Implementation of the first railway package directives (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Brian Simpson, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the implementation of the first railway package (Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC) - B7-0204/2010)
author. - Mr President, I do not think I will pull my punches here tonight in regard to this particular oral question on the implementation of the first railway package. You will be aware, Commissioner, that the three directives that make up the first railway package were adopted in 2001, with a deadline of March 2006 for their transposition into national law. It is my obligation, as Chair of the Transport Committee, to raise this issue with you now by way of this oral question.
Here we are, nine years later, debating the fact that 21 Member States had, by October 2009, failed to enact these directives and have now been sent reasoned opinions because of this failure. It beggars belief that, as we approach the revision of the first railway package, a number of states - including so-called influential states, including states that like to inform us of their pro-European credentials - have failed to enact this significant piece of European legislation. Those Member States should hang their heads in shame and remember and honour the obligations they gave to this Parliament in 2001.
It is one of politics' most bewildering facts that we can deliver throughout the European Union the single market in numerous areas, but we cannot deliver it in the railway sector. That is not a failure of this Parliament. That is a failure of the Member States, often supported by sections of the railway industry and, frankly, Parliament's patience is beginning to run out.
This oral question is born out of a frustration, a frustration that the law is being deliberately flouted and that as yet, the Commission has failed to bring Member States to book. We are now demanding to know what aspects in each failing Member State of each directive have not been enacted. We need to know why certain Member States have not correctly implemented these directives. We want to know which Member States are still resisting the concept of fair competition in the railway sector and deliberately protecting their own national companies.
We have concerns regarding the powers and independence of regulators and infrastructure managers in some of these Member States. We believe the lack of transparency and lack of harmonisation on infrastructure charges is leading to a protectionist practice and is acting as a break on delivering the single market to the railway sector, as well as stifling cross-border activity. If you add to this various national measures such as rolling stock taxes, then you have to question whether certain Member States ever intended to implement these directives in the first place.
Today, we need to know many things. We need to know how the Commission, via the recast, will facilitate the full implementation of the full railway package. Today, we need to know what the Commission is doing to enforce European law on this issue. Today, we need to know why it has taken so long for action to be taken against those Member States who have failed.
We on the Transport Committee often highlight the need for effective interoperability in the rail sector. Without that, and without the opening of national infrastructure, European rail freight is doomed. Transborder European passenger trains will be stifled. The single market will never be delivered, and the ERTMS will never happen.
The time has come to develop a true European perspective for our railway network, and the first step for that development is the first railway package. Without that first step being taken, then others cannot follow. We need direct action and we need it now. Let us name and shame those Member States that are failing, and let us take action against them now.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Simpson and the Committee on Transport and Tourism for initiating this discussion and for promoting competitiveness and openness in the railway sector. I have always had strong support in Parliament and I hope this will continue.
The report on rail market monitoring which the Commission published at the end of 2009 shows that the progressive decline of the railways since the 1970s has been stopped in all market segments after the opening of the market and adoption of the first package. So there are some positive notes as well.
However, the economic crisis has had a serious impact on rail, with rail freight operators losing up to 30% of their business; this crisis has highlighted and increased existing structural problems of the railways.
These problems are, on the one hand, linked to the economics of rail and the persisting financial weakness of some actors. A number of Member States still fail to ensure sufficient budget for the infrastructure managers. This not only results in underinvestment which undermines the quality and performance of the rail network; it also builds up indebtedness levels.
On the other hand, there are still economic and technical barriers to market entry. Very often, new entrants find themselves discriminated against, in particular, where incumbent rail operators also have indirect control over the provision and use of rail infrastructure.
The newly established regulatory bodies do not all have the necessary powers and independence to ensure fair and transparent market conditions. The Commission adopted a two-tier approach to tackle these problems: infringement procedures to address incorrect implementation of the rules, and changes to the rules when they were not clear or precise enough.
The first line of approach - infringement procedures - required a detailed analysis of the legal situation in all the 25 Member States that have railway systems and resulted in the reasoned opinions that were sent out in 2009. The main problems are, first, insufficient implementation of the provisions of the directive on track access charging; second, lack of independence of the infrastructure manager in relation to railway operators and the failure to ensure sufficient independence, resources and powers for the regulatory body.
The second line of approach was to take advantage of the announced process of recasting the existing rail packages to propose improvements to the existing rules on rail market access.
In parallel, we will pursue our holistic approach with a view to achieving a genuine internal market for rail. We will continue to promote the technical harmonisation of rail in conjunction with the European Railway Agency.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if the Belgian painter Magritte had painted the first railway package directives, he would have written underneath 'These are not directives'. In fact, the whole debate that we have been having for some time seems, to me, almost surreal. In 2003, we decided that the transposition should be completed in 2006 and now, in 2010, we are asking why 21 countries are not doing what they themselves have put their signature to.
Liberalisation was intended to allow new players onto the market. That was the theory. In practice, things look rather different in this regard, too. Today, we are in a position in which - whether we are for or against liberalisation in this area - we have to assess this liberalisation and we are faced with the problem that it has largely not been transposed. The companies themselves - as we have seen in various countries - have made decisions in the name of liberalisation relating to staffing and technology that were not always pleasant, even though this liberalisation had not been transposed.
In the light of this, we have to conclude that, seen in this way, historical beneficiaries of the railways still hold the keys to the opening of the market in their hands - access to the tracks, technical interoperability, training and certification, to give just a few examples. With these keys, they can open the door to an open market, but they can also close it. That has been the case in most countries and it is still the case today.
Therefore, the proposals that you have made here and that we have briefly looked at represent an initial step. For me, in order to correctly assess liberalisation, it is important that we quickly carry out implementation or enforce it using the means available to the Commission or means that it still needs to grant itself.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by noting that rail freight's share of the market first decreased, from approximately 13% in 1995 to 10.5% in 2002, and then stabilised, whereas in the case of passenger transport, where liberalisation has also been unsuccessful or has not been implemented, we have actually seen an increase over recent years.
My main point in saying this is that market opening is just one instrument, and that a successful single European railway market actually requires a combination of measures. These include measures relating to market forces, of course, but also social ground rules, human resources aspects, more advanced interoperability - on which I believe we have a great deal more work to do - and indeed, sufficient instruments for financing infrastructure projects. Only if we tackle this in a consistent, coherent manner can we achieve our objective.
I have one more question for the Commissioner. We hear that a revision of the first railway package is indeed on the way. My question is: when can we expect this revision, and what does the Commissioner see as the main objective to be achieved by this means?
Mr President, Commissioner, in the hearing in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I was very pleased to hear you say that the greatest thing that we have been able to achieve in Europe is mobility and freedom of movement for the people. With regard to the freedom of movement as well as the internal market, you also mentioned that it is essential not only for people to be able to move from A to B, but for goods to be able to do so too. In 1992, we adopted the internal market de facto in the European Parliament and, with the first railway package in 2001, we also created the conditions for the free internal market in the railway sector. It has already been said that it is now 2010 and we still do not have this in place. It is, in fact, shameful that 21 states are still setting up obstacles. This is protectionism - that has already been mentioned as well - and it is most regrettable that this is the case.
