Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes


24. Immunity and privileges of Alessandra Mussolini (vote)
Report: Klaus-Heiner Lehne


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


Ongoing negotiations on bilateral agreements between the USA and certain Member States with regard to visas and PNR (Passenger Name Record) (debate)
The next item is the statement by the Commission on ongoing negotiations on bilateral agreements between the USA and certain Member States with regard to visas and PNRs.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, let me begin by saying that, as everyone knows, the common European visa policy has so far brought us tangible results with several third countries, such as, very recently, Canada and Australia. This has not been the case, unfortunately, with the United States.
Since 2004, we have been working very hard to achieve the aim of having all Member States in the United States' visa waiver programme. I, together with the Presidents-in-Office of the Council, have constantly pressed the United States administration to make the voices of all EU Member States heard in Washington. President Barroso, as you know, has raised the issue personally with President Bush, as well as with the leaders of the US Congress on each of his official visits to Washington.
We have all argued that EU Member States already meet the additional security criteria as set out in the reform legislation recently adopted by the United States. We fully understand that the lack of progress with the United States has created a lot of frustration among those not yet participating in the US visa waiver programme. Our citizens have a legitimate right not to understand the reasons for such discrimination.
We should not allow ourselves, however, to be divided and bullied into going beyond what has recently been agreed and accepting what should be out of the question - for example, providing others with access to Schengen migration data and asylum data. All this should be out of the question.
We need detailed discussion, negotiation and consideration of reciprocity. We have, after all, achieved a great deal together. Most recently, we have celebrated the expansion of the Schengen area to most of Europe. In turn, it gives us collective responsibility for dealing with all matters relating to the security of the external borders and for ensuring the correctness of the screening and handling of data pertaining to all those who visit our common territory.
I do not question the right of EU Member States to engage with the United States on issues which are national prerogatives, for example cooperation between intelligence services or air marshal programmes, but we are of the view that what the US is asking from all of us in different visa-related issues raises serious legal and political questions.
Allow me to underline that, although the sense of urgency may be understandable, we all have to acknowledge that the signing of the memorandum of understanding does not get anyone into the visa waiver programme the next day. The United States still has to set up the electronic travel authorisation and the air exit control. It will undertake extensive on-site evaluation visits in the countries concerned. Therefore, there is no need to hurry into something that is legally questionable and leaves each country to its own devices when negotiating with the United States.
Since all European Union Member States, both those seeking the waiving of visas and those already in the programme, are concerned by this and are being approached by the United States, Coreper - the ambassadors of the European Union Member States - adopted on 5 March a common baseline: a set of common parameters that will guide the discussions the Member States will have individually with the United States. It will be a good basis for our talks with US partners at the EU-US ministerial troika on 13 March 2008.
In parallel, I will present tomorrow a mandate for proper EU negotiations with the United States on matters arising from visa policy. By pursuing a common approach based on common parameters, we will reinforce the possibility of reaching, in the short term, an agreement with our American partners on the mandate proposed by the Commission.
We need to keep in mind that the EU and the United States are close allies. This has been demonstrated on numerous occasions. Fighting terrorism is a global challenge, which not only affects us all but which can also only be successfully countered if we work together. The European Union is ready to do its part by keeping Member States united and respectful of European common legislation and competence.
In conclusion, we will be negotiating with the United States. It is simply not possible to abandon, to renounce, not only our European legislation but also our common criteria, on the basis of which we have been negotiating. We will continue to negotiate. No Member State will be entitled or allowed to violate or to derogate from European legislation on this.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Madam President, the common visa policy is a matter of Community competence. Moreover, Member States are obliged to respect the principle of solidarity in this area. If that principle is being infringed, we should ask ourselves why. The Council says the American visa waiver programme should finally create the same rights for all EU citizens. Unfortunately, we still lack a concrete timetable showing how and when that goal is to be achieved.
The Commission declares that joining the Schengen area at the end of last year was a great success for the citizens of the new Member States. Yes, entry into the Schengen area brings them real benefit. But that only makes the humiliating, time-wasting and costly procedure for obtaining a tourist visa for the United States all the more irritating. Can the Commission now assure us that it will take all necessary steps to achieve equal treatment of all EU citizens by the United States? Can the Commission assure Parliament that it will actively take on the coordinating role and render bilateral agreements superfluous?
Parliament itself must take some of the blame. Especially those on the left of this House, whose indiscriminately harsh criticism of the United States strengthens that country's conviction that it can quietly and effectively negotiate with individual states. It also ties the Commission's hands. Countries excluded from the visa waiver programme must show political backbone and resist pressure from disgruntled citizens at home. By breaking the principle of solidarity, they are putting the governments of remaining countries under increased pressure to place particular national interests above Community principles.
Those countries that already participate in the visa waiver programme must stop treating this as a problem only for those who are still waiting to be included. On behalf of my group, I can assure the Commission that we shall fully support its efforts to achieve visa-free movement of tourists on equal terms for all EU citizens.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (EL) Madam President, the recent pressure brought to bear by the US Government on individual European governments in connection with participation in the visa waiver programme should be condemned outright and should entail substantial penalties. Under no circumstances, Commissioner, should any other response be allowed. In other words, the unacceptable demands of a US Government that is already on the way out and whose President, just two days ago, vetoed a bill forbidding the US secret services to use torture, must not be used by the Commission to justify the inclusion of such provisions in European law on the pretext of maintaining solidarity.
The bilateral demands and pressure by the United States infringe the national sovereignty of individual Member States and the fundamental rights of their citizens. Greece and 11 of the 12 new Member States are being pressurised to allow the US security authorities access to a range of extremely sensitive personal data, which is not required of the other European countries. It is as if the singled-out countries were Europe's poor relations or guinea-pigs for America's new security measures.
Secondly, the measures infringe the common visa policy, because, as we know, third countries are obliged to treat all the EU countries equally. They cannot divide us into good and bad Europeans. All the excuses used hitherto, that the passports of some European countries were supposedly insecure, are now invalid, yet the United States carries on regardless!
Thirdly, the measures contravene the recent international PNR agreement between Europe and the United States, which clearly defines what the Americans can and cannot take for themselves.
Fourthly, the measures contravene European legislation on data collection and processing, such as the Schengen Convention. On this point, you have rightly said that the Americans are asking to be given access to such data.
Madam President, the US Government is promoting whatever is in its own interests by its favourite method of 'divide and rule'. The question is, what is Europe doing to protect its authority, laws and citizens? Unfortunately, the answer so far has been disheartening. For years the European Commission has failed to persuade the United States to extend the visa waiver programme to all EU countries on equal terms, thus opening the door to bilateral negotiations with individual countries. The Czech Republic meanwhile seems in an indecent hurry to accept the new illegal terms, in breach of Community policy and solidarity.
In the midst of this hive of political pressure and secret negotiations, it is encouraging, Commissioner, that you have responded today. However, in the light of what I have said, we call on you to provide explicit answers on these points:
Firstly, do you intend to take steps against Member States that conclude bilateral agreements with the United States? Will you bring a case before the European Court against the Czech Republic if the implementing measures of the agreement prove to be contrary to Community law?
Secondly, have you asked other European governments that are now negotiating with the United States not to yield to such pressure? If so, which are the governments that you have spoken to or are now in communication with? What exactly are you telling them, in terms of what they are permitted or forbidden to do?
Thirdly, if the US Government continues with its policy, what specific steps do you intend to take against a third country that is violating European policy and law?
Fourthly, can you assure us, Commissioner, that you will not propose or agree to any change in the current PNR agreement, the common European visa policy, or other European policies? Such change will lead to the unlimited violation of European citizens' personal data, a policy unfortunately promoted by the United States?
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I wish to begin by expressing my understanding of the frustration of the Czech Republic and other non-visa-waiver countries. However, it would be highly destructive if the Czechs were to go it alone, and we should not fall for US 'divide-and-rule' tactics. I hope that the Commission and the Council have learned an important lesson: that a proper mandate and approval of the European Parliament is not an obstacle for negotiations but, rather, strengthens the position of the European Union. The US should act as a loyal and reliable ally and respect EU law.
Concerning PNR, I wonder why it should be included in the memorandum of understanding at all if it is already covered by the EU-US agreement. The ink on the EU-US PNR agreement is not even dry yet, and not all Member States have ratified it, so what else is it that the Americans want?
Has the Commission been able to establish whether the implementing measures of the memorandum of understanding are in line with the EU-US agreement and, if not, can we then assume that the agreement has become invalid? Because, if that is the case, then the agreement no longer exists and we should engage in new talks, and I then assume that there will be codecision for the European Parliament.
With hindsight, it is even more regrettable that the Council and the Commission have accepted the EU-US PNR agreement on such vague and open terms, because it leaves much room for the US to further widen the scope of the EU-US PNR agreement.
