about access to the European Schools for the children of parliamentary assistants.
So these are more or less the questions which were raised, and of course all these questions - religious education, languages - are clearly in the hands of the Board of Governors, and the Commission is just one voice on that Board. The Board of Governors is dealing with these issues very seriously. They have held long discussions about this, and I can assure you that the Secretariat-General of the European Schools is very attentive to all needs of the different languages and different religious aspects. So this is their responsibility.
Just one thing more: if Parliament can draw Member States' attention, and especially if all Members of the European Parliament who have their own connections in their home countries can encourage the Member States' Ministers of Education, to promote this idea of the European Baccalaureate because this is their choice. We now have rules on how to go ahead with the European Baccalaureate. Now it is up to the national ministries to find interested schools. I know that there are a lot of interested schools, but the national authorities in many countries have not shown enough enthusiasm about this project, which can be a step forward and which can really then be a positive mark for the European Baccalaureate, so we can have European Schools not only in Brussels but everywhere - in new Member States and old Member States. This is a symbol of Europe. The Baccalaureate and European education is one element in our architecture.
President
The debate is closed.
I would wish everybody a happy Day of European Languages tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Alessandro Battilocchio
in writing. - (IT) I agree with the various solutions proposed for the reform of the European Schools: my privileged role as the Committee on Development's rapporteur on the Erasmus Community action programme leads me strongly to support the need for a multilingual and flexible European Schools model in which mother-tongue teaching is maintained (and is taught by teachers who are native speakers) but which is, at the same time, the same for all without class distinctions.
The European Baccalaureate will be the first instrument, followed by the opportunities offered by Erasmus, to guarantee real mobility for students, in Europe and then throughout the world. Tutoring obviously has an important role to play in the social, cultural and linguistic integration of incoming students and the achievement of excellent linguistic skills needs to be encouraged, with support from intensive courses (as has been underscored from 2001 to today by the Day of European Languages held every 26 September).
I consider that cooperation between the current European Schools and regional (primary and secondary) schools is a sine qua non for the development of a new European Schools system, but I cannot hide my concern for the future of Italian regional schools which - as a result of the new 'Gelmini' reform - could well disappear in some smaller, geographically disadvantaged, communities.
Cristian Silviu Buşoi
in writing. - The processes undertaken by the European Union in the last few decades and the ever-evolving educational system have meant that a new perspective on the role and importance of the European Schools has to be taken into consideration. Given the latest enlargement of the EU to 27 Member States and with the increase in EU staff that implies, the significance of a well-reformed European School has become an issue of high priority.
In order to improve future expectations from the European Schools, we must approach the sensitive issues challenging the current system and identify the problems in order to design the foreseeable changes. Thus there is great demand for a newly drawn-up and comprehensive reform of the European Schools, so as to make them more competitive and transparent on a European level and to design their full-weight purpose in a more up-to-date way.
The implementation of the principle of non-discrimination while granting fundamental freedoms to the pupils must be at the core of the new system in order to make it fully operational and in their own benefit. Nevertheless, the financing of the European Schools must be also reevaluated by taking into account indiscriminating measures for the pupils with regard to their division into categories.


EU-US air transport agreement - EU-Canada air transport agreement - EU-Vietnam air services agreement (debate)
President
The next item is the joint debate on:
the recommendation by Mr Zasada, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the draft decision by Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council on the conclusion of the Protocol to Amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part (15381/2010 - C7-0385/2010 - 2010/0112(NLE)),
the recommendation by Mrs Ticău, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the draft decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council on the conclusion of the Agreement on Air Transport between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Canada, of the other part (15380/2010 - C7-0386/2010 - 2009/0018(NLE)), and
the recommendation by Mr Riquet, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam on certain aspects of air services (14876/2010 - C7-0366/2010 - 2007/0082(NLE)).
Artur Zasada
Madam President, the Protocol which will be put to the vote is a particularly important document. The aviation markets of the European Union and the United States, taken together, account for around 60% of world air traffic. Opening the market to airlines from the European Union and the United States on a non-discriminatory basis will offer passengers and freight operators improved services, provide substantial economic benefits and create jobs. My dream is for passengers to benefit from competition between airlines on the basis of market principles, for passengers flying in transit to the United States to pass through one security point, for passengers in the European Union and the United States to enjoy the same rights, and, of course, for them to be aware of these rights.
Will this Protocol guarantee these things? No. Yet I am convinced that it is a step in the right direction, and that it will make it significantly easier in the future to achieve these goals. During the successive rounds of negotiations between the EU and the United States, it was touch and go several times whether the Protocol would be signed. Finally, however, we succeeded in adopting it. As a result, a number of risks were avoided, including the greatest risk of all, namely that the suspension clause would be triggered, which would have resulted in the suspension of the agreement and the annulment of the results of both stages of negotiations. This would have meant a return to the legal situation as it stood seven years ago, which would be unacceptable. Six of the EU Member States have no bilateral air transport agreements with the United States, and rejection of the document would have meant preventing these Member States from being able to operate flight connections between their airports and US territory.