Of course, we now need to consider why this is the case. You mentioned the different rail systems, Commissioner, but that cannot be the only reason. In fact, there are still many countries that think they can escape this if they try to return to old times by saying that anything to do with the separation of infrastructures and services should not be taken so seriously. That is completely the wrong way to go.
I am also eager to see when you might be able to carry out this revision of the directive. I would also like to urge you specifically - and this has already been said by previous speakers - to be strict with the Member States. We of course come from different Member States, but within the transport sector, we are all agreed that it is very important finally to bring some order here. You are a new Commissioner so you are not to blame for what has - or has not - been done in the past. You therefore have a unique opportunity now to make progress relatively quickly in the railway sector and really take the internal market forward, and with it all European citizens, too. I am counting on this and I am already looking forward to seeing what you are going to do in the near future.
Mr President, Commissioner, the inspiration for the first railway package came almost 15 years ago. At the time, the priority objective, which of course I share, was for rail transport to increase its market share. Liberalisation, which was one of the ways to achieve this, is showing mixed and not always very conclusive results. It has already been said that rail transport's share of the freight market is stagnating whilst road transport is gaining market share.
At the same time, the number of travellers has increased considerably, even without any liberalisation process, and the high-speed rail network, which is built on the basis of cooperation rather than of competition, is quite a success.
In addition, you have mentioned newcomers. There are far too few of these newcomers, and many of them have been absorbed by large companies. Put another way, I am not sure that monopoly by large companies was the intended aim.
As regards application, if we consider the number of infringement procedures, there is, objectively speaking, a well-known problem, in other words, a lack of independence of the regulatory and appeals bodies, even where there is functional or institutional separation, and this separation may also entail other issues and costs relating to internal coordination.
Whilst awaiting your answers, Commissioner, I can only urge you to adopt a prudent attitude, which does not force the matter, which takes the holistic approach that you mentioned, which fully and objectively assesses the previous packages, but which makes a full assessment before taking the next step. This assessment must therefore be thorough and must include the issues of working conditions, security and safety, public service obligations and the lack of internalisation of external costs, before any further progress is made in the liberalisation process.
I should therefore be interested to hear what your priorities are in relation to this matter, given that some progress has been made - it has to be recognised and others have spoken about it - namely, improved transparency in accounts reporting, progress on interoperability, harmonisation of training and licences, and improved signalling and safety. Much remains to be done, however, and I shall insist on a prudent, thorough assessment that is free from taboos so that we do not progress too quickly to the following stages.
Ladies and gentlemen, when the European regulatory framework for railways was approved, we all hoped that it would lead to greater transparency in the financing of this sector of the economy and that new opportunities would be created for the involvement of new players. It seemed that the European rail transport sector was standing on the threshold of a new era. However, the hoped-for market liberalisation failed to materialise. As we all know, in 21 Member States, including the Czech Republic, there has been no proper implementation of the first railway package, while questions remain unresolved relating, in particular, to the opening of railway markets to economic competition.
The situation in the Czech Republic provides evidence of the fact that there is a real problem. Although the state has now taken the first steps, which allow the entry of other rail transport operators onto the market, in reality, the political will for allowing real competition on the railways is lacking. This is confirmed by the behaviour of the socialist leaders of various regions who, at the end of last year, concluded ten-year agreements with Czech rail company, České dráhy, with the option of a further five years for the provision of regional rail services, and all this without any form of public tender. Local leaders, who won four-year mandates in the elections, have therefore actually closed the railway market for 15 years. The monopoly holder, České dráhy, will not now be forced to improve its services in any way whatsoever, and this will have fatal consequences for the railways.
In this context, there is therefore a question as to whether the current debate on taxing employment benefits, which trade unionists have opened up in the Czech Republic, and the related threat of strikes, only serves in reality to distract attention from the real issues. The result of these issues is that rail transport is increasingly being relegated to the periphery of social and economic concern, while, on the contrary, road transport, so heavily criticised by the Greens, is logically growing in popularity. I would therefore like to urge the European Commission to increase its efforts to promote genuine liberalisation of the rail sector and to monitor closely whether the non-market behaviour of various actors is in accordance with European law.
I would like to begin by saying that I completely disagree with Mr Vlasák, whose government has also participated in what he himself is criticising. Now to the matter in hand. As the objective of this railway package was to open up the rail transport market by separating infrastructure, passenger transport and freight transport, it is possible to find out relatively easily whether the Member States, following transition periods of varying lengths, have fulfilled the formal requirements of the directive. What is not so easy to find out, and what the directive does not focus on, are the varying safety regulations of the individual states, the minimal conformity of work conditions for the crews that are manning the trains and the workers securing the operation of the infrastructure and the many differences in technical regulations. The ERTMS is supposed to be a magic formula that should technically unify both infrastructure and rolling stock. I am therefore looking forward to a clear answer concerning the compatibility of the EU rail network with the ERTMS standard. I have not heard one yet.
Perhaps this question has a bearing on the logically connected question of how the opening of the rail transport markets is being exploited at present by foreign and national entities in the various countries. I am not interested, of course, in the entities with interlinked ownership which provide regional transport services on a formally independent basis in countries such as Germany, for example, but in independent operators on the market.
I would like to end by emphasising that neither the first nor the subsequent railway packages will resolve the social conditions of employees. This may soon become a major problem for the opening up of the railway market. It is not acceptable to adopt the lowest possible standard as a solution.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, to the disadvantage of the United Kingdom, the UK Government has implemented the EU rail package. This is mainly because, these days, the Lib-Lab-Con sit at Westminster and like to be told what to do, having given away control to the EU.
The separation of train operators and separation of the rail network is leading to major problems, courtesy of the EU. No wonder 21 countries are too wise to get caught in an EU rail web leading to mayhem on all stations to Brussels.
I am not a Socialist, but if you need an integrated transport system, then state ownership is best - and not separation into multiple private hands. Having six different companies on the network between Birmingham and Berlin will create a complete 'dog's breakfast', or should I say a 'Dachshunds Frühstück'.
When Eurorail is broken up to allow the surplus capacity to be run by different companies, we will no longer have rolling stock, just laughing stock.
Brian Simpson, who is responsible for this debate, is a member of the Labour Party. Labour was once Socialist, and he was elected by people who still think Labour is Socialist. Yet here he is, hiding in the EU, away from his faithful supporters. What is he calling for? He is calling for privatisation. More than that; he is calling for an EU model which does not work and is against the wishes of his own voters.
He is, in fact, the 'Fat Controller', creating fat pay packets for fat cats. The one thing that we can be sure of is that there is fat chance that this EU directive will be accepted, as it will derail the EU rail network.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the review of the transposition of the first railway package and the planned recast. I believe that this review is long overdue. However, I regret the fact that the Commission is receiving no, or only insufficient, information from the Member States. That makes an efficient and honest assessment extremely difficult. However, it is not only necessary to make an assessment. We also need to urge the Member States to actually implement the necessary steps.