Finally, I think the EU will only have a proper position vis-à-vis the United States if we speak with one voice, because if we do not - if we are divided - then our rules are made in Washington and not here or in Brussels.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, the business of data exchanges between the United States and the European Union has been fraught with major problems from day one. The debate on the transfer of passenger name records and the difficulty with the PNR agreement and its legal basis have been enough to show us that there is simply no such thing as balanced negotiations on these issues. The US side keeps stepping up its demands and asking for more material, while the European Union finds it difficult to speak with one voice and continually resist these unreasonable requests.
These matters are arousing grave concerns among the people of Europe, particularly as regards the privacy of personal data. They fear that their data will be misused, which is why the approach adopted by the European Union, whether on the transfer of passenger records or on visa policy, has been the focus of huge public interest. We must not give in to the attempts being made here to create divergences between Member States, for we shall only weaken one another if we do. Nor can we allow some Member States to be singled out by the United States for different treatment in terms of special demands and requirements.
The Commission has made two requests in this matter: besides the united approach, it especially asks for backbone, backbone and more backbone. Constant kowtowing to the United States only leads to more onerous demands.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Madam President, let me say categorically that we must not permit the United States to split Europe. The European Union must act as one, because that is the only way for it to make its distinctive mark and to carry weight on the international stage. This applies especially to its dealings with the United States.
A single Member State naturally possesses less clout than the European Union as a community. Nevertheless, by going it alone, a Member State can weaken the Union as a whole and indeed seriously weaken it. Such an approach gnaws at the very core of Europe's credibility. It virtually gives the United States a hammer, served on a silver platter, with which to drive a wedge through Europe, enabling Washington to obtain from individual states what it cannot obtain from the Union as a whole.
The negotiations between the United States and the EU that culminated in the agreement of July 2007 on the transfer of passenger name records showed that it was scarcely possible for the Union to secure US acceptance of any of its positions. In the view of many Europeans, and in my opinion too, that agreement already lets the United States access too much information on European air passengers. Moreover, we do not even know exactly how these data are being used or to whom they are being passed on. The fundamental question is whether these stacks of data serve any purpose at all in the fight against terrorism. I therefore find it downright grotesque that individual Member States are now going even further than the agreement requires and are letting themselves be drawn into a kind of horse-trading in which visa waivers are being bartered for the transfer of even more data. That cannot be in the interests of the general public. Citizens of these Member States would certainly be given the right to enter the United States without a visa, as other EU citizens already can, but at what cost for all of us?
No, such an approach exposes Europe to the risk of blackmail. If the Member States do not act together and show solidarity, and if they do not nurture the cohesion of the Union, we should not be surprised if people in the United States do not take the European Union seriously.
(PT) Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I have five brief points to make. First: divide and rule. The American administration's strategy in seeking to negotiate bilaterally with EU Member States does not surprise me. Divide and rule is an old and understandable tactic, but we cannot allow EU Member States to aid and abet that strategy.
Second: weakening of the European position. Negotiations between the Commission and the American administration have been protracted. It is regrettable that any Member State should decide to sign a bilateral agreement, thereby weakening the European Union's common position in relation to US demands, particularly on the eve of the European Union-United States ministerial troika to be held this Thursday in Slovenia.
Third: collapse of solidarity. As European Parliament rapporteur for Schengen, I followed the calls for the early enlargement of the Schengen Area and the abolition of internal borders. The demonstrations of joy just two months ago now seem to ignore the fact that we are managing a common area. I roundly condemn this lack of European solidarity.
Fourth: the legality of the agreement. There is a worrying cloak of secrecy over certain still unknown details of the agreement. It will be particularly serious if it seeks to bypass the agreement between the European Union and the United States on the sharing of data under the PNR Agreement, and is particularly unacceptable if it directly or indirectly allows the United States to access European databases such as the VIS or SIS systems.
Fifth and final point: the freezing of these agreements. I call upon the Council to reach a consensus on freezing these undesirable bilateral agreements as a matter of urgency, and call upon Commissioner Frattini and the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to bring all the instruments at their disposal to bear.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people have already said this, but I must say it again: I believe that this is a particularly serious matter. It is serious firstly because our American allies have deliberately - it must be borne in mind that they have done it deliberately - chosen to deal separately with European Union Member States on matters which they know very well are part of the competences of the European Union, taking advantage of that to make unreasonable security demands.
It is also serious, though, from the point of view of the Union. It is a sad sight to see the Member States lining up separately in order to be able to offer their citizens the prospect of a trip to the United States without a visa, in exchange for security measures that the Americans could not negotiate with the Union as such. I believe that this mess is the unfortunate result of a tragic lack of political strategy on our part.
Until now, the Commission and the Council have dealt with the United States administration pragmatically, on a case-by-case basis, each time at the request of the Americans, without ever having the courage to demand real reciprocity from the Americans. I am not addressing that remark to Mr Frattini, because I know he has tried, but he was not supported. If I understand it correctly, given the seriousness and urgency of the situation, the Commission is now asking for an explicit negotiating mandate to ensure that the Americans comply with what they should have complied with from the outset, Community law and Union competences.
We shall support the efforts by the Commission on this point, but the Commission must not forget that it will be needing Parliament, especially when the Treaty has been ratified, because nothing that is being done now can enter into force if Parliament does not authorise it at some point. The Commissioner should tell that to his successor, whether temporary or permanent.
(CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, as we heard earlier, the situation is untenable. Three years after the enlargement of the European Union there is inequality between the old and new Member States and the negotiations between the European Commission and the United States on eliminating this inequality have not made much progress.
There can therefore be no objections to bilateral negotiations between the countries concerned, in particular since they do not represent a breach of any part of Community legislation. On the contrary, the Czech Republic included EU requirements in its Memorandum so that the Memorandum was fully compatible with EU law. This is also reflected in the opinion of the Council Legal Service. Community competence in the matter of common visa policy has not been breached either because the Electronic Travel Authorisation System that is being set up is not a visa.
It is certainly true that the US is willing to negotiate on including countries in the visa waiver programme only on a bilateral basis since it is obliged to do so by its domestic legislation. Only countries can be admitted to the programme, not international organisations or communities. That is the reality of the situation.
No precedent for other countries has been created. In my opinion, the Czech Republic and other countries should and can continue bilateral negotiations with the United States. Of course they will always be prepared to be transparent in their actions, to share information and to discuss their next step with the European Commission and with the presidency.
I would like to thank the Commissioner for his realistic attitude, demonstrated in his presentation. I would just like to warn against any outside pressure at EU level on some individual Member States that might involve political risks and discredit the image of the European Union, especially now when ratification of the new Reform Treaty is taking place in the individual states.
(NL) The Americans' 2008 tactic of divide and rule sets the pattern in transatlantic relations. But more than anything else we should realise that ultimately we have only ourselves to blame for this. This time the Czechs were the first to be targeted and the first to yield. Last Thursday the Commission was unable either to deny or confirm that European law and rules had been contravened. How bizarre is that? When are Member States going to realise that each of them, to a greater or lesser degree, is a voice crying in the wilderness?
In political dealings with the rest of the world and thus with the US it is crucially important that Member States should speak with a single voice. Transatlantic relations are indisputably very important, but none of the EU Member States - however loyal - is ever going to become the 51st state of the US union. This has to stop. The ball is in Europe's court. And quite frankly I am furious that the Council is not represented here in the House at the moment. That shows a total lack of understanding of what urgency means.
Madam President, as others have said, this memorandum of understanding is illegal under European Community and EU law, which confers competence on the Community or Union for visa policy, key aspects of anti-terrorism and security policy and transfer of passenger data. It must surely be illegal for the Czech Republic to transfer to the US any information from common EU databases, such as the Visa Information System.
But, almost more importantly, it is politically disastrous. Some of us learnt early last year on a visit to Washington how damaging the bilateral lobbying efforts - not only those of the Czech Republic, by the way - were to the attempts by the Commission and Presidency to present a united front in the interests of the whole EU.
But no, some Member States just could not get it. Sure, I understand the frustration of countries whose soldiers are fighting and dying alongside Americans, not only in Afghanistan but, controversially, in Iraq, at the fact that their citizens are suspected of terrorism when they want to visit the US. There is an irony in there somewhere. But how stupid to fall into this 'divide-and-rule' trap!
This is so far from being in line with EU aspirations to have weight in the world that it causes one almost to despair and exposes the Council as a whole to ridicule. Like Ms Hennis-Plasschaert, I note that they are not here to answer that charge tonight.
(SK) Slovakia, as well as Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and some other EU Member States have long been struggling, just like the Czech Republic, to get on the list of countries that will not need a visa to travel to the United States.