The second stage of the agreement does not achieve the ultimate objective of a complete opening of the market without any restrictions on either side, but it does contain a number of incentives to encourage reform. In particular, when the US changes its legislation to allow EU investors majority ownership of US airlines, the EU will allow the same for US investors.
I am particularly pleased by the fact that the significance of the agreement's social dimension is emphasised. In this context, the Commission should utilise the agreement to promote compliance with the appropriate international regulations on social rights, in particular with the employment standards set out in the conventions of the International Labour Organisation and the OECD, and with the Rome Convention. This will ensure better observance of existing employee rights by airlines. The agreement will also strengthen cooperation on environmental matters by requiring compatibility and interaction in the field of green technologies and fuel and air traffic management.
In my capacity as rapporteur, I endeavoured to place the issue in a broader context and present both the positive and the negative features of the Protocol, without succumbing to the temptation to concentrate exclusively on its weak or strong points. I did not start work with the a priori assumption that we must support or reject this Protocol. Following a great many meetings and discussions, I came to the conclusion that the EU will benefit much more from adopting this document than from rejecting it.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
rapporteur. - (RO) Madam President, the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, extended the circumstances in which Parliament's consent was required for the conclusion of international agreements. Air transport agreements now fall within this category because they cover a field which the ordinary legislative procedure applies to.
Prior to the current agreement, aviation was the subject of bilateral agreements with 19 of the EU Member States. I am referring by this to the agreements between the European Union and Canada. Many of these agreements contained numerous restrictions and did not offer full access to the respective markets.
In November 2002, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that certain provisions in these bilateral agreements were incompatible with Community law.
The negotiating mandate sets the objective of establishing an open aviation area between the European Union and Canada. This would create a single market for air transport between the European Union and Canada where investment could flow freely and where European and Canadian airlines would be able to provide air services without any restriction, including in the domestic markets of both parties.
The EU-Canada Air Transport Agreement was initialled on 30 November 2008, endorsed by the EU-Canada summit on 6 May 2009 and signed on 17-18 December 2009.
What is the content of the agreement? The agreement includes a gradual phasing-in of traffic rights and investment opportunities, as well as far-reaching cooperation on a number of issues including safety, security, social matters, consumer interests, the environment, air traffic management, state aid and competition.
All European Union airlines will be able to operate direct flights to Canada from anywhere in Europe. The agreement removes all restrictions on routes, prices or the number of weekly flights between Canada and the European Union. Airlines are free to enter into commercial arrangements such as code-share agreements, which are important for airlines serving a large number of destinations, and to set their fares in line with competition law.
The agreement contains provisions for opening the market in phases. Phase one applies where the foreign ownership of airlines is limited to 25%, as was the case when the negotiations on the agreement were completed. Phase two starts as soon as Canada has taken the necessary steps to enable European investors to own up to 49% of Canadian carriers' voting equity. Phase three begins once both sides introduce the possibility for investors to set up and control new airlines in each others' markets. Phase four is the final step with full rights to operate between, within and beyond both markets, including between places in the territory of the other party. I am referring here to cabotage.
I would like to mention a few points about this report. Although this agreement is more ambitious than that with the US regarding market access, it is less explicit when it comes to recognising the importance of the social dimension.
It is important that the Commission uses the agreement and, in particular, the possibility of reference to the Joint Committee, to promote compliance with relevant international legislation on social rights, especially the labour standards embodied in the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation.
Given the important role played by the Joint Committee, including in politically sensitive matters such as environmental and labour standards, it is important that the Commission ensures that Parliament is kept fully informed and consulted about the Committee's work and also about future amendments to the Treaty.
Dominique Riquet
rapporteur. - (FR) Madam President, I shall be very brief, not because the Agreement with Vietnam is any less important, but because Mrs Ticău has reiterated, in the previous report on Canada, the legislative and regulatory framework within which these air agreements between the European Union and a third country will apply.
The context is therefore exactly the same as this one except that our agreement, which is simpler and less ambitious, seeks to regularise horizontally, in the area of air services, the 17 bilateral agreements that previously existed between Vietnam and the countries of Europe, and naturally to extend them to all EU countries. This agreement does not relate to the opening-up of the market because Vietnam's economy is a regulated State economy and there is obviously no question of opening up the market. The aim is therefore - as the previous rapporteur has already said - to bring into line with European legislation the existing bilateral agreements on air services that have been concluded up to now between the European Union and Vietnam.