In any assessment, it is essential that importance be attached to the subject of safety. Have we learned from the recent negative experiences and will these be taken into account? That is my question. On this issue, the Commission is far too reticent towards the public, who are extremely concerned. This applies to quality, too. I would like to ask the Commission to consider how generally binding quality criteria can be set. A great deal has been said about inadequate quality, but it is not possible to measure this reliably. The lack of investment, which you have already mentioned, Commissioner, is also regrettable. Despite Cohesion Fund cofinancing, in most countries, investment in roads is still significantly higher than in the rail system. I would like, in this context, to mention ERTMS - this system categorically must be introduced across Europe for the network, but also for the rolling stock, in order to improve route safety.
I would warn against further steps in the direction of the planned liberalisation of national passenger transport. The initiatives already taken in this connection have shown that there are still many hurdles to be overcome and that the Commission would do well to first of all carry out a complete technical harmonisation and ensure the thorough transposition of the directives adopted.
(RO) Rail transport must be a priority in the EU's transport policy up to 2020, supporting such objectives as opening up competition, improving the national networks' interoperability and safety and developing the rail transport infrastructure.
However, competition must not be increased to the detriment of the safety or quality of rail services. I believe that the review of the first railway package must identify the problems facing the Member States that have received reasoned opinions from the Commission, along with a method for resolving them.
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that, due to the crisis, thousands of redundancies have been made in the rail transport sector, which may have an adverse impact on European rail transport. The ERTMS was implemented at the end of last year along approximately 2 700 km of railway lines in the European Union and it will be implemented along 24 000 km of railway lines by 2020. This means huge investment is required, and we are expecting, Commissioner, new solutions and financial instruments that are capable of providing the necessary funding, as well as investment in the appropriate modernisation of the rolling stock.
(PL) In my country, we have a saying, a proverb, which says that if one person tells you that you are drunk, you do not have to worry about it, but when five people tell you that you are drunk, you had better go to bed, lie down and go to sleep.
If only one or two Member States had not introduced this first package, we would be able to impose sanctions today and fulminate in this Chamber, but if twenty-something Member States have not introduced this package, then perhaps the package - to put it mildly - is not the best. Perhaps the cause lies here, or the problem is this. If I hear substantial criticism a moment ago from my fellow Member from the United Kingdom, and in fact, that country has introduced the package, one might wonder if use of the package is, in fact, completely appropriate.
There is, of course, the other side of the coin - in the context of accidents, which we also spoke about, here, two hours ago, during Question Time with the Commission. I am thinking of the matter of safety. From this point of view, safety is, indeed, increased. The Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Kallas, drew attention to a significant problem when he said that a number of Member States are not investing in railways and that the possibilities for investment in infrastructure are not being realised. One such country is my country of Poland where, in the last two years, there has been a kind of collapse in terms of financing of the railways, with all the results that this brings.
Finally, I think that very easy definitions and very easy recipes are, by definition, suspect.
(FR) Mr President, some people here are bemoaning the difficulties and the slow progress in implementing the first railway package directives. As for me, I am pleased about this. In my country, in my region, we are fighting with the railway unions and with the users' committees to ensure that these wicked directives are not applied and are thus consigned to the dustbin of history.
In France, one of the challenges of the regional elections is precisely the fact that the regional councils are blocking implementation of the Public Service Obligation (PSO) regulation on the opening up to competition of regional rail transport. We do not want a twospeed railway whereby private companies have the market in fast, comfortable business trains with reserved seats whose fares only the wealthy can afford, whilst the public has unsafe, uncomfortable, antiquated second class trains for the poor.
Each passing day proves this: the separation of the infrastructure from the business of transport imposed by the directives so as to enable the system to be opened up to brutal competition is a technical and organisational nonsense that is costly both to taxpayers and to users. Whilst it is useful to the big corporations, it is dislocating public transport and is responsible for the declining state of the network and of safety. The directives mentioned also destroy jobs and constitute a theft of public property for the benefit of private interests.
(SK) With the adoption of three sets of directives governing traffic on railway lines, the European Commission has taken over joint responsibility for the organisation of railway transport in the European Union.
There is no doubt that implementation of new railway rules into the various national laws may bring certain problems and price rises. However, it is definitely in our common interest to have well-organised transport and a well-operating rail transport structure as a meaningful alternative, in particular, to road transport, which undoubtedly places a very significant burden on our environment. Therefore, it is certainly correct to speak openly about the problems that have been hampering more rapid development of rail transport. Not just rules though, but also an insight into the future may be in our interest.
European railways from three points of the compass end in coastal ports, while in the eastern direction, the railway lines run as far as the Pacific. Good links between European railways on the EU's eastern border would open new opportunities for European carriers to transport goods. And therefore, if high-speed rail lines could be successfully extended from Paris to Vienna and Bratislava in the near future and, at the same time, a wide-gauge line could be extended from Čierna and Tisou at the Ukrainian border to Bratislava and Vienna, then three different railway systems - classic rail, high-speed and wide-gauge - would meet at a section between Bratislava and Vienna. In conjunction with two airports - Vienna and Bratislava, two ports on the Danube River - Vienna and Bratislava again, and motorway junctions, a new and important logistics and transportation hub is being created right in the centre of Europe.
There is no dispute that, in addition to maintaining and specifying the rules, we still have significant reserves to effectively increase the dynamics of rail transport. We only need to look at the investment opportunities and possibly toward making the rules more precise, as well as investing in new projects to support rail transport so that it will become more profitable and better able to serve the citizens of Europe.
). - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this period, we have been talking a great deal about transport planning and we will be talking about it in the next period as well. I believe that it is discouraging to begin with the revision of the first package in light of what has happened up to now. We therefore need to be bolder in order to try and turn things around. I believe that everything rests on and revolves around three main points.
The first point, in my opinion, is the liberalisation of railway transport to create competition and stimulate competitiveness, obviously with clear and transparent rules for all, as has already been mentioned. The second key point is interoperability between the Member States and between the various internal modes of railway transport. The third point is, of course, safety, and safety certification has to be a prerequisite for obtaining a licence to operate. Still on the subject of safety, and in view of the common market, it is not enough to penalise the inefficiency of the States relative to the regulatory bodies: the powers of the European Railway Agency need to be broadened so as to give it greater authority over inspections and controls.
I believe that these are the efforts we have to make in the forthcoming period as we work towards the sustainable future of transport, the revision of the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) and freight transport, which is already under way in our committee and, not least, this revision that we must take control of and carry out in order to change the path that has been taken up to this point.
(ES) Mr President, my country was one of the 20 issued with a warning in October 2009, and I can assure you that we have since got moving on this issue.
It is not for nothing that Spain heads the list of European Union countries whose passenger rail transportation increased the most in 2007-2008. Goods transportation, however, is another matter.