Any progress in the journey towards the abolition of visas is very important for our citizens because it means achieving equality for all EU citizens. I trust that both the Commission and the Slovenian Presidency will realise that a legal action against the Czech Republic, taken because the country signed the Memorandum of Understanding with the US, would not be a good signal from Brussels just when the Lisbon Treaty ratification process is under way.
I am in favour of adopting a compromise between a single EU approach and rules according to which the Member States could also engage in bilateral negotiations with the US.
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, let us remember that, with the exception of Slovenia, all citizens of the new accession countries travelling to America must obtain a visa. Unlike other Europeans, these citizens must queue at American embassies and pay substantial sums, and for years they have been waiting in vain for the Union to support their efforts for inclusion in the visa waiver programme. Among the old Member States, only the Greeks are in the same situation.
It is true that the European Union has long been in discussions with the United States on this issue and that, especially following the expansion of the Schengen area, the officials in Brussels have stepped up the pressure on the Americans to include the new Member States in the visa waiver programme. However, four years have passed since our accession and nothing has happened so far. That is why the Czech Republic has decided to go it alone and grant its citizens their wish.
The Memorandum signed between the Czech Republic and the US must therefore be seen as a contribution to collective efforts to give all members of the Union the same rights. Let us remember that this step is fully in accordance with EU law and no one should dispute it.
(DE) Madam President, we also discussed this issue in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and there is no one on that committee who does not sympathise with the situation in which the new Member States find themselves, particularly with regard to visa policy and bilateral dealings with the United States. Yet there are also older Member States - Greece was mentioned in this context - which are similarly waiting for a change in US visa policy. No one, then, is questioning their right to break ranks, but we must ask whether what is legal is necessarily legitimate. In this case it is not legitimate, because it undermines a united approach on the part of the European Union and thereby obstructs the conclusion of an agreement that would apply to the whole territory of the European Union.
A step-by-step approach is essential. We have just managed to deal with the new members' accession to the Schengen Area. The next step is to consider how we can obtain a general arrangement on the visa issue.
One final word: I find the threat with the Treaty of Lisbon utterly disgraceful.
(CS) Allow me to elaborate a little on the debate held here a few minutes ago.
It was said many times that we, meaning the European Union, must pursue a single and common approach when dealing with the United States. This is what the whole issue seems to be about as far as most speakers are concerned. It is not about individual benefits for individual members of individual Member States: it is about a common anti-American policy.
Let me tell you that for the overall majority of Czech citizens the visa waiver programme represents the symbolic final touch to the historic occasion of our return to the fold of democratic countries. I also want to assure you that the process of visa waiver ratification by the Czech Parliament will be much quicker than the process of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.
Madam President, like many colleagues, I also think that the unity of the European Union is very important, not only in visa policy but other issues related to the United States of America.
I would, however, like to ask the Commissioner specifically: do you think that the US is now demanding from those Member States who are trying to independently negotiate a visa waiver programme different levels of requirements based on other reasons than security? Do you think that the US is playing EU Member States against each other and trying to use other issues also linked to the matter? Or is it just security concerns from the US side?
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your contributions.
As freedom of movement is, in my view, a fundamental right of our fellow European citizens, which we recognised by enlarging Schengen, the first thing that has to be said is that the European Commission and the European institutions must work towards an absolute and not a relative result. All the citizens of all the Member States must be allowed to travel to the United States without a personal visa. That is our clear objective and, as a result, I understand the apprehension and concern and also the unease of some Members from Member States which have been in the European Union for many years, such as Greece, or have been members for four years.
A first aspect has to be clarified, however, if we are to have a fair picture: it is not true that we have achieved no results! Our work at a European rather than a national level has provided significant results, very recently with Canada, for instance. I visited Canada last year, at a time when none of the new Member States were included in the visa waiver programme with Canada. Twelve months on, they all are.
We have agreed a system of parity of treatment with Australia, with the result that there is no discrimination between the old and new - in inverted commas - Member States of the European Union.
We have yet to achieve such results with the United States, it is true, but I should like to remind Members who spoke of four years, that is to say the date on which they entered the European Union, that the United States changed its law less than a year ago, in August 2007. It is only since that date that the United States has said that it is willing to extend the visa waiver programme. It is not therefore possible to speak of four years, leaving aside the fact that negotiations with the United States date back even further, but of less than 12 months of negotiations on the basis of a new law. What we negotiated before, on the basis of a law which has now changed, is obviously no longer of any relevance.
In my view, we must work with the United States to bring all European citizens within a regime where they do not need personal visas, without some Member States thinking that they can achieve such a result before the others. I say that very frankly. Why? Because that would give the upper hand in negotiations to our interlocutor, in this case our American friends, who may well be our friends and allies, but are nevertheless conducting negotiations, and will press on with those negotiations if they find any weaknesses in Europe's house. We must ensure that we do not show any weakness: that is the point and we must be very clear about it.
You will remember that when I presented the Europe-United States PNR agreement to this House, an agreement which some criticised and others welcomed, I said that the agreement would place Europe in a stronger position vis-à-vis the USA. I should now like to say that those who supported the European PNR were right, because one of the key points of the mandate that we are requesting is that there can be no exchanges of data and information over and above what is provided for in that agreement, and if such requests were to be made, the European Union would reject them.
Therein lies the proof that such a European agreement makes up for the weak position of Member States from which further data have been requested - and there is no doubt that they have been requested - as well as access to databases which belong to us, to Europe. As a result, however, of that agreement which some criticised and others supported, we can now tell our American friends very clearly that it is not possible to go beyond the European PNR agreement. That is a sign, in my view, of strength and not of weakness.
We already know what can and cannot be done. Our regulations, European laws and the agreements that we have signed and initialled set that out. In that respect, it is obvious that Europe has to speak with a single voice when tackling these issues, and it is also obvious that the 'divide and rule' approach is the most mistaken approach of all from a European point of view and is an approach which we must resist and which the Institutions obviously have to oppose.
Why, however, are we discussing this issue in this House today? Because even though there are clear laws, even though there are detailed agreements, there has been a temptation, if I may put it that way, to jump ahead. A temptation which may be politically comprehensible to the citizens of those countries involved, but which is not institutionally acceptable. It is for that reason that we have had to react, obviously in a spirit of solidarity with all the Member States, including those aspiring to enter the visa waiver programme.
What have we done? We have asked Coreper, that is to say the ambassadors of the Member States, to agree on a baseline document. We consider that document to be a red line: it reiterates what can and cannot be done. We have also asked the Member States to ensure that any political negotiations abide by that red line, that key point, and have reiterated, for instance, that exchanges of information over and above those for which the European agreements already make provision cannot be agreed to, and that issues such as the return of 'overstayers' have to be negotiated at European and not at national level. Matters of a kind that, frankly, it would not have been necessary to reiterate had there been a formal mandate. We have done so for the sake of clarity, to say once and for all that we understand the concerns of the Member States which are not at present in the visa waiver programme, but that the rules of the European Union take precedence over those concerns. Were we to call that into question, even once, it would set a precedent that would be followed by many more, each more dangerous than the last.
In conclusion, Madam President, we are working this week to propose a negotiating mandate to the US that will make it very clear that all the Member States, unanimously, even the representatives of the Czech Republic and Estonia, have agreed that the baseline cannot be overstepped in individual negotiations. Are there margins for individual negotiations? Yes, certainly, in areas for which Europe is not competent, that is obvious. However, for all those issues for which Europe is competent, and they are the overwhelming majority, the Member States are giving us a unanimous mandate; that, I may say, is a line that the Slovenian Presidency is absolutely determined to follow. Tomorrow I shall ask the Commission for a formal mandate to inform the United States of our line and, as regards that line, there can be no concessions or retractions.
Mr President, as often in these debates I find that we do not get an answer to our questions. I put a very precise question to the Commissioner: whether he has been able to establish if the implementing measures regarding the PNR part of the memorandum of understanding are in line with the EU-US agreement, and, if not, does that mean that the agreement would be invalid?
The Commissioner said that some Members opposed the agreement and others endorsed it. I would like to remind him that when we passed a resolution in this House last year in July, it was passed with near unanimity and it called the agreement substantially flawed.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be very brief. I thought I had made myself clear, but let me reiterate: there will be no implementing rules, contrary to the document approved by Coreper and the mandate that I shall request. There are no implementing rules as yet, because the Czech Republic has agreed to our request not to present implementing rules until a common European position has been found. We have found that position and the government of the Czech Republic will abide by it.
The debate is closed.


Protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshares (debate)
The next item is the report by Toine Manders, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday products, resale and exchange - C6-0159/2007 -.