One of the main characteristics of this Agreement is a designation clause relating to all EU air carriers. This will give all EU air carriers non-discriminatory access to routes between the European Union and Vietnam. This Agreement also includes safety provisions designed to standardise and equalise these kinds of provision, in addition to a clause against anticompetitive practices. We have come up against several difficulties, which explains why it has taken some time to reach this Agreement - several years in fact.
As for the inclusion of a fuel taxation clause, this was eventually rejected by Vietnam. This clause, which generally features in air agreements negotiated by the Commission, allows for the taxation of a third-country carrier when it operates a flight within the EU. It should be stated, of course, that Vietnam does not operate nor will operate for the time being any flights within the European Union.
Furthermore, the Vietnamese Government has promised to enter into bilateral negotiations with Member States if this proves necessary or if, indeed, a Vietnamese national airline were to schedule a flight within the European Union.
To conclude, the ratification of the Agreement evidently offers more advantages than does the absence of such an Agreement even though it lacks a fuel taxation clause. It will, however, ensure that the principles of EU law are respected bilaterally and in the case of all EU Member States. We therefore obviously call on the European Parliament to ratify this Agreement.
Siim Kallas
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank Parliament and the rapporteurs in particular for supporting the Commission on these important agreements. All three have been strongly supported by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.
On the US agreement, let me start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Zasada, for his very positive recommendation in relation to the outcome of the negotiations with the United States on a second stage air services agreement. You will remember that the aim of the second stage discussions was to facilitate the normalisation of the transatlantic market and extend the scope and depth of the excellent aviation relationship established through the implementation of the first stage agreement, in place since March 2008.
I now want to mention the key elements of the second stage aviation agreement. The second stage agreement creates the prospects for additional investment and market access opportunities. It also further strengthens the framework of cooperation on the environment, social protection, competition and security.
On the environment, the agreement establishes a clear framework for tackling local and global challenges. The agreement seeks to reduce the security burden on passengers, airlines and airports across Europe. For the first time in such an aviation agreement, the need to balance market access opportunities with strong social protection has been recognised through a commitment to implementing the provisions of the agreement in a way which does not undermine labour rights.
On the commercial front, Europe has gained further rights, including immediate access to the 'Fly America' programme with the exception of defence.
The second stage agreement is not perfect. Like you, I would have liked to have seen an immediate and irrevocable change to the US laws governing ownership and control of its airlines. This has not been possible, but we were able to secure a commitment from the United States to work towards reforming these rules in the future. As part of the agreement, the EU and the United States have committed to the goal of removing the remaining market barriers in industry, including those that limit airlines' access to global capital.
Let me now turn to the agreement with Canada. My thanks go to the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and in particular to Ms Ţicău. This ambitious agreement is designed to achieve complete opening of the markets for traffic rights and investment, at the same time reaching an unprecedented level of regulatory convergence and cooperation between the authorities.
With respect to market access, the agreement comprises the full range of traffic rights and investment opportunities: this means 100% ownership and control. It is done through a phased market opening in four phases. Among its multiple benefits for both sides, it is also worth noting the establishment of a level playing field for the industry, as well as common or compatible standards for safety, security and air traffic management. Last but not least, I am convinced that by removing existing regulatory restrictions this agreement will lead to a substantial increase in passengers and generate various consumer benefits and the creation of new jobs.
On Vietnam, let me also start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Riquet, for his support for this horizontal agreement. Currently, we have negotiated 45 such horizontal agreements with partner countries worldwide. On 4 October 2010, during a visit to the European Union, the Vietnamese Prime Minister signed the agreement, which represents an important step towards strengthening aviation relations between the EU and Vietnam.
The horizontal agreement will restore legal certainty to our aviation relations with Vietnam by bringing the bilateral air services agreements between 17 Member States and Vietnam into line with EU law. Most importantly, it will remove nationality restrictions in bilateral air services agreements between EU Member States and Vietnam. It will thereby allow any EU airline to benefit from the existing bilateral agreements between Vietnam and the Member State.
Thank you very much for your attention. I am looking forward to the debate.
Mathieu Grosch
on behalf of the PPE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Mr Kallas, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank all the rapporteurs for their reports. We in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) welcome these agreements.
In this case, 27 agreements which could have been concluded in these areas are being replaced by just one. For us, technical harmonisation is also an important point. It increases levels of safety not just for the airlines themselves, but also for the passengers. The opening up of the market and the cooperation at a European level should be treated in the same way by both sides. It is important to highlight the fact that the agreement with Canada is a very good example of this, while the agreement with the USA leaves something to be desired.