Yet I would ask you this, Commissioner: when an outlying country is separated from Europe by a mountain range more than 500 kilometres in length - the Pyrenees - which railways can only cross at either end and which requires the axles to be changed on every train that crosses the border, on account of the different track width passed on to us by a long history of autarchies, what can possibly be the incentive for other operators to cross the border with France when there are so many obstacles? Even though Deutsche Bahn has bought Transfesa, it is still having a difficult time.
For that reason, I sincerely believe that, as well as the stick of warnings and sanctions my fellow Members are requesting, we need the carrot of European-level infrastructures. Trans-European networks are urgently required.
This is why we urgently need to give a definitive push to ambitious cross-border railway projects such as the central Pyrenees crossing, with a low-level tunnel devoted to goods transportation. That will oblige the more protectionist, reticent Member States to join the north-south, east-west railway network that Europe needs for its 2020 strategy.
author. - Mr President, I was named by one of the Members opposite. Mr Nattrass made some very personal remarks against me before sneaking out of the Chamber without listening to the debate. Of course, this is a man who would not know one end of a railway locomotive from the other and whose expertise is restricted to Thomas the Tank Engine.
I do appreciate that UKIP have no idea with regard to manners and parliamentary procedure; this was evident recently in Brussels. However, as a democrat adhering to democratic principles and procedures, I presented this oral question on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism as its Chair, which it is my proud duty to do. That is why I delivered it as such, so I really do not think I should be subjected to abuse from the other side of the Chamber from that group of rogues.
As an aside, I just thought I would mention in passing that, under the Labour Government in the United Kingdom, railway patronage has increased 20% over recent years - even on the route from London to Birmingham!
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me simply tell you about a personal experience. I live on an important rail route - the route via the Brenner Pass to Verona. The Italian national railways have been neglecting both goods and passenger transport here for years. Austrian railways now travel this route five times a day. However, no timetables for this are provided at Italian railway stations, nor do they issue tickets. Now, the reconstruction of this route at a cost of around EUR 20 billion is currently being considered and the European Union has also invested a lot of money in this. So we can see how absurd things sometimes are in this area. It is not always the very big things that make the issue complicated; sometimes it is the small things.
For this reason, Commissioner, I urge you to take decisive action here, to impose sanctions and to actively ensure that the Commission's directives are complied with.
(PT) Mr President, it is now apparent what has been the true objective of the so-called railway package, which was launched with the stated aim, a laudable one, of setting up connection points which would secure interoperability. The real intention, which we denounced at the time, was to open up rail transport, particularly that of merchandise, to competition and private interests, as a first step towards the complete liberalisation of the sector at Community level.
As in other instances of liberalisation, the process begins by making the most out of the fact that something does not operate well at a particular time, neglecting the real causes of such situations, particularly the years of persistent policies of dismantling and neglecting the public sector, in order to justify liberalising measures and to promote the aforementioned competition, without any real reflection on how or why it will improve matters. Experience, as we have already heard here today, shows us quite the opposite: liberalisation is the cause of, and not the solution to, the principal problems of the sector, most obviously of all those relating to the quality and accessibility of the services and the rights of workers.
There can be no doubt that public investment in the railway sector is of a strategic nature for energy and environmental reasons, but it must not take place to serve the profit seeking of those large private interests which are intent on taking control of this vital public sector in every country through its liberalisation at the level of the EU internal market.
(RO) I would like to mention again the situation which faces trained and accredited rail sector staff during a time of crisis.
In Romania, more than 6 000 redundancies will be made in the rail transport sector during this period. The European Social Fund and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund will certainly be mobilised to support those affected, but these are only temporary solutions. This is why, Commissioner, I hope that we will manage to devise together a strategy promoting the sustainable development of rail transport so that we can offer safe, good-quality services and jobs for qualified staff in the rail transport sector.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank the honourable Members for their remarks. We will have ample opportunity to discuss the recasting of the first railway package. I just want to reply to some remarks.
First, information about the 21 Member States and the concrete reasons why the reasoned opinion was sent is public information, so anybody who wants can get that information.
This first railway package has very good intentions: to remove barriers and to improve the conditions for better functioning of transport. We will pursue the same goal with the recasting of the package. The problem is not that the package was bad, but that implementation was insufficient. Barriers still exist and resistance to removing barriers is still very strong. We must change the old system of state-owned monopolies with great privileges and no interoperability. We must change that system and improve interoperability. That is the purpose of developing this railway reform.
The problem is precisely that this has not been completed. We must, of course, always balance all the steps taken with quality control. That is also where the railway package has ideas, such as on how to strengthen the role of regulatory agencies. The problem is that the regulatory agencies remain very mixed in with the interests of state-owned companies. You cannot then expect a high level of quality control.
These issues must and will be addressed in the recasting of the railway package, and perhaps in other strategic documents as well. Adequate financing remains a very big problem, and we need to find innovative ways to finance the bottlenecks. Many Members mentioned the need for investment. We must combine all possible tools and find new tools to pinpoint resources for investment in railways, including modern traffic management systems, booking systems for buying tickets in the same way as for air transport, and also better connect eastern Europe to western Europe, which is another substantial problem.
The detailed list of all the elements in the process of preparing this recast railway package is very long. I would be very happy to come back to you with concrete proposals once we have the concrete legislative documents.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
I welcome the fact that by announcing the first railway package, the European Commission started a process which can be considered as the first step in harmonising railway services within Europe. However, the fact that the transposition of the three directives included in the package caused serious problems for 21 Member States created a serious difficulty which could hinder the proper transposition of any further packages. I draw the European Commission's attention to a contradiction between the high level of economic and efficiency requirements laid down in connection with railway systems in Europe, on the one hand, and the positive effect of the railway on regional development, improving the mobility of rural populations and people with disabilities, and the environment, on the other. I suggest that the Commission resolves this contradiction by finding an appropriate balance and compromise, bearing in mind the clarification of the principle of cost sharing between Member States and the European Union, and the importance of establishing harmonised transport within the EU. A healthy competition involving all participants of the industry should be developed, where the actual competition is between individual and public transportation rather than between the different modes of public transport.
A problem for the proper functioning of the railway market in the new Member States and, in turn, a factor which restricts liberalisation of the market, is the incorrect financing of the railways, in other words, a lack of sufficient means to maintain the railway infrastructure. This results in high access prices and, as a consequence, restricts the competitiveness of this branch of the transportation industry because of the high costs of transport. A further problem is the underfunding of services which are a public service, a result of which is the debts of companies operating in the passenger sector. This then limits the possibilities for investment, for example, in new rolling stock. In the context of appropriate regulation of the European railway market, it is essential to strengthen the national market regulators. By strengthening, I mean increasing their independence and effectiveness, improving the quality of staff, etc. It would also appear to be legitimate to establish a European market regulator, which will monitor correct performance of functions assigned to national regulators and report directly to the European Commission on any irregularities found.


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.55 p.m.)