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, I should, as ever, like to start by thanking everyone involved: Commissioner Kuneva, the shadow rapporteurs, and also the three Presidents of the Council, for we started this report in 2007, under the Portuguese Presidency. This was followed by the Slovenian Presidency and, finally, we have managed to strike a compromise with the help of the French Presidency. It is unfortunate that State Secretary Luc Chatel is unable to attend, because it is, of course, wonderful to be able to observe that we have a compromise, and at first reading no less.
In 1994, a Timeshare Directive was approved which has given the sector a thorough overhaul. The big problem was that Member States implemented the directive differently. It was a patchwork of legislation and compliance which was, wittingly or unwittingly, different in the various locations and which sowed a seed of doubt in the minds of consumers when they considered buying timeshare property across the border.
We are now thrashing out a new directive. We have extended the scope somewhat, because in the 1994 directive, a number of products were insufficiently defined, if at all, such as long-term holidays or product exchange, to name but a few. To my mind, we have managed to make a distinct improvement in this respect, and both industry and consumers are thrilled with the outcome. I hope that we as politicians are too. We worked with our fellow MEPs in the various groups very closely, and we have arrived at an attractive result.
There is, for example, a prohibition on advance payments, because this proved to be a frustration to many consumers. Once you had paid up, it was impossible to get back this EUR 1 000 or EUR 1 500 which you had paid in front.
The cooling-off period of fourteen days is, to my mind, also a very important matter.
Subsequently, and I am personally very pleased with this, there will be a checklist, a standard information form which sets out your purchase in detail and also states that you have the opportunity to dissolve the contract within fourteen days with a no-quibble guarantee.
There are also voluntary codes of conduct for the sector, as well as the hallmark, a recognition or quality mark, and also the fact that the Commission has promised to monitor this. This is music to my ears, for indeed, it is to be welcomed, in my view, that the Commission has promised to monitor these codes of conduct. I am particularly pleased with the fact that the Commission promised to monitor compliance with the regulation in the Member States in the trialogue.
It will, in some cases, become easier for the consumer to appear before a national court. It saddens me that the jurisdiction, the establishment of a competent court, is not explicitly mentioned in this directive. This is regrettable to me, but in a compromise, you sometimes need to add water to the wine. It is also regrettable, for example, that, if crucial information is not provided, a contract will still exist one year on.
This is all possible in a compromise. By and large, enormous progress has been made in relation to both the consumer and the sector, particularly in terms of maximum harmonisation. This will, in any event, make it easier in a number of cases to appear before a court in one's own Member State. For the sector, it will become much easier to trade across the border.
What is before us is, to my mind, a good result, one of which we here as Parliament, together with the Commission and Council, can be proud.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Manders, and the shadows, in particular Mr Harbour and Mrs McCarthy, for their political commitment and support, and the teams of the IMCO Secretariat and DG SANCO for their very close cooperation. This will lead us, hopefully, to conclude at first reading. I really appreciate your tremendous efforts and I am grateful that we finally reached an agreement. For the same reasons, I would also thank the French presidency.
This proposal would bring about very significant improvements for consumers in the market for timeshare and similar holiday products. There is clearly an urgent need to revise the existing rules on timeshare. Consumers are losing out by purchasing products which are economically similar to timeshare but which do not fall under the definition of the current directive. I am speaking here about products like discount holiday clubs, where consumers often have to pay a substantial amount up front, ranging from EUR 6 000 to EUR 20 000, for membership of a club, which will only give a right to a discount on future holidays. I am also referring to the resale and exchange of timeshare which are currently unregulated.
It is my deep conviction that we need to work on the database site for complaints, and data on complaints show that consumers encounter significantly more problems with these unregulated products, in particular, with the discount holiday clubs, compared to timeshare. There is, therefore, a compelling case for applying similar rules to these products in order to achieve more fairness in the holiday market.
The proposal to be put to the vote today fills in the loopholes in the current legislation by extending the scope of the directive to cover not only timeshare but also long-term holiday products, resale and exchange of timeshare.
With the new rules, traders marketing these products will have to provide a consumer with comprehensive pre-contractual information so that the consumer will be able to make an informed choice.
Thanks to amendments from this House, which I wholeheartedly support, this information will have to be provided on a standardised information sheet, which will make it easier for consumers to assimilate the information. The standardised information sheet will also facilitate the life of traders, in particular, since it will be available in all EU languages. Consumers purchasing these products will also benefit from the right of withdrawal and a ban on advance payments, as is already the case for timeshare.
It will also be clarified that withdrawal can be notified to the trader by letter, email, fax or other similar means. Moreover, consumers purchasing long-term holiday products will be given additional protection. The total payment for membership will no longer be allowed up front but must instead be divided into yearly instalments. The consumer will also have the right to terminate the contract before each yearly payment.
The fully harmonised rules of the directive will be good for consumers. Currently, consumers wishing to purchase a timeshare while on holiday in another country will do so on the basis of that country's rules, which may not be as protective as the rules of his home country. With the new fully harmonised directive, consumers will know that the same consumer protection rules will apply, regardless of whether they bought their timeshare holiday products in their home countries or while on holiday abroad.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I must thank the rapporteur, Mr Manders, the shadow rapporteur, Mr Hasse Ferreira, and all the other draftsmen and colleagues for their cooperation, willingness to engage in dialogue and readiness to reach a consensus.
The Timeshare Directive will be extended to new activities and will make a positive contribution to European tourism, operators and consumers. Consumers are the group least well informed about their rights and obligations and least qualified to conduct negotiations. That is why, in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I defended a high level of consumer protection, particularly by extending and updating the basic definitions of the directive, reinforcing language requirements, and improving contract information and withdrawal rights to ensure a clear and stable market without any hidden costs for consumers.
After this process started, a horizontal review of the Community consumer law acquis was initiated. I argued that we should not wait for this review given the serious problems faced by consumers when exercising their rights, mainly at international level, and given the new activities covered by timeshare. These problems do not stem from the harmonised Community law in this area, but from the lack of a clear Community legal framework, possibly supplemented by more rigorous national legal frameworks rewarding honest businesses and consumers. This is a basic objective of this proposal for a directive which I call on everyone to support.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I must once again regret the fact that the Conference of Presidents did not allow enhanced cooperation between the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection with regard to this report.
In my opinion, the Committee on Legal Affairs did not want to alter the legal basis proposed by the European Commission or change the legal instrument. The main objective was to protect consumers from abuses committed by certain 'holiday clubs', without harming the development of legitimate and job-creating businesses such as those known as 'timeshares'.
In my view, it is not enough to simply apply the safeguards specific to timeshares to holiday clubs. We must go further as the legal nature of these two systems is intrinsically different.
Timeshares involve a property right, whereas holiday clubs are simply a services contract. In actual fact, with holiday clubs, the consumer pays a sum of money in exchange for a long-term promise of tourist services.
We should not forget that most complaints from consumers relate to holiday club abuses and not to the timeshares with which everyone is familiar. As Commissioner Kuneva indicated, the aim, which is shared by the Committee on Legal Affairs, is to regulate opaque sectors and lay down rules allowing honest businesspeople to develop their businesses to the benefit of consumers.
I an convinced that, with this report and its proposed measures, we are heading in the right direction.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, it gives me great pleasure to be able to welcome, on behalf of the group and as, indeed, the second shadow rapporteur for my group that has worked on it, the agreement we have reached with Council today. I also want to thank Council for their cooperation.
I want to place on record the indebtedness that we pay to Mrs Luisa Rudi Ubeda, who was elected to the Spanish Parliament in the summer but who had actually done the bulk of the shadow work on this directive. In particular, in relation to the point to the rapporteur from the Committee on Legal Affairs, I just want to emphasise that the special section on holiday clubs, which I think is probably the biggest single advance we have in this directive in dealing with that particular type of product, was very much due to the tenacity of Mrs Rudi Ubeda in ensuring that we kept it on the table. Council and Commission, in particular, were rather reluctant, but I am delighted that we have reached agreement on that because I think it is crucially important.
My rapporteur, Toine Manders, who has also done an excellent job on this and to whom I pay tribute as well as the rest of the team that worked with him, and Mrs Kuneva, have covered a number of the other issues, but I just want to highlight what I think are two other very important issues where we have sought significant improvement.
The first one is on the question of advertising. If you look at the advertising clause it is now clearly spelt out that any promotional activity in relation to a timeshare or holiday club has to be clearly shown and designated in advertising as such. Also, the standardised information that we have asked to be available has to be available at all times at any sort of promotional event, so there can be no question of people being misled by some attractive trip, visit or offer. It has to be absolutely clear what it is they are talking about, and that it should not be sold as an investment.
Secondly - and here I address the Council, though, unfortunately, the Minister is not here - the Member States' encouragement of codes of conduct and out-of-court dispute resolution is absolutely crucial.