Another area which leaves something to be desired is the lack of regular checks on the social and environmental aspects of these agreements, which should be a part of all future agreements, because the simplification of the economic aspects should also enable us to use these agreements to influence not only the European market but also the global market. Importantly, these agreements also bring benefits for passengers, because they can result in the controls being simplified without them being neglected.
Finally, I would like to say that we welcome this agreement, because, as I have already said, 27 agreements are ultimately being replaced by one. This is a clear indication that we will hopefully soon be dealing with only seven or perhaps even three airspaces, instead of with the current 27, as part of measures to improve air safety and implement the single European sky. This will make negotiations on these agreements much simpler.
Saïd El Khadraoui
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank the three rapporteurs for the work they have done and for the helpful cooperation on their part. When we launch, shortly, a more general debate in response to Mr Brian Simpson's report on aviation agreements, we will get an opportunity to address more thoroughly the general approach and strategy with regard to this sort of agreement.
We, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, emphatically support the replacement of old bilateral agreements between our Member States and third countries with comprehensive global agreements at European level. This is the best guarantee of a level playing field for all our airlines. It will also strengthen the integration of our own aviation sector as it will, of course, our negotiating position in relation to third countries.
It is important, in that regard, that we pay attention not only to the opening up of the market for additional flying rights and suchlike, but also to a strengthening of the regulatory framework in the environmental and social fields and the fields of safety and security. We absolutely have to bring these into line with each other, at a very high level. Another important point to mention here is that, now that the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force, Parliament is not just supposed to give an opinion, but really has to approve these agreements as well. My message, therefore, to the Commission and the Council is that they should make full use of those powers and that Parliament, therefore, should retain its say in approving or modifying additions or other amendments at a later stage.
With regard to the agreements before us, our group believes that the agreement with Canada comes the closest to the model that we have in mind, that is extensive cooperation in the fields of security, social issues and consumer and environmental protection. Indeed, the rapporteur has rightly observed that the sections on social issues should have been worded a little more strongly, but that can be resolved in the Joint Committee which will now have to make a few things concrete. Besides that cooperation, there is also the gradual introduction of additional flying rights and the gradual extension of the opportunity to become a shareholder in each other's airlines.
The agreement with Vietnam also reminds us of the growing importance of the Asian market, and I think that, on this particular point, we have to point out that the Council has been dragging its heels for years over giving the Commission a mandate to negotiate with countries such as China and India. That mandate is essential, of course, if we are to make progress on this.
By way of conclusion, I would like to say a few things about the agreement with the United States, particularly regarding the second stage. This concerns an area which covers 60% of the world aviation market and is therefore extremely important. I personally was a rapporteur for this House when, a few years ago, the first stage was approved. With regard to the United States, we are not completely satisfied because some things still have to happen in terms of market access. We ask the Commission to give an undertaking that this will not be the end, that it will proceed on the course of opening up the market and that we, as Parliament, will be fully involved in the activities of the Joint Committee.
Gesine Meissner
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Madam President, firstly I too would like to thank the rapporteur. We have already discussed the fact that, following the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament now has the opportunity to vote in favour of air service agreements of this kind or to reject them. We cannot change the contents, but we can accept or oppose them. This does not always make things simple, but it is at least a new task, which we are taking very seriously.
It makes sense to replace a number of different bilateral agreements with one standardised EU agreement. It is clear that there are no boundaries in airspace, which is a good way of explaining this. The European Union is also a strong economic community and so it is sensible to discuss agreements made by the EU with different third countries, which is what we are doing now.
We have a number of very different agreements on the table today. I will start with Vietnam. This is the least complex agreement. It concerns different accesses and services and also safety regulations, but it is a relatively short agreement, which is why I am only mentioning it briefly.
The most comprehensive agreement is the one with Canada. In this agreement it was not just a case of ensuring free access to air services which can be used in different ways, but also of covering issues such as the environment, safety and also market access and ownership. In that respect we have long since passed the first stage of 25% and already reached the second stage of 49% ownership of each other's air services market. Now we are about to enter stages 3 and 4. In stage 3 it is possible to establish airlines in another country and another region. Stage 4 would allow a European airline to fly from A to B within Canada.
We have not come nearly as far as this with the USA, despite the fact that we have been negotiating with the USA for a long time. I would like to make one more point. Mr Kallas said that we were all very much in support of this issue, but in the case of the USA our reaction is more restrained, because the agreement does not represent a true partnership. The USA wants to take more from us than it is prepared to give. We need to continue negotiating on this. Apart from this issue, we will vote in favour, because it is clear that progress has been made.