Statement by the President
Ladies and gentlemen, before proceeding to the vote, I would like to make a brief announcement, because today we commemorate the sixth European Day for the Victims of Terrorism.
Today we pay tribute to the more than 5 000 victims in Europe and we express our solidarity with the countless people wounded, who have suffered the barbarity of terrorism.
The bomb attacks carried out in Madrid six years ago, on 11 March 2004, which killed 191 people from 17 countries, and the bombs detonated in London on 7 July 2005 can be counted among the worst acts of terrorism ever perpetrated on European soil.
Terrorism is an attack against us all: it attacks the very fabric of our democratic society.
That is why Europe will always be united in the fight against terrorism, be it separatist, religious or political.
Terrorism can never be justified, in any way and for any reason. This European day gives us the opportunity to show that no terrorist or act of terrorism will ever be able to break or destroy our faith in key values, those of fundamental human rights and democracy.
(Applause)


Council Question Time
The next item is Question Time (B6-0448/2006).
The following questions have been submitted to the Council.
Subject: Action by the Finnish Presidency in respect of children and their families
What progress has the Finnish Presidency made towards enhancing the well-being of children and their families in the European Union?
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, many of the decisions taken by the European Union have a direct or indirect effect on children's lives. Examples of this are laws on social protection, the job market, health, justice and gender equality. The harmonisation of family policy, work and family life and the promotion and preservation of good working conditions are also crucial to the welfare of children and families. These and other matters were on the agenda at the informal meeting in early July of the EU Ministers for Employment, Social Affairs and Health.
Measures that are effective and taken as early on as possible to eliminate poverty and social exclusion enhance the welfare of children and families with children. Last March the European Council stressed the need for action to eliminate child poverty, and this was also discussed at the Fifth European Round Table on Poverty and Social Exclusion held in mid-October. The subject was also included in the National Strategy Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion produced by the Member States for the Commission in September.
The harmonisation of work with family life is a major challenge in a changing job market. Child welfare means that both parents have to be responsible for the everyday life of the family. The Finnish Presidency has made fatherhood and the more equal involvement of men in family life the subject of debate. At the start of October a conference of experts was organised called 'Men and Gender Equality', and in December the Council's conclusions were adopted on it. During the Finnish Presidency the Commission forwarded a communication on children's rights. This was discussed by various working groups in the Council and the Permanent Intergovernmental Group L'Europe de l'enfance, which is made up of high-ranking officials with responsibility for child and family policy in the Member States.
During the Finnish presidential term, the Council has worked hard on the proposal to establish the DAFNE III Programme. This programme could also be used to finance some of the measures mentioned in the communication on children's rights. The aim is for Parliament and the Council to take a joint decision before the end of the year on the basis of political consensus reached on this in the December Council.
Finally, let me mention that Finland organised an open seminar on pre-school education towards the end of November in Helsinki. It is therefore probably true to say that during the Finnish Presidency the Council of Ministers has been active in several of those areas of policy that are closely linked to children's welfare. The Presidency is itself also responsible for several important initiatives relating to children and families.
(EL) Mr President, I should like to thank the Minister for her update and detailed presentation of all actions, of both the Presidency and the Commission. I trust that the same efforts will be continued by the next Presidency, so that we achieve results. I have no supplementary question.
Mr President, in the work of the Council we strive to preserve continuity in all areas of policy. The Finnish Presidency has worked very closely in various areas of policy with Germany, the next country to hold the presidency, and I am confident that the good policies will continue and strengthen during the next presidency too.
(DE) Madam President-in-Office of the Council, we know that most workers are employed in family firms. Family-friendly business plans exist. Do you intend to pursue these further and do you believe that proposals could also be submitted relating to the tax treatment of families?
Mr President, tax incentives can also be used to harmonise work with family life more successfully, but, as the honourable Member must know, the harmonisation of taxation at EU level is still rather limited. It is nonetheless important that, while we ponder these questions, one of the criteria is surely the family-friendly view.
(ES) Madam President, the welfare of children in the European Union is still facing certain difficulties, but they have been more or less resolved. However, what happens to children who are in the European Union but are not its citizens? There is international legislation making it obligatory to protect these children, but in some regions numbers of immigrant children have been accumulating because they cannot be returned to their countries of origin, and regional or local authorities have to take responsibility for them.
Has the Council considered the possibility of taking any measures with regard to immigrant children within the European Union?
Mr President, the matter of integration connected with immigration policy is one important area which also has a direct effect on the children of immigrants. With those families that are the target of active integration measures, children's living conditions and their integration into a new European domicile must be a better and more fruitful option. As I said in my original answer, the Commission has forwarded a communication on the promotion of children's rights in the Union, and it also actually relates to nationals other than those who were born in the European Union. Furthermore, the EU's large-scale action programme to fight social exclusion is an attempt, for example, to improve exchanges of information to prevent social exclusion.
Subject: Immigration strategies
Given the scale of world-wide migratory movement, and the demographic and ageing problems of the countries of the European Union, what strategies does the Council intend to pursue in order to regulate immigration into Europe in the immediate future?
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Hague Programme for strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, which was approved in November 2004, and the related Council and Commission action plan of 2005 both establish a framework within which to develop an EU policy on legal immigration. Under the Hague programme, the vital role of legal immigration in, for example, enhancing the Union's economic development, is already recognised. At the same time, the programme states that it falls within the competence of the Member States to decide on numbers of legal immigrants. With this in mind, the Commission intends to submit for approval several proposals for acts set out in the action policy programme on legal immigration adopted in January 2006.
The first of these is a proposal for a general framework directive whose main purpose would be to guarantee common rights for all nationals of third countries who already work legally in a Member State but who do not as yet have the right to long-term residency status in the EU. In addition, the Commission will submit four separate proposals for a directive with reference to those groups of workers which the Member States generally need. These proposals apply to immigration and residency requirements for highly trained workers, immigration and residency requirements for seasonal workers, immigration and residency requirements for employed trainees, and the procedures for regulating the immigration of personnel sent by their company to another country temporarily, and temporary residency and stays in a country.
Another priority is better access to information on various aspects of immigration, the exchange of information on them, and the more effective dissemination of information. New instruments are intended to be developed for this in the next few years. There will be five of them in all, and the first is this year's European Year of Workers' Mobility, to be followed next year by the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All. The second instrument is the EU's immigration portal, which is to be set up by the end of next year. The third instrument is the interactive information system on Member State measures in matters of asylum and immigration. The fourth instrument is the European migration network, and the fifth is the further development of the European Professional Mobility Portal and EURES Network, as they are considered able to promote the management of economic immigration.
With regard to the integration of nationals of third countries into the society of the host countries, which we spoke about in connection with the previous question, the Union aids integration policies in Member States by means of financial instruments, among which are preparatory measures on the integration of third-country nationals. A newly allocated solidarity instrument within the framework of the financial perspectives for 2007-2013, the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals, will give a new boost to integration policy in the Member States. The aims of the fund relate to the challenges that crop up in integration and therefore complement measures under the European Social fund. These aims are based on the Common Basic Principles on Integration adopted by the Council in November 2004.