Overall, this is a major advance in consumer protection. I fully commend it and I am sure that it will get the overwhelming support of the House today.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after a year of parliamentary work, the proposal for a directive now being discussed is a significant improvement on the document that was presented in 2007. The rights of European consumers, whether current or potential customers of timeshares or holiday cards and clubs, have been reinforced at various levels.
This proposal therefore provides for three different periods, applying under different conditions, which will allow contracts to be cancelled unilaterally by the consumer. It also lays down a series of essential elements that must be specifically included in contracts. In addition, it clarifies and explains the use of languages, which will be much better for consumers, and also the rules on advertising, which merited special attention. This is therefore a good proposal for a directive which, following determined and detailed negotiations between various parliamentary groups, is now being presented to Parliament and has already been agreed by the Commission and the Council.
Mr President, I must congratulate the Slovenian Presidency on its efforts to solve and overcome a number of differences of opinion on the text. The French presidency should also be warmly congratulated, particularly Ambassador Léglise-Costa, on the magnificent work carried out in the final phase of the negotiations, as should the Commission representatives on the willingness and technical ability that they demonstrated, both in the trialogue and in bilateral contacts.
Within Parliament, the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, Manuel Jardim Fernandes, deserves particular congratulations, as do the members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, especially its draftsman, the group shadow rapporteurs and coordinators and, last but not least, Chairman Arlene McCarthy.
Before ending, I want to thank the consumers' associations, particularly the British associations and the Portuguese association DECO, as also the European Business Association for the sector, for the useful contributions that they gave me throughout the process. This directive on timeshares and holiday cards and clubs is excellent. I therefore call on you all to adopt it.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our 'internal European market' is, and must, increasingly be a Europe which protects consumers.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I, too, should like to thank the rapporteur, on behalf of the shadow rapporteur for my group, who unfortunately cannot be here today, for his constructive cooperation. I believe that the cooperation enjoyed with Mr Manders really was constructive and produced sound results of which we can be proud.
Our extension of the scope to holiday clubs - a major problem - and also cruise ships, houseboats and caravans, is particularly important. In so doing, we have closed numerous loopholes that unfortunately existed in the old directive. Our establishment of greater transparency, by means of both pre-contractual information and the information sheets, the standardised information already mentioned by several of the previous speakers, is also very important.
I also think it important, and wish to emphasise, that we have introduced an extension to 14 days for the right of withdrawal in the event of misuse of information, and also that the consumer can take advantage of an extended period of three months and, in the event of criminal neglect of the information obligation, of as much as one year. This creates more transparency and more legal certainty, and this is in the interests of not just consumers but also industry which, of course, has every interest in distancing itself from disreputable providers in this field.
Together with industry, Member States and consumer organisations, we can now make this sector respectable once and for all. For this reason, I believe this will enjoy the wholehearted support of our group. We have not achieved everything we wanted to, but this represents a major step forward.
Mr President, Commissioner, the tourist industry is playing an increasingly important role in the economies of the European countries, and this includes time-shares, long-term holiday products, and the exchange and resale of timeshares, which have often harmed consumers.
The directive counters this problem and creates conditions for harmonising these services on the European market by adopting a package of fundamental rules to improve transparency and protect consumers by, inter alia, establishing a uniform model contract, the obligation to provide a contract in the language of the consumer, improving the consumer's opportunity to make a considered decision, and a cooling-off period in which the consumer may withdraw from the agreement without having to give reasons. Together with the amendments, the directive provides conditions for the development of these services and increases consumer confidence in them.
Thank you, Mr Manders, for your excellent report. The Union for Europe of the Nations Group supports this directive.
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we, too, should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, and also the shadow rapporteur and rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats on the Committee on Legal Affairs. This House has shown that, when a market comes apart at the seams - as was the case in the timeshare sector, of course - we are prepared to take action together. It should be reiterated that the timeshare market in its traditional form has been increasingly infiltrated by disreputable providers - of clubs and resorts, for example - who are scattered throughout Europe and who have indeed failed to inform consumers in a transparent manner about the possibilities and disadvantages of this kind of investment. The new regime will bring considerable advantages in this regard.
The extension of the withdrawal period from 10 to 14 days has been mentioned. I also think it right that we have exempted multi-annual hotel bookings, as this is a completely different situation for consumers from entering into a recurrent annual investment in a holiday club or resort.
Much has already been said about this, but I should also like to point out that the rule that consumers must be informed either in the language of their country of residence or in their mother tongue will also ultimately force a significant proportion of disreputable contract models out of the market and thus, in general, put the timeshare market back on a respectable basis, while also ensuring that consumers wishing to buy into holidays in such facilities can do so with complete confidence.
The revision clause not found in the last directive gives this House the opportunity of evaluating, after three years, whether the course we have suggested is really solving the problems or whether there are further problems on which we must further intervene.
I thank you, Commissioner Kuneva. I believe that this measure is a very positive one as far as the internal market is concerned.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I think we have done a good piece of work here, and not only for the internal market, as Mr Schwab has just said, but also for citizens - and this is much more important to me, as we want to ensure that they find themselves in a Europe that is growing together, in a very positive sense, and I think that has indeed been happening here.
As coordinator, I am particularly obliged to our shadow rapporteur, Mr Hasse Ferreira, for the excellent work he has done together with the rapporteur and the other shadow rapporteurs.
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament would also have liked to see a greater extension of the scope - that goes without saying - but compromises sometimes cannot be helped. I think we have nevertheless found a very good solution. Facilitating the comparison of offers, the right of withdrawal and advertising will lead to better conditions for our citizens in future, so that they can be king in a market that used to be a real jungle.
This rank growth has meant that many people who maybe did not pay too much attention when it came to their holidays have ended up in a very difficult situation. We want to prevent this happening in future, and I do believe that this compromise will make this possible.
(SV) Madam President, we have unfortunately become well acquainted with this problem in my own country, Sweden. Tourists in a holiday mood are duped into buying shares in apartments with which they are not particularly satisfied when they arrive home, if they have anything at all to show for their purchase when they get there. The new directive on timeshare properties will entail much better protection if the same rules apply anywhere at all in the EU to the purchase of timeshare properties. Proper consumer protection is required if people are securely to be able to make use of the freedoms of the internal market. Consumers must be able to feel strong, secure and safe.
It is to be prohibited for vendors to demand down payments during the period for reflection which, moreover, is to be extended from 10 to 14 days. In that way, consumers will not have to worry about making down payments if they are not satisfied or if they wish to withdraw from the purchase during the period of reflection. The directive will probably deter frivolous companies that do not meet the requirements for above-board marketing and reasonable purchase agreements. I believe that many people at present hesitate to purchase such services in other Member States precisely because they cannot feel secure and rely on consumer protection.
Through harmonisation and the measures in the directive, consumers will be given stronger consumer protection. This may contribute to more people feeling able to make use of such services involving timeshare properties outside their own Member States, and this is something we all of course welcome. In other words, this is an excellent proposal obtaining broad support. Sun-loving northerners wish to thank both the Commission and the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs.
Madam President, this timeshare law is long overdue. The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection first held a hearing on this in 2001, exposing all the problems in the market. We are, of course, very pleased that we have come to the point today where we are now delivering for consumers. We are extending the law to cover all timeshare-like products, especially the problematic discount holiday clubs. We are covering resale and exchange and giving consumers better protection and better rights. Critically, I believe consumers will have the same rights whether they are buying in Varna on the Black Sea or Valencia on the Costa Blanca.
With this law, consumers must be given the key information on the standard information sheet - including all fees and charges - and, if the company fails to provide it, the law extends the right of withdrawal to three months. Failure to inform the consumer of the right of withdrawal extends the right of withdrawal to one year. These really are good rights for consumers. They will turn our traders into responsible traders and we will have informed and protected consumers, which means we can drive out of the market the dodgy dealers and the scam merchants.
Today we have demonstrated that, when consumers complain, Parliament's Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection not only answers, but we act and we deliver. Commissioner, I would ask you to follow up, as you always do, on enforcement issues. We must now use the new cross-border enforcement network to tackle the continuing problems that consumers have and to make sure we reduce the number of complaints that turn up on timeshare in European consumer centres right across the 27 Member States.
(RO) Our aim is always to ensure that we introduce legislation which offers more benefits for consumers. This is why I would like to express my support for this new directive, which creates a simplified model framework for timeshare products. I believe that the proposals to grant consumers a cooling-off period of 14 days to withdraw from a contract and to ban demands for advance payments during this period are welcome. I hope that the changes made will contribute to a properly operating internal market through harmonising European legislation in this respect and therefore, increase the level of protection for consumers.
We need to make sure when it comes to signing the contract that consumers are fully informed and that all the necessary precontractual information about the costs involved and the services they are going to enjoy has been supplied to them. We need to encourage the development of timeshare and long-term holiday products. We therefore need to increase consumers' confidence in buying holiday packages abroad and encourage firms which sell abroad to make the most of the benefits offered by the single market.