Jacqueline Foster
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, we also welcome the successful conclusion of the second phase of the EU open skies agreement. Indeed, after several years it was rather overdue. Obviously this agreement is a significant breakthrough and it is to be welcomed. I acknowledge that negotiators have made huge progress in the areas of security, competition, market access and environmental cooperation. But, like the Commissioner, I am disappointed that this agreement did not achieve its ultimate objective of a complete opening of the market without restrictions on either side. The failure to resolve fully issues of foreign ownership and control (cabotage) must be addressed in future discussions if European carriers are to truly benefit. Of course agreements mean compromise, but that does not mean getting a deal at any price.
The aviation industry is massively important to Europe. It facilitates economic growth, trade, investment and tourism. Air agreements with third countries offer our airlines great opportunities in foreign markets, and I therefore urge the Commission to continue to strive to conclude air agreements which are fair, robust and lead to full liberalisation, which will benefit both European carriers and consumers. Finally, can we just add our support to the EU-Vietnam agreement.
Eva Lichtenberger
Madam President, Mr Kallas, ladies and gentlemen, in recent years we have concluded a large number of air service agreements, which have always involved summarising the old national agreements under a European umbrella. Now things are starting to change with regard to the involvement of the European Union and I think this is very important.
The agreement with Vietnam largely follows the old model that we have always used. However, the agreement with Canada is more ambitious, which I welcome. The cooperation in the field of the environment and social issues is positive, but in my opinion it could be extended even further. The situation concerning the agreement with the USA is quite different. In this case, I believe that we have given in far too early. Market access is a question of fairness and in this agreement the regulations are not fair. Nevertheless, we have climbed down. To a large extent there has been a failure to cover certain aspects of social conditions. Much too little has been done in this area. We must ensure that social dumping does not take place here, because this is also a safety issue when it comes to airlines. We finally need to make this clear.
My second point is that there are major problems with regard to environmental issues. The USA is starting to exert significant pressure to have night flight restrictions, which are in place to protect local residents, relaxed or lifted. The pressure in this area is enormous and I am afraid that we will have to give in. We must make it quite clear that this would be a disaster for everyone who lives near an airport. On the safety question, the USA is gradually tightening the screw and unfortunately the implementation in the European Union is going unchallenged. This is a mistake and I want to be very clear on this.
Finally, I would like to mention code-sharing, which is being presented as a major achievement. I would like to say just one thing. This will ultimately restrict passengers' choices. I will not be able to choose which airline I fly with and I may find myself confronted with a completely different airline when I reach the gate. The concept of competition in the airline industry is fictitious and it is becoming even more so when it comes to the position of passengers.
Juozas Imbrasas
on behalf on the EFD Group. - (LT) Madam President, the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, extended the circumstances in which Parliament's consent was required for the conclusion of an international agreement. Air agreements now fall within this category because they cover a field to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies. I believe that the implementation of these agreements would provide substantial economic benefits and create jobs. In addition, regulatory convergence could promote fair competition. While the second-stage Agreement represents a significant step forward, it is important for it not to be regarded as the end of the process of establishing a transatlantic aviation market.
As for Canada, it is good that all EU airlines will be able to operate direct flights to Canada from anywhere in Europe. The Agreement removes all restrictions on routes, prices, or the number of weekly flights between Canada and the EU. The ambitious nature of this Agreement is very much to be welcomed. It should serve as a target for other negotiations currently underway. I therefore believe that Parliament should consent to the EU-Canada Air Transport Agreement.
The same can be said for the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on air services. All of these air agreements are beneficial and necessary for the European Union, our airlines and our citizens.
Hella Ranner
(DE) Madam President, first of all I would like to take this opportunity to thank all three rapporteurs very much for their hard work. These agreements are very important for air travel and, therefore, for the European Union. However, I would also like to take the opportunity to refer once again to the framework agreement of 20 November 2010. I hope that the European Parliament will be informed in an appropriate way and in good time by the Commission about negotiations on future agreements in the interests of good interinstitutional cooperation and an effective flow of information.
We know that the negotiations on these and on other agreements are of the highest quality, but it is important for us to be aware of the strengths and weak points of the agreements after they come into force, so that we can make a better contribution. This will make it easier to guarantee Parliament's support for the agreements.
Inés Ayala Sender
(ES) Madam President, tomorrow it will be one year to the day since the second stage of the air transport agreement between the European Union and the United States was finally signed after eight rounds of difficult negotiation. As such, I believe we should feel satisfied - me in particular, of course - that this was accomplished under the Spanish Presidency and under the leadership of the Minister of Public Works and Transport, José Blanco, who achieved considerable progress in aviation matters, including the single sky and labour relations in the air traffic control sector, where a negotiated settlement was reached.
I also welcome the fact that Parliament is using its new powers for the approval of such international agreements, specifically in relation to the transport industry.