(ES) Mr President, the number of questions presented on this issue demonstrates the current level of interest in immigration issues amongst us representatives of the peoples of Europe. I would like specifically to thank the Finnish Presidency for the importance that it has attached to this issue.
My supplementary question is: does the Presidency believe that immigration is now a Community issue and that, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, it cannot remain in the hands of the States, but rather it must be in the hands of the European Union? Specifically, does the Presidency-in-Office of the Council not believe that this is an appropriate time to apply the passerelle clause?
With regard to the previous question, it did not relate to immigrant children who are in Europe with their families, but rather to immigrant children who arrive in the European Union alone: nobody is dealing with them and the governments do not know what to do.
Mr President, when before question time we were discussing the agenda for this week's European Council, it was made very clear that the EU Heads of State or Government would also be discussing Union immigration policy this week. In that sense it is becoming very much more a Community issue, because we believe that it would be very useful if we had common guidelines and basic principles relating to immigration policy. As I said in my original speech, however, the Member States will consider, for example, volumes of legal immigration and how many people they want to take from their own point of view. With regard to the 'passerelle' clause, to which the honourable Member refers, during a recent debate I described in detail how hard the Presidency had tried to make decision-making more efficient in justice and home affairs, but we did not succeed in this attempt.
(LT) Madam President, you mentioned that a directive is being prepared to encourage and regulate the migration of highly qualified specialists. We have here, in the European Parliament, a Development Cooperation policy which seeks to improve life in countries from which people are migrating. Do these policies and outlooks not clash? We will invite qualified migrants into our countries, will not let them create wellbeing in their own countries but instead will use them to our advantage.
Mr President, first of all we should remember that it falls exclusively within the Commission's competence to make proposals for legislation, so the Council will not be working on this directive. Instead, the Commission will draft it, although the Commission has not yet referred it to the legislative bodies. The question of the status of trained workers is just the sort of matter where a very global approach to the European Union's immigration policy is required. On the one hand, the Union is aiming to recruit to some extent highly trained people from developing countries for its own needs. On the other hand, we must also admit and acknowledge that it will be harmful to the developing countries' own development if skilled human resources leave these countries. Accordingly, it is important that these very sensitive issues are also discussed at Union level, and that they are also discussed with our partners, as was the case at the two conferences between the European Union and Africa in the last six months, at which these questions, which are very multilateral in nature, were tackled.
Mr President, I do not have a supplementary question. I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that I am present for my own question, which you have already got tabled.
(DE) Madam President-in-Office of the Council, do you think it is helpful if European Member States unilaterally carry out as many as 1 million naturalisations over a short period, thereby, of course, setting a precedent for the others? Is this one of the subjects that the European Council can and will discuss over the next few days?
Mr President, it was not fully clear what the honourable Member is referring to precisely, but, as I have mentioned in this debate, regulation of numbers of immigrants will be in the hands of the Member States. Because, with the principle of free mobility in the Union, one Member State's immigration policy also has an effect on other countries, it is important that we can engage in closer cooperation in this area. We really should remember that proper account needs to be taken of the status of immigrants who have already resided in the European Union for a long time and who therefore have connections and roots where they now live.
Subject: Council plans for 2007 Year of Equal Opportunities and 2008 Year of Intercultural Dialogue
What plans has the Council made to stimulate interest in the 2007 Year of Equal Opportunities and the 2008 Year of Intercultural Dialogue?
Mr President, a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council to declare 2007 the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All was agreed in May. It is the Commission's task to ensure that any forms of discrimination referred to in Article 13 of the Treaty are addressed and dealt with impartially. All stakeholders are to be included in these measures.
The aim, under Article 2, is, firstly, to raise awareness of the right to equality and non-discrimination; secondly, to get those who have suffered discrimination more involved in society; thirdly, to increase respect for diversity and equality; and fourthly, to promote cohesiveness, by eliminating stereotypes, prejudice and violence.
To achieve the aims of the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All, the action taken is to include various meetings and events, information, promotional and training campaigns, and Community or national surveys and studies. Each Member State will be responsible for what it organises over the coming months. To underline the importance of the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All, there will be an inaugural conference on it hosted by the forthcoming German Presidency in Berlin.
With regard to the European Year for Intercultural Dialogue, I would like to say that the Commission submitted a proposal for a decision on it to the European Parliament and the Council in October last year. In the proposal for a decision's explanatory memorandum, it states that the experience gained from the organised projects next year, the European Year of Equal Opportunities, should be taken into account during the European Year for Intercultural Dialogue. The Council's common position on the decision was adopted in mid-November and submitted to the European Parliament.
The proposal for a decision states that the priority task for the Member States and the Commission is to implement the projects and events planned. It states that special attention should be paid to cooperation with the European Parliament. The purpose is to encourage civil society and players at European, national and local level to activate both exchanges of experience and best practices. The main target should be youth. The challenge is how to bring intercultural dialogue into schools and colleges, work, leisure, cultural and sports centres, and civil society organisations.
deputising for the author. - I wish to thank the President-in-Office for that comprehensive answer, and would simply ask what plans there are to ensure the synergy between the two different years - 2007 and 2008 - so that a holistic approach is adopted and that they benefit one another and interact, rather than being organised totally separately.
Mr President, as I said, the decisions and proposals on establishing the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue embrace the principle that the experience and lessons gained from the Year of Equal Opportunities next year, and the events connected with it, should be exploited in the arrangements for the following year. It is obviously important that there should be close scrutiny of everything that goes on next year and an endeavour to improve things to ensure that the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue is as successful as possible right from the start.
Subject: Counter-terrorism strategy
The European Council adopted an EU counter-terrorism strategy in November 2005. Neither this nor the action plans on terrorism have been the subject of consultation with the European Parliament, despite our repeated requests. The counter-terrorism strategy nonetheless has a section entitled 'democratic accountability', promising a high-level political dialogue on counter-terrorism involving the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission once per Presidency, 'to ensure interinstitutional governance'.
Does the Presidency believe that a last-minute invitation to the chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to attend the May 2006 High Level Dialogue meeting fulfilled the commitment of a true dialogue, real democratic accountability and effective 'interinstitutional governance' in this vital area of EU activity?
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Presidency still believes that the High Level Dialogue meeting of the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on the fight against terrorism is of benefit in the promotion of openness and accountability in the strategy to combat terrorism in the EU. The meeting on 10 May, during the Italian Presidency, was the last indication of this commitment.
With regard to the claim made in the question that the invitation was sent at the last minute, the Presidency wishes to point out that the President of the European Parliament was sent an official invitation on 10 April 2006. It does not fall within the Presidency's competence to guess the reasons why it took so long to send an invitation to the Chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, but we are pleased that the Chairman of the Committee was nevertheless able to attend.