I would also call on Commissioner Kuneva to intervene in credit agreements because following this financial mess we are now in, most banks have changed these credit agreements too as they continue to dupe consumers. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for his efforts and I hope that we will achieve a market which benefits consumers.
(FR) Madam President, Mrs Kuneva, ladies and gentlemen, we shall be voting on the necessary revamping of a 14 year old directive affecting millions of people in Europe, both professionals in the tourist industry and consumers of timeshare holidays or holiday clubs.
This industry, worth more than EUR 2 billion a year and employing 200 000 people, is a major driver of the internal market within the framework of the Lisbon Strategy, particularly as forecasts indicate rapid growth for this kind of service. The economic rationale, while not insignificant, should not impede greater protection of the countless users of these services, who often have moderate holiday budgets and need protection and more legal clarity.
The harmonisation of conditions for withdrawal from a contract, as well as the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, such as advance payments during the cooling-off period, and the requirement to provide an accurate, clear and legible contract in the chosen language of the purchaser, therefore constitute significant progress in consumer protection and empowerment. This text will at last enable us to put a stop to unacceptable practices made possible by the inadequacies of the current directive, and will reinstate credibility in an industry crippled by a negative image. We therefore have reason to hope, on the one hand, for fresh positive dynamism among traders freed from unscrupulous competitors and, on the other, renewed confidence for reassured consumers.
I am therefore keen to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Manders, and the shadow rapporteurs, in particular my friend, Joel Hasse Ferreira, on their successful work which will lead, at first reading, to an agreement which preserves the many advances sought by Parliament but rejected by the Council.
Madam President, for a number of years I have been concerned that current legislation on timeshares did not take into account the range of new products in this area coming on to the market. Therefore, I welcome the revisions being made in this proposal.
Extending the scope to cover holiday clubs and other similar products is a great step forward in protecting the consumer from what had previously been an easy target for the unscrupulous tout. This directive certainly shows that the EU is taking steps to stay ahead of the game.
I have to admit, however, that I am disappointed that Parliament had to give way on a provision calling for cooling-off periods of 21 days in order to reach agreement with the Council. However, this is not to say that the improvements made have had no effect on the current directive, and, in fact, it is to be welcomed that no upfront payments have to be made until the end of the cooling-off period. A great deal of effort has gone into reaching this compromise with the Council, and I hope to see the report adopted today with a large majority.
(CS) I welcome the revision of the fifteen year old timeshares directive. This will expand the definitions of long-term recreational products, allowing greater levels of consumer protection and ensuring the competitiveness of honest providers. The directive, in other words, prevents the emergence of new products that are aimed merely at circumventing the rules. Timeshare products are, by their very nature, services that are offered across national boundaries. I am therefore delighted that in Europe, this market will be fully harmonised and that the consumer will have the same rights in all states, for example the fourteen day period within which it will be possible to withdraw from a contract without having to make a down payment in advance, or the obligation incumbent upon the provider to draw up a contract in the language preferred by the consumer. This is good news for Czech consumers wanting to go on holiday. I also support the idea of introducing a European registration system such as travel agents have, which would be a source of information in the case of judicial disputes and could also include the setting up of a guarantee fund for consumers in the event of a company going bankrupt. I congratulate the Commissioner and also the rapporteurs.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, we need to ensure that consumers all over the EU are adequately protected against aggressive selling tactics by rogue traders operating in the timeshare and holiday product markets.
The need for action at EU level is all the more crucial because of the cross-border nature of most timeshare contracts.
Furthermore, we need to ensure that consumers have enough confidence in the regulatory framework so that they do not refrain from purchasing timeshare abroad from legitimate traders. A healthy market in timeshare and similar holiday products will contribute to boosting growth and job creation in the European Union.
It is my firm belief that the compromise package that you will vote on today will make an important contribution to the achievement of these aims. The amendments put forward by the ALDE, PPE-DE and PSE Groups - with which the Council has agreed - are, in my view, fair and reasonable. The package is also in line with the Commission's original proposal.
In my opinion, this package constitutes the best option in the interest of both consumers and traders. A vote for this package is a vote for consumer confidence in holiday products, for clear consumer information, and for a competitive and responsible holiday industry.
I therefore look to the Members of this House to vote to support an agreement today on rules for timeshare and similar holiday products which will provide real added value for holidaymakers all over Europe.
rapporteur. - (NL) Madam President, if this directive meets with approval this afternoon, although we may be laying down a directive for only a small segment of the internal market, it will represent an enormous step for the European consumer. This directive is, after all, a precursor to the horizontal instrument for consumer protection.
As rapporteur, I proposed in the first instance that we lay down a number of aspects in a regulation. We eventually ended up with maximum harmonisation and, in my view, this maximum European harmonisation will provide considerable protection not only for consumers, but also for the bona fide companies involved in the trade in question. Tourism will receive an enormous boost, and the internal market can only function well if there is consumer confidence.
I am glad that, with this maximum harmonisation, all European consumers will be given the same rights. Indeed, I take the view that the European consumers, from whichever country they may hail, should have the same rights when they purchase goods, services or whatever else within the internal market. This will be guaranteed with this directive.
I hope that the Member States will regulate adherence and their monitoring procedures in the same way, so that consumer confidence can remain high. After all, an internal market, and this is why I believe in Europe, can only function well on the basis of trust on the part of industry, the government and the consumer.
If we manage to pull this off, then this is a precursor to my mind, and an important indicator that the horizontal instrument for consumer protection should be fully harmonised for all consumer purchases.
This then, in my opinion, is a huge step forward, for we have already optimised many areas of the internal market, but not yet consumer confidence. I think that this directive is an important step in that direction. I should like to thank everyone who has made a positive contribution.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at noon today.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Timeshare is a form of holiday product. Many consumers decide to buy such services while they are captivated by the charms of the place they are holidaying in, which unfortunately is used by unscrupulous traders who fail to give them the full information about the services being offered.
The changes the directive introduces will increase the scope of consumer protection against these practices. In particular, consumers will be given a 14 day cooling-off period during which they can withdraw from the agreement without any consequences, which will help them to think over their decision. The information that traders will have to provide to potential service buyers will also be expanded. The consumer will have the right to full information, regardless of the Member State in which they are buying the services and, more importantly, this information will have to be in writing and in the consumer's mother tongue or language of their country of origin. If consumers are not informed of their right to a 14 day cooling off period, the cooling-off period will be extended to one year and 14 days.
These solutions are all very beneficial for the consumer, particularly at a time when foreign travel has become so widespread and, as a result, consumers are increasingly exposed to the unfair practices of some operators.
The European Parliament has always been very concerned about consumer rights in the area of tourism and, consequently, in its resolutions on new perspectives and new calls for long-term sustainable tourism in Europe, it has accepted the need to revise Directive 94/47/EC.
Irresponsible agencies find it easy to circumvent this directive and therefore, in the interests of achieving an optimal level of consumer protection in this area, the IMCO Committee has been pressing for the adoption of harmonised rules across a number of key areas. These will help consumers to make the right decisions, regardless of which country they come from or where they go on holiday.
Timeshare comprises the time-limited use of properties or other assets under contracts covering a period of more than one year, through which the consumer acquires, on payment of a fee, the right to use one or more accommodation facilities on more than one occasion. Contracts will have to contain checklists designed to attract the attention of consumers and to make it easy for them to understand their right to withdraw from the contract.
I welcome the code of ethics for entrepreneurs in this area, the quality mark, the trans-boundary campaigns and the use of standardised forms. One important aspect is that advertisements should inform consumers and not mislead them. The directive sets out a legal framework for long-term holiday products. Consumers will have time to consider their decisions in an environment where no one can put them under pressure. I believe that this directive can resolve the serious problems which consumers have encountered with long-term holiday products.
Mr President, I am delighted to express my approval of this report and to thank the rapporteur, Mr Manders, and my colleague, Mr Harbour, for their excellent work, as also the shadow rapporteurs. This has been an excellent piece of teamwork. This package of measures is the result of significant efforts made by both the Commission and also Parliament and the Council.
The Spanish delegation always argues for understanding, clarity and legal certainty which, together with full harmonisation, guarantee optimum consumer protection.
We wanted clear rules and better market regulation for two reasons: firstly, for businesspeople, so that they can carry out their activities with a high level of quality and security, and, secondly, for consumers, so that they can feel confident when accessing this market, so that they have the necessary information before signing any contracts as well as the necessary safeguards protecting their rights.
Good regulation stimulates market activity and benefits both consumers and businesspeople. That is what we wanted and what we have managed to achieve with this agreement.