The second stage of the EU-US air transport agreement eliminates the suspension clause, which entails the need to continue making progress and improving a number of issues in relation to the environment, competition and passengers' rights, with which we are not completely satisfied as yet.
For the first time, the agreement also addresses labour relations. I believe this is a matter of paramount importance, as it also enables the safeguarding of workers' rights for the first time, as well as the future applicability of International Labour Organisation and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development conventions.
The agreement also sets out clear guidelines - and I believe this is quite significant - to build mutual trust in the area of security. The possibility of a one-stop system must remain open.
We therefore believe this is a good agreement, which establishes a new non-discriminatory basis, entails improved service to the public and to companies, is economically and socially beneficial, and encourages fair competition. Nevertheless, it is once again not perfect, as the extent of European ambitions means we must seek to go beyond this second stage.
We therefore need to examine and exploit all the potential that is available to us, including the Joint Committee and its new powers, as well as the new possibilities opened up at the International Civil Aviation Organisation regarding the Single European Sky ATM Research and others. We therefore call on Vice-President Kallas to push for this agreement, to follow it closely and, of course, to report to Parliament.
Philippe Boulland
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Open Skies Agreement between Europe and the United States is an advance, but it is just one stage and it faces Europe with a dilemma. The Committee on Transport and the Commission have themselves pointed this out. Either we accept an agreement that disadvantages European businesses, or we suspend the agreement and risk losing the benefits we have gained since 2008.
So allow me to draw a parallel with the licences of professional and private pilots - a text which will be debated before the summer - because pilots, of whom I am one, face a dilemma. The European Aviation Safety Agency, which wants to harmonise licences throughout Europe, will do so to the detriment of the 80 to 90 000 general aviation pilots directly affected - some of whom hold only a US licence - and to the detriment - and this is the important point - of those companies and jobs connected to this activity.
I wish to draw your attention to this project which has nothing to do with safety. There are 31 times fewer accidents amongst holders of US licences. The objectives of Basic Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 provide for the recognition of and equivalent rating of licences for which it is judged unnecessary to wait for hypothetical agreements that have been pushed back to 2014.
Thus, I propose a very open sky agreement and even invite you to accompany me on those occasions when I come to Parliament flying my own plane, to show you that a US pilot licence is perfectly safe.
President
Thank you for the invitation, Mr Boulland, I shall see what I can do.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă
(RO) Madam President, I want to congratulate Mrs Ţicău on this ambitious agreement with Canada. The agreement marks an important phase in the process of opening the market. At the same time, it will help create new air routes and develop new opportunities for investors on both sides of the Atlantic, in terms of both the development of new investments and the introduction of new services for European and Canadian citizens.
I think that the decision to allow airlines to operate without restriction anywhere in Europe and Canada is valuable and will be of benefit to consumers, airlines and the economies of both countries in general. The implementation of this agreement will lead to more services being operated by airlines and to new cargo transport opportunities. However, this development must also raise greater concern about consideration of the impact on climate change.
The agreement will also make the European and Canadian markets safer by strengthening cooperation with regard to compliance with certification procedures and inspections aimed at guaranteeing a maximum level of safety for passengers and goods.
Philip Bradbourn
Madam President, as Chairman of the Delegation for Relations with Canada, it is with particular pleasure that I speak on this EU-Canada agreement. I think it is very worthwhile reiterating some of the significant features of the agreement. As mentioned before, in Phase 1, airlines have unlimited freedom to operate direct services between any point in the EU and Canada, without limitation on the number of providers or, indeed, services. We move to Phase 3; we will see investors able to set up new airlines in each other's countries and, in Phase 4, full cabotage rights and the potential for 100% ownership of carriers.
The agreement also sets out mutual standards for safety and security. And that is important because it means that the transfer of passengers, luggage and cargo should benefit from a more streamlined approach.
It is an important agreement for the EU and our aviation sector. It will allow increased competition, greater choice for the travelling public. Not only that, I believe that the comprehensive nature of this agreement can serve as a benchmark for future agreements with other countries. This resolution clearly demonstrates Canada's position as our most proactive international partner, and I wholeheartedly support it.
João Ferreira
(PT) Madam President, these agreements are part of the liberalisation process that is currently underway in the air transport sector. They are clearly marked by ideology. Even in this strategic sector, the aim is to cripple state intervention and regulation, opening the doors to the monopolistic concentration that always results from free competition, which is considered sacrosanct.
Under the pretext of facilitating business opportunities within international air transport, this promotes the interests of multinationals within the sector at the expense of national companies and their respective strategic interests, including those that, as is the case in Portugal with TAP, are publicly owned.
This means that both the workers and the passengers lose out. Workers lose out because liberalisation facilitates dumping by multinationals, leading to work-related insecurity due to the forced deterioration of working conditions. Passengers also lose out because, among other things, aeronautical safety will tend to be left to the whim of cost/benefit considerations by companies.