During its presidential term, Finland tried to honour its obligations under the strategy and organise this high-level event, but possible dates were always being cancelled before the invitation was sent, owing to one of the parties or because of some other major problem. The Finnish Presidency regrets that it did not manage to organise the event, despite all its efforts to do so. We hope that future presidencies will meet with more success in this, because regular contact needs to be maintained with the European Parliament on this important issue.
Thank you, Minister, but the fact is that second meeting did not take place, so one has to question the priority. And to have the chairman of the committee at just one meeting in one year is really not very stunning.
We as the Parliament were not involved in the drawing up of this counter-terrorism strategy or in the action planned, despite repeated requests. You were having discussions - we had a debate earlier this afternoon about the Automated Targeting System, which you knew about in September 2005, although you did not tell us. If there really is a commitment to keep us informed of all important developments in the field of counter-terrorism, why did we not know about that? Why are we not involved in all the discussions with the United States on security and privacy? I beg to differ on your commitment to this dialogue.
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, as I said, we worked hard to organise this High Level Dialogue, but, unfortunately, it happened not to work out in terms of the timetable. I am sure that those here in this House understand that such things are possible in today's world. If there are a few failures in trying to get all the main parties around the same table, it just shows that six months is a very short space of time.
As for the debate we had earlier today on the US ATS, as I mentioned and as I understand it, this was referred to in September 2005 in papers which were also sent to the European Parliament, but this was never before such a major issue.
(DE) Important as anti-terrorism may be, one gets the impression - as a shocking example from the United States in particular shows us - that this kind of policy is being used to restrict democratic freedoms, indeed almost to abolish them, and to curtail the freedom of the press. What has the Finnish Presidency done at European level to prevent things moving in that direction here as well, in view of the fact that we will, in the end, have either a democratic Europe or no Europe?
Mr President, human rights and data protection have always been crucially important in all discussions whenever European policy on counter-terrorism has been formulated and implemented. In this House I have frequently expressed the Council's position that human rights and the obligations under international agreements must be respected even when counter-terrorism measures are being implemented. This is also actually the basis for fighting terrorism in the European Union. We have to remember that European society is very much based on individual freedoms. We have to take extreme care that when we are defending and protecting this society and its model for living we do not at the same time introduce measures that in fact undermine this society based on freedom of the individual.
As the author is not present, Question No 5 lapses.
Subject: Lithuania's energy prospects
Lithuania is one of the new EU Member States that is most dependent on Russian energy, which is used by Russia as a means of attaining its political objectives. Only electric energy is produced in Lithuania itself and 80 % of this energy is provided by the Ignalina nuclear power plant, which is scheduled to close in 2009.
Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks includes plans for the construction of a link between Poland and Lithuania (Ełk-Alytus). However, the town of Ełk in Poland does not have a developed energy infrastructure or a high-voltage electricity link with western energy networks. This link does not solve the problem of how to connect Lithuania to the EU energy system. A new nuclear power plant in Lithuania could not be built before 2014. The absence of a common EU energy policy and common energy sources (electricity, gas), coupled with a lack of solidarity on the part of EU Member States, threatens to isolate Lithuania from energy suppliers.
Prior to its accession to the European Union, Lithuania signed Protocol No 4 on the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania. Under this protocol, Lithuania made a commitment to close unit 1 of the Ignalina nuclear power plant before 2005 and unit 2 by 2009. Without prejudice to this commitment, the general safeguard clause referred to in Article 37 of the Act of Accession is applicable until 31 December 2012 if energy supply is disrupted in Lithuania. Given such an uncertain state of affairs, could Lithuania apply Article 37 of the Act of Accession and prolong the operation of the Ignalina nuclear power plant, provided that safety standards allow, until Lithuania's energy problems are resolved?
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the honourable Member alludes to the application of the general safeguard clause in Article 37 of the Act of Accession. The Council would like to draw the honourable Member's attention to the answer which was given to her oral question H-0815 this year. She will certainly have realised that it is for the Commission, if requested with justification by a Member State, to decide on protection measures that it deems necessary in order to respond to a Member State's request.
Let me say here that last week an electric cable connection was established between Estonia and Finland, which will connect electricity networks in the Baltic and the Nordic Countries, and so also improve energy security in Lithuania. This will also be an important step forward in developing European networks.
- (LT) Madam President, Article 4 of the Accession Treaty establishes a common defence condition until 1 December 2012. Meanwhile Article 37(1) of the Accession Treaty foresees defence measures in the event of energy difficulties within a three-year period from the date of accession. It would mean until 1 May 2007 for Lithuania. Perhaps the Minister could explain the possibility of reconciling these two normative acts and how they could be applied in practice? I would request a reply in writing.
Mr President, these safeguard clauses may therefore be applied if a Member State makes such a request, if it is thought to be justified, and if the Commission considers that protective measures are necessary in response to it. I would say again, however, that it is for the Commission to decide on protective measures for a Member State.
- (LT) I would like to ask the Minister about the construction of nuclear power plants.
As we know, each European Union state decides for itself whether it needs to build new nuclear power plants. Finland does this and does it successfully. Bearing in mind that nuclear power plants are growing more reliable with every passing year, and that science and technology are reaching ever-newer levels, has the time not come for this question to be reconsidered at the European Union level as well, and for a more positive attitude to atomic energy to be expressed?
Mr President, this question is fundamentally linked to the common European energy debate. The Finnish Presidency has adopted the view, one that has been approved widely in the Council, that decisions on methods of producing energy are now, and will be in the future, left to the discretion of the Member States. This is what happens now too. When we talk about nuclear power, we have Member States where at present more nuclear power stations are being built, Member States that are cutting capacity, and everything in between. It is nevertheless very important from the point of view of the European energy markets and energy security in Europe that we can create and establish an infrastructure which actually connects the European energy networks, though in this we are still virtually at the starting post.
(DE) What can the Council do to get dangerous nuclear power stations taken off line by court order? What proposals can you in the Council make in future for the safety of the European public?
Mr President, the Act of Accession is associated with regulations on certain nuclear power units, and at EU level special attention has also been paid to safety in the means of energy production.
It is nevertheless the job of the national authorities to ensure that these safety regulations are also implemented. This is a crucially important matter, however, which deserves attention.
I should like to ask a question concerning Question 6.
The Rules of Procedure only allows two supplementary questions per question. On this occasion, however, I shall give you the floor.
President-in-Office, my question is about Lithuanian energy prospects. Lithuania is planning to build a new nuclear power plant in Ignalina. It will be a joint project involving Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Those countries will not be able to do this before 2015. According to our previous agreements we have to close one of our blocks in 2009, and Lithuania will suffer from energy shortages. Do you, as the representative of the Presidency, think it is possible to prolong the life of Ignalina's second block until 2015?
Mr President, as far as I remember, the nuclear plant at Ignalina is due to shut down in 2009, and certain safeguard clauses are connected with this deadline. Let me say this a third time: decisions on safeguard clauses are taken by the Commission, on receipt of a justifiable request, so it is not within my power to judge the use of one. If we are alluding to a new nuclear plant, I would like to mention that this is a very long-term process which will not solve short-term problems. Consequently, the building of energy networks, that is to say infrastructure, in different directions is a very important step forward in increasing energy security, and that goes for these Member States too.