(The sitting was suspended at 10.55 a.m. for the award of the LUX Prize and resumed at 11.30 a.m.)


4. G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (vote)
Before the vote on Amendment 13:
Madam President, we would like to introduce the following oral amendment to Amendment 13: 'Urges the development of country-by-country reporting that provides a comprehensive view of each parent company of a group for investors, stakeholders and tax authorities, thereby facilitating a more effective and transparent international overview of tax-led decisions'.


3. Chad
The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on Chad.
author. - (NL) Mr President, colonial rule in the former territories of French West Africa and French Central Africa came to an end between 1958 and 1960. This was not the outcome of a protracted conflict and the resulting emergence of a collective national consciousness, but rather a way of preventing the development of liberation movements. It was a top-down rather than a bottom-up process. From French overseas departments they first became autonomous territories and then independent states.
With the exception of Guinea (Conakry), French influence has nevertheless always remained greater in these states than in other former colonies. The big desert state of Chad still has a French military presence and that has certainly influenced who was allowed to rule the country and who was not. This powerful European influence has not led to the development of European standards of democracy and human rights in these countries. The states and their national borders derive not from domestic movements which shaped an independent state, but simply from the colonial past.
This means that ethnic differences can lead to ethnic confrontations. In countries like these that means a continuing struggle for power, over who are the first-class citizens and who the second-class citizens. Ethnic and geographical diversity is often not reflected, or only poorly reflected, in the composition of the government. The problems this causes cannot, in my Group's view, simply be resolved by stationing a new body of European troops there. There has always been a military presence there, and it has made the present situation worse rather than better. The answer lies not in stabilising the current situation, which only benefits the current rulers, but in making space for change from the bottom up.
author. - (PL) Mr President, in the draft resolution we refer to the Cotonou Agreement and, specifically, to the section on humanitarian aid.
I must however remind you about an unfortunate occurrence during the last ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Ljubljana, which took place one month ago. The ACP side rejected the Assembly's compromise resolution on Chad. What is more, those promoting the rejection of this resolution were delegates from countries that are Chad's neighbours, even though their concerns had been taken into account in the compromise text. It was difficult for us to understand why our partners from Africa decided to reject this resolution.
I hope that the European Parliament resolution, which we will adopt in a few minutes' time, will fill the gap created by the absence of the much-anticipated ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly resolution. I think we can all agree with the statement by Chad's President Idriss Deby that looking after 300 000 Sudanese refugees and 170 000 internal refugees in Chad is a heavy burden. European society is aware of this, and this is why 14 European Union countries have decided to carry out the UN Security Council mandate and are beginning to send 4 000 soldiers to Chad.
We are pleased that the European Union has taken responsibility and showed solidarity in this way, even though the scope of this solidarity could be wider. Most of the 14 countries that have decided to take part in the mission, including, to name but a few, Ireland, Finland, Romania and Poland, have no historic or economic links with Chad. These countries, in directing assistance to Chad, have displayed not just solidarity, but also selflessness in their desire to help defenceless civilians, victims of the conflict in Darfur and of the internal strife in Chad, refugees in camps on the Saudi-Chad border and staff in humanitarian missions working in the region.
I hope that this mission will be effective in resolving the conflict and will help the people of Chad and Sudan, and we wish the people of Chad successful, free, democratic and transparent elections in 2009.
author. - (PL) Mr President, since 3 February 2008 there has been no information at all about the fate of Ibni Oumar Mahamat Saleh, the spokesman for the Coordination of Political Parties for the Defence of the Constitution.
Torture, imprisonment and various types of repression are systematically used against the opposition. There are restrictions on free speech, and the right to a free trial is also limited. The security forces as well as armed groups from Sudan threaten civilians and attack humanitarian organisations, especially in the eastern part of Chad.
In Chad there are over 250 000 refugees from Sudan and about 57 000 refugees from the Central African Republic, as well as refugees from Darfur. The conflict in Darfur has spilled over into Chadian territory. The armed conflict is accompanied by a humanitarian catastrophe: there is not enough food for refugees, there are sudden increases in the price of food, barely 20% of children attend school, children are forced into the armed forces, and violence against children is becoming increasingly widespread, especially sexually-motivated attacks on girls.
It is vital to enable refugees to return to their own homes. It is vital to stop not just the armed conflict in Chad but also the fall-out from the crisis in Darfur. Only a resolution to the armed conflicts can possibly give a chance to help the 4.5 million people in Darfur and Eastern Chad. Only an end to war can make it possible to reduce violations of human rights.
Images of skeletal women sitting outside their burnt-out houses with hungry children in their arms, images that were common in Poland and in other European countries during the Second World War, are now a daily reality in Chad and Sudan. Europe was able to emerge from those tragic circumstances. Let us help the people of Chad and Sudan to regain hope. Let us stop further armed struggle with a peace mission.
author. - Mr President, Chad, the fifth largest nation in Africa, has had a very troublesome post-colonial history. Civil conflict, guerrilla warfare, military coups, religious and ethnic divisions, combined with a hostile, semi-desert environment and a problematic regional neighbourhood, have led to almost continuous unrest in the country. Consequently - and despite the fact that Chad is rich in gold, uranium and oil - Chad is a state suffering from severe poverty and resultant poor health and social conditions.
The present governing regime, led by President Deby, having come to power after a coup in 1990 and with a number of dubious electoral wins since then, has been reportedly involved in numerous acts of severe oppression and persecution against opposition politicians, human rights activists and journalists. Arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture and extrajudicial killings have been documented.
Let us hope that this motion for a resolution will send a clear message to Mr Deby, as well to all other parties involved in that troublesome part of the world, that the time has come for national reconciliation, the strengthening of democratic processes and respect for human rights. At the same time, this resolution aims at trying to reassure the people of Chad that the European Union stands by their side in their hour of need and will continue to do its utmost in order to assist in the achievement of peace and prosperity for all the citizens of their country.
author. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, according to consistent witness evidence, Omar Mohamed Saleh was arrested at his home by armed men in uniform on 3 February 2008.
Since then, there has been no official word and his family and political colleagues fear that after his arrest he was cold-bloodedly executed. This lack of information cannot be allowed to continue and President Idriss Deby must pass on the information that he has.
We are therefore calling on the French Government in particular, which has, as we know, provided aid to the President of Chad, to obtain all possible information on the disappearance of Mohamed Saleh, about whom we are extremely concerned, and also on the fate of all the other political prisoners. That cannot, in any event, disguise the tragic situation of over a million people caught in the crossfire.
For that reason, it is imperative to open dialogue between all the parties, the Chad Government, the opposition and the rebels, to which they committed themselves with a view to free elections in 2009, in accordance with international standards. The aim of the Eufor mission is to keep the peace between Chad and Sudan and to guarantee the security of humanitarian operations to aid refugees on all sides. The mission cannot succeed without the active participation of all the European Union countries.
In addition, since Eurofor includes a large contingent of French forces, it is essential to distinguish between the Épervier plan and the European forces. It is also imperative for the millions of refugees, as an initial emergency measure, but also in the longer term for the countries of Central Africa, that political stability should be restored by a ceasefire, reopening of dialogue and respect for human rights.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FI) Mr President, the resolution highlights the two areas of the crisis which the government and international agencies need to focus their attention on. Firstly, the humanitarian crisis is widespread and for a long time now the aid organisations there have been sending back reports about the growing numbers of internal refugees. The poor levels of security in the refugee camps, the widespread sexual violence, and the difficulty of delivering food aid have made the situation even more critical. Secondly, there are massive restrictions on freedom of speech and many journalists have had to leave Chad for fear of arrest. Supporters of the political opposition have been threatened and have disappeared. This fact often remains in the shadow of the humanitarian crisis, although if things were to improve in this area it would be one important step along the road to a more stable regime.
A genuine solution will of course require strong political will and concrete action on a large scale. Just as important, however, is the need to invest time and effort in the children of Chad and their future by trying hard to prevent them from being recruited into armed gangs of insurgents and investing in their basic education, which could include human rights studies, for example.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ET) My speech too links up with the previous speaker's. I also wanted to raise a point of the utmost importance to today's agenda and it is precisely the situation of children in crisis hotspots. A large number, if not the majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who been left homeless are children. And what is their everyday life like? We have all seen the dispiriting images on our television screens.
The European Union has an obligation to show solidarity with the whole nation, of course, but we must strive to focus our attention on the children because they cannot look after themselves. It is depressing that only one in five children in Chad attends school and that thousands upon thousands of them carry weapons.
I fully support the call for a plan to make human rights an integral part of the school curriculum. It is important for the government of Chad to do all it can to prevent the recruitment of children by rebel groups; the importance of the role of EUFOR will prove crucial here in, for example, communicating with community leaders and focusing their attention on the situation of children in this area.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, the subject of today's debate is breaches of human rights in Chad. The situation there is as dramatic as in Darfur, Sudan or the Central African Republic, where, in addition to the conflicts fuelled by ethnic, language or religious differences, there are also other conflicts of interest, especially to do with politics and oil.