This is nothing new. The situation in other sectors such as rail transport, which has seen increased liberalisation, amply demonstrates the consequences of putting the tenets of the free market into practice.
Siim Kallas
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank the honourable Members very much for their comments. Of course the most complicated issue is the agreement and negotiation process with the United States. I can assure you that this is far from being the end. It is one part of the process and we are definitely continuing to negotiate with the United States but I would like to underline that the United States is a very difficult partner. As many of you mentioned, 60% of world aviation is covered by the EU and the United States. What we decide in cooperation will also define the whole framework and whole environment for aviation in the world, so the cooperation is also extremely important for the whole world. It also must be made very clear that the Americans have the same parliamentary procedures: they have the US Congress, which is very difficult to deal with precisely because of protectionist feeling, but we are working together and developing our relations.
I will be going to Washington in a few weeks' time, and we have committed ourselves to work in five directions: first safety, second security, third technological cooperation - we signed an important agreement in Budapest about interoperability of air traffic management systems which is extremely important for Europe so that we do not lose our competitive advantages -, fourth the environment and fifth commerce or business.
On business, as you know and as you mentioned, there are ridiculous restrictions on ownership rights. But it must also be very clear that we cannot force the United States to surrender; we must negotiate and this is sometimes not so obvious. We must negotiate and we have to take into account their concerns. It looks quite promising, but we definitely cannot win any commerce or especially technological confrontation: this should be avoided, it can be very dangerous.
So, as I say, in October we committed to moving in these five directions and definitely the next agreements will follow and we will try with the new US Congress to facilitate market openings which will be the most difficult part as several of you have already mentioned.
I would also like to say that, yes, the Vietnam agreement is of course by magnitude much smaller than the other agreements but it is very important that we form an aviation area which behaves with the same rules and which follows the same rules and this is exactly the aim of these agreements, especially - which is a difficult element in negotiations with third countries - the recognition of EU carriers. You know that this has been a very sensitive issue, and with these agreements with third countries we create better possibilities for European airlines as well.
Thank you for your comments. I promise that we will keep you informed about all future developments. We have had several discussions in the TRAN Committee about the concepts of these negotiations and further development and, here again, one has to negotiate with difficult partners. This is the eternal truth of all negotiations but the picture has not been so bad. We have achieved a lot including with the United States, with the recognition of EU carriers and several other things. There I can assure you that I will again meet the leaders of the US transport policy; there is a certain willingness to cooperate and to find ways to solve our conflicting problems.
Artur Zasada
Madam President, I am very grateful for all the opinions voiced on the air transport agreement between the European Union and the United States. I accept that the agreement is not perfect; it is another step in the right direction, but we have certainly not reached the end of the road. We were not able to amend this document for procedural reasons. Rejection of the agreement would however have meant sacrificing the gains made during both stages of negotiations.
In my report, I have included a call for certain changes which should be the focus of the Joint Committee's work, or which should form the basis of a third stage of negotiations. In particular, I call for the further liberalisation of traffic rights, additional foreign investment opportunities, the adoption of a much more ambitious position on environmental protection and better coordination of political strategies on passenger rights in order to ensure passengers the highest possible level of protection.
Ladies and gentlemen, my work on this document is not yet complete. I intend to monitor the actions of the Joint Committee, which was appointed in order to ensure that the agreement's provisions would be implemented appropriately or even extended. I will strive to ensure that a permanent observer sits on the Joint Committee on behalf of the European Parliament. If the committee does not live up to the hopes invested in it, Parliament should call on the Commission to open a third stage of negotiations.
Finally, I would of course like to express my heartfelt thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs for their comments and assistance when drafting this report.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
rapporteur. - (RO) Madam President, the air transport agreement between the European Union and Canada can be described as the most ambitious air transport agreement between the European Union and a major world partner.
It will significantly improve the connections between the markets of both countries and the links between people, while also creating new opportunities for the airline sector through a gradual liberalisation of foreign ownership rules. In particular, the agreement is more ambitious and specific than the agreement between the European Union and United States on traffic rights, ownership and control, even following the provisional application of the amending protocol, which is therefore phase two.
According to a study undertaken by the Commission, an open agreement with Canada would generate an additional half million passengers in its first year and, within a few years, 3.5 million new passengers might be expected to take advantage of the opportunities such an agreement could offer.
The agreement could generate consumer benefits of at least EUR 72 million through lower fares and would also create new jobs.
Madam President, we welcome the ambitious nature of this agreement. It should provide an objective and model for other negotiations currently in progress.
In conclusion, I recommend Parliament to approve the EU-Canada Air Transport Agreement.