Subject: COP12
In the light of the recent COP12 meeting, the conclusions of the Environment Council meeting of 23 October 2006 and the conclusions of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meetings of 24-25 October 2006, does the Council agree that avoided deforestation must be included in any post-2012 settlement?
Mr President, deforestation is one of the most significant factors in the problem of global climate change, accounting for around 20% of the total for man-made greenhouse gas emissions, thus around a fifth of emissions resulting from human activity. It is the aim of the European Union that, in order to reach the fundamental target in the UN Climate Treaty, the overall average rise in temperature of the earth's surface cannot be more than two degrees centigrade above the temperature during the pre-industrial age. To achieve this goal a considerable reduction in total volumes will be required, in accordance with common but differentiated areas of responsibility and capabilities.
Because the destruction of tropical forests has major significance for overall emissions, the developing countries have or may have a key role in alleviating climate change, so that emissions caused by deforestation can be cut and sustainable forestry boosted. Such measures would also help these countries to adapt to climate change and would also have other useful benefits. The EU therefore stresses the importance of examining the various options with regard to how emissions from deforestation can be cut and, in particular, exploiting synergies with measures taken in other contexts.
I wish to thank the President-in-Office for that answer. I did not get a 'yes' or 'no' to my question, but a very interesting résumé of the problems of climate change - all of which I agree with, but I already know.
My question was whether the Council agreed that avoided deforestation must be included in any post-2012 settlement - in other words, the second commitment period, if we are still talking in Kyoto terms. Would it be the Council's view that avoided deforestation would be part of our tools and mechanisms for reducing carbon dioxide emissions?
Mr President, the Council does not have an ultimate position on this precise question, so I cannot answer it. I refer, nevertheless, to deforestation and work to curb it, which the European Union is doing, for example, in the context of development cooperation. There was some discussion of this question too at the climate change conference in Nairobi, so its significance and importance is definitely appreciated.
Subject: Composition of the Commission
When does the Council intend to take a decision pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union annexed to the Treaty of Nice?
Has any preparatory work begun on this matter?
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has not yet begun any preparatory work on this. It will take the necessary decision in good time in compliance with its obligations under the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union annexed to the Treaty of Nice. At this stage, however, it is impossible to say precisely when this will happen. Let me just say that if the negotiated Treaty on the Constitution comes into force, that will do something to resolve the issue.
Thank you for the answer, which demonstrates that, whether it is under the current Treaties as modified by Nice or under the Constitutional Treaty, the Council has to get to work on a new system for the composition of the Commission, presumably with a rotation. If that is the case, and if it is going to enter into force in time for the next Commission, would it not be a good idea to begin work sooner rather than later?
Mr President, it is rather hard to say that it would be better to start soon, but we have to remember that these matters are all connected. It is a question of the entire institutional package, which in turn is connected with the Constitutional Treaty, which includes the composition of the Commission. I would say again that the Council has not yet begun the preparatory work.
Question No 9 has been withdrawn.
Subject: Status of Kosovo
How does the Finnish Council Presidency explain that, despite the hopes of the highly competent UN Chief Negotiator Ahtisaari, the question of Kosovo's status will not be resolved before the end of the year, and how does it rate the chances of success for next year?
Mr President, since the beginning of the year, UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari has been taking forward talks between the parties using mainly a bottom-up approach. In July Mr Ahtisaari organised the first high-level meeting between Belgrade and Pristina in Vienna. The presidents and prime ministers from both sides attended. At the meeting Belgrade and Pristina expressed totally opposite views on the status of Kosovo.
It is still the strategic goal of the European Union to find a quick and lasting solution to the situation in Kosovo, without endangering Serbian democracy and general stability in the region. When notification was received that the Serbian parliamentary elections were to be held on 21 January 2007, Martti Ahtisaari said that he would put a proposal to the parties immediately after the elections, as he did not want the solution to Kosovo's status to become an election weapon in Serbia's future elections.
The European Union continues to support Mr Ahtisaari fully, and also his endeavours as leader of the political determination process in respect of Kosovo's future status as well as his recent moves to produce a comprehensive solution. It is in the Union's interests that the process should have a favourable outcome. Success is vital, because it would offer favourable prospects for the future, both for the inhabitants of Kosovo and for general stability in the region. The European Union is now preparing for its future presence in Kosovo as part of an international civil mission. The EU's preparations for the rule of law and a police operation are also in progress.
(DE) As you know, the population of Kosovo has been through a great deal, so it is naturally anxious about the continuing postponements. Do you believe this is the last postponement and that the final report really will be presented in February or March?
What have you to say about the fears aroused by the plans for a division of Kosovo or by the territorial claims upon Kosovo contained in the new Serbian constitution?
Mr President, Special Envoy Ahtisaari has made it clear to the Council that he has no intention of delaying his proposal for a solution after the January elections are over. I would not like to predict yet, however, the content of his proposal for a solution on status.
Subject: Late abortions at Ginemedex abortion clinic in Barcelona
Is the Council aware of the Danish report on the Ginemedex abortion clinic in Barcelona, which performs late abortions, even after the 30th week of pregnancy, displaying a flagrant disregard for human life which has caused an international outcry?
Can the Council confirm that citizens of other EU Member States use this clinic for abortions even after the 30th week of pregnancy, evading the criminal law of their own Member State?
Is the Council concerning itself with this evasion of the criminal law of the Member States and this assault on human life?
What efforts will the Council make to reach agreements among the Member States to enable the criminal law of the Member States to be enforced and ensure that the principle of free movement of persons is not used to undermine the rights of viable foetuses?
Mr President, the Council has never discussed this, because it does not fall within its competence. The European Union treaties have not bestowed on the Community or the Union the competence whereby the Union could regulate on abortions. The Member States thus have the competence to regulate on this and ensure compliance in their territory with the laws that they pass. The EU cannot interfere in unsatisfactory states of affairs due to differences in the legislation of Member States when it comes to areas that are not within its competence.
(NL) Mr President, I do indeed understand that this is about who has power over what, but it has to be said that this is a cross-border issue, and so I am surprised that it has not been discussed at all in the Council. If we talk about European values - something which has also been in the news a great deal - and we also consider the issue of the free movement of people, then we have a European problem, certainly if we take into account the fact that Dutch doctors were involved in this affair. In short, I should like to ask you again how this relates to the freedom of movement of people, and whether we are not dealing with a European problem of a cross-border nature.
Mr President, I would just like to say that the free mobility of people is one of the European Union's basic concerns. The movement of services has also been established for a very long time, and if there are illegal goings-on in Member States, it is their responsibility and duty to monitor them and intervene. In this case it is incontrovertibly clear that big differences between the laws in Member States lead to very different practices around Europe.
Questions which had not been answered for lack of time would receive written answers (see Annex).
That concludes Question Time.
(The sitting was suspended