African countries that are economically poor and poorly developed, even though they may be rich in natural resources, including crude oil, precious gemstones and metals, become not just an arena for trading in these resources or in drugs, but an eager market for the sale of arms, one of the principal causes of human rights abuses. In an atmosphere of growing conflict and war, many unscrupulous local and foreign traders exploit this situation, enriching themselves at the cost of chaos, refugees and the suffering of millions of innocent people, and even genocide, rape and the exploitation of women and children.
This situation is made worse by the passivity of the international community, which is controlled and exploited by great powers that play out their interests on the global stage. Humanitarian missions of various types can do little to help, and sometimes even go against their initial objectives and calling. Such a situation appears hopeless, as long as life and human dignity lose out to practical materialism, liberalism and the growing civilisation of death, which is sometimes propagated even by so-called humanitarian organisations providing education in the name of sexual and reproductive health.
For these reasons, various resolutions and reports may help to ease the consciences of their authors, but will not improve the situation in Africa, until African leaders and the great powers, from both the east and the west, stop benefiting from war and the growing hatred in the African continent.
(PL) Mr President, despite the signing, a year ago, of an agreement between all the political parties in Chad on strengthening the democratic process, and despite the later non-aggression pact with the Sudanese authorities, the situation is still highly charged. Government forces regularly clash with rebels from armed groups from Darfur, who attack transports of humanitarian aid. The state of emergency has been used to imprison the opposition with impunity and to impose savage restrictions on press freedom and freedom of speech.
Of particular concern is the worsening humanitarian situation in the country where, as a result of the conflict in Darfur and its cross-border consequences, there are over 300 000 refugees in 12 camps along the eastern frontier between Chad and Sudan. As a result of continuing battles, supplies of food to the camps are interrupted, and refugees are left to vegetate in terrible conditions. Following mass displacement, the civilian population is prey to aggression and breaches of fundamental human rights.
In the light of the obvious impasse in stabilising the situation in Chad, international institutions should strengthen their efforts to promote dialogue between all sides in the conflict. Only a global agreement has any chance of averting a humanitarian disaster in the country. It is vital to begin the European forces mission as quickly as possible in order to step up humanitarian activities in the region and to provide increased protection for the civilian population and for refugees.
(FR) Mr President, I should like to refer again to the Ljubljana resolution, which our African colleagues voted against. I was really disappointed and saddened. I think and hope that values for Africa do not come from China, with its aggressive economic invasion that we are witnessing at the moment.
It is impossible to know how to treat our African partners when they treat Chad in this way, but one thing is fairly clear: we have to persuade them about human rights. That is the only choice we have. It seems that this will be a long and costly process, but there is no other choice.
(SK) I also want my voice to be heard in the debate about the complex situation in which the people in Chad find themselves. As we know from the latest information, apart from 300 000 refugees in eastern parts of the country there are 200 000 internally displaced people who live in these camps in conditions barely fit for humans, facing a humanitarian crisis.
When we take into account the lack of food and medicine, the dramatic misuse of the fact that these people have lost their freedom, the spread of drug abuse and diseases among the people kept in these conditions, we have no other option than to call for the support of the democratic process and for the defeat of the rebels with the help of the European forces.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, even though agreement had been reached on a joint motion, it was rejected by the African side at the Joint Assembly in Ljubljana.
The drama lies in the reasons that were put forward: because the Chad delegation was not there, or so it was said. That was clearly a pretext and that pretext was instrumental, but it served to hide the reality of events, the reasons for which the African side rejected the resolution. What that means, in substance, is that political opportunism prevailed over fundamental human rights and the protection and guarantee of the fundamental freedoms.
I believe that the value of Europe - and the new history that Europe is creating - is that it not just observes, but that it also fights to ensure that it is not expediency but human reasons that prevail over all the deceptions of politics. In my view, that is what we should be supporting and affirming and what should once again become a plan for the very life of the European Union.
Mr President, a few short years ago I was with a delegation in Chad, in the aftermath of their civil war and the violence, looking at the optimism that was coming from the arrival of oil and the pipeline. The wealth of that country was hitherto the mango trees of a village, nothing more, and oil was bringing opportunity to this country. The international community was supervising that in such a way that we had hope that this would bring stability and wealth and a future to this country. Now we have a mess, and we have a mess partly because of what has come in from outside - Darfur and so on - and, I have to say, partly from what has come from inside - the corruption, the poor governance and the violence.
As a result, it is the people of Chad who are suffering, and we must urge everyone - internationally, nationally and locally - to work together to bring this crisis to an end, and then build for the future again.
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, this week we have discussed China-Africa relations. The situation in Chad is but one example of how oil can become a reason for buying weapons. Unless we can urge China, which is a member of the UN Security Council, to change its foreign and trade policy from the so-called 'no conditions' policy to a 'conditional' policy and fall into step with us, we will bitterly regret our lack of resources to provide sufficient help to hundreds of thousands of refugees and injured persons.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, we fully support the call of Members for a restoration of the political process in Chad and for a diplomatic resolution to the tensions between Chad and Sudan.
Concerning the internal political process, we welcome the nomination of a new Prime Minister, Mr Abbas. In our view, his declaration of 18 April was a first promising signal which could lead to the normalisation of the relations between the government and the non-armed opposition.
We are, therefore, hopeful that the constitution of the new, inclusive government of 23 April, where four key ministerial posts have been given to non-armed opposition parties coming from la Coordination des partis politiques pour la défense de la Constitution (CPDC), will pave the way for the relaunching of a more comprehensive dialogue on the basis of the political agreement of 13 August 2007.
Commissioner Michel was amongst the first to express concern about the disappearance of members of the opposition following the attempted coup of early February and to call for the immediate release of any opposition leaders held in custody by the Chadian authorities. Like many of the speakers today, we are still vocal concerning the need to shed light on the situation of Mr Ibni Saleh, spokesperson of the CPDC.
In this regard the European Commission, through its role as an international observer to the National Commission of Inquiry, is seeking to develop clarity about these disappearances, which will help engender trust in the political process.
With regard to the political process, through our 10th European Development Fund and Instrument for Stability we are developing Chad's capacity to hold legislative elections in late 2009, as envisaged by the 13 August 2007 agreement. This includes support for electoral preparations and the conducting of a national census. Chad has also been included as a country to be followed up in view of a possible EU election observation mission in 2009, if all conditions for such a deployment are met.
Concerning the relations between Chad and Sudan, the issue of the rebel groups can only be considered as part of the wider situation, and we are encouraged by the recent Libreville meeting of the Contact Group established under the Dakar Accord between Chad and Sudan. We believe that such sustained diplomatic efforts are essential to calm down the two countries.
Our humanitarian assistance in East Chad is ongoing (an average of EUR 30 million each year), and needs are adequately covered. Nevertheless, to complement humanitarian aid and the increase in security of refugee and internally displaced people camps that the EUFOR/MINURCAT deployment will bring, our Programme d'Accompagnement à la Stabililisation de l'Est du Tchad will support the conditions in areas to which internally displaced persons and refugees may choose to return in eastern Chad and northern Central African Republic, with particular regard to access to drinking water and food security. Activities will start under this programme before the rainy season commences.
In view of the success of the MINURCAT mission as crucial to safeguarding the long-term stability and development of Chad, as seen in our EUR 10 million contribution to the MINURCAT operation, we are encouraged that training has started for the first 77 commanders of the Détachement intégré de sécurité.
To help embed progress, our 10th European Development Fund will include EUR 25 million in support of reform of the justice sector, including the development of the police force, as well as an additional EUR 25 million for Security Sector Reform.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place after the debates.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (IT) The situation in Chad has now become critical. Armed groups from Sudan are carrying out raids in the eastern area of the country with indiscriminate killing, violence and rape, especially among the weaker groups of the population, with no reaction at all from the government there. On the other hand, the evident difficulty of managing the growing number of refugee camps receiving refugees from the Darfur region, threatened by the conflict which has arisen in the country between the government and the opposition forces disputing the validity of the elections, has led the authorities there to declare a national state of emergency.
The first result of that measure, as reported by Amnesty International, has been the creation of an ad hoc committee to censor newspapers and radio stations which, as well as bringing about a series of arrests of journalists and political opponents, has led to the disappearance of the spokesman for the party for the defence of the Constitution.
This escalation of violence absolutely has to be stopped. The European institutions have the task, the resources and the responsibility to ensure and defend human rights throughout the world, especially in particular regions such as Chad where citizens are already suffering humanitarian crises and attacks from outside.