Dominique Riquet
Madam President, I shall be extremely brief for, as Commissioner Kallas has pointed out, the Agreement with Vietnam is a simple one, approved by all. It has not caused any difficulties for our own report and has the great merit of opening up the Vietnamese market to all European stakeholders through reciprocity with a country which operates according to a different economic model.
I think that this Agreement should also be regarded as an important step geographically, as it opens up the East and the countries of South East Asia to us. I do not think therefore that there is anything left to be said other I am delighted that we have been able to reach a satisfactory conclusion with this Agreement, which will open up travel between Vietnam and Europe a little more.
President
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 11:30.
Written Statements (Rule 149)
Nuno Teixeira
in writing. - (PT) In recent years the European Union has negotiated and concluded several agreements with other states in the field of air transport.
According to the Court of Justice, the traditional designation clauses in the existing bilateral agreements infringe EU law, as they constitute discrimination against EU carriers established in a Member State but owned and controlled by nationals of other Member States. As such agreements violate the principle of freedom of establishment, as set out in Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the EU has initiated and is developing a practice for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements between the EU, of the one part, and third countries, of the other part, with regard to air transport. We can identify the main elements of these agreements as the concerns relating to security, passenger rights, the mutual recognition of certification and cooperation on regulation.
In this context, I would like to call attention to Parliament's limited role with regard to these dossiers. Following the Treaty of Lisbon's entry into force, its opinion is binding, but only in terms of the final text which has already been signed; it cannot make suggestions or changes to its content.
Judith A. Merkies
in writing. - (NL) The delegation of the Dutch Labour Party to the European Parliament certainly does not consider this second stage agreement to be perfect, but it takes the view that it will lead to progress in important areas. In addition, it will prevent the United States from activating the suspension clause in the absence of such an agreement. Suspension could lead to European passengers and airlines no longer being able to profit from the significant benefits which they have enjoyed since March 2008 thanks to this protocol. The benefits and positive aspects include, in particular, agreements on working standards for airline staff, sharing good practice with regard to noise abatement, strengthening cooperation in the field of environmental protection and so on. The delegation of the Dutch Labour Party to the European Parliament recognises the ongoing need to pursue a proper debate on safety requirements (such as the use of scanners) and the impact on privacy and health of passengers of such requirements. In addition, it would highlight the need for the privacy of European and US citizens to be put centre stage and respected when passengers' personal data is exchanged between the EU and the US. It is essential that Parliament is and remains involved in these negotiations and that European regulations are not eroded.
Kinga Gál
in writing. - (HU) It is important to take the concerns of European citizens about respect for their data protection rights seriously. We consider it important that there be an agreement between the European Union and the United States on data protection in the field of cooperation in criminal and judicial matters. We welcome the fact that the Hungarian Presidency is actively engaged in the issue of data protection. We must specifically take note in this regard of the Council conclusions on data protection that were adopted at the February meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. We are looking forward to the Commission's proposals to ensure that both our liberties and the security of our data are protected and respected.


14. Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (
Before the final vote:
Michael Cashman
rapporteur. - Madam President, under Rule 53, I would like to ask the Commission to respond and tell us whether it intends to adopt all of Parliament's amendments as adopted today.
Günter Verheugen
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I have the honour of giving the following declaration on behalf of the Commission.
The Commission takes note of the amendments voted by Parliament that it will study in detail. The Commission confirms its willingness to seek a compromise with Parliament and Council. The Commission will only consider its proposal after the two branches of the budgetary authority have adopted their positions. The Commission intends to continue to pursue a constructive dialogue, in the meantime, with both institutions.
Michael Cashman
rapporteur. - Madam President, I do not know where the Commissioner has been, but we adopted a position this morning.
I would therefore like to request that the plenary vote to refer the report back to committee, which would give the committee the flexibility to enter into negotiations with both the Council and the Commission.
I therefore ask for the House's support for a referral back to committee.
Michael Cashman
rapporteur. - Madam President, my thanks to the House for its patience on this, my final intervention. Can I now ask you, Madam President, to write a formal invitation to the Czech Presidency, as well as the incoming Swedish Presidency, to open a formal dialogue with the European Parliament as soon as possible?
Equally, as announced in the voting list and for the sake of clarity and coherence of the text that we have now adopted, I kindly ask that you request the plenary services to proceed, without any substantive change, to do the following: to group the articles according to their content under specific thematic titles, to re-order recitals and definitions accordingly and to produce and publish Parliament's position as a consolidated text as soon as possible.
Finally, may I pay due thanks to the enormous and supportive work which I have been given not only by the secretariats, but by the tabling services.
(Applause)
President
I will pass on this request, then, Mr Cashman, and the results will be made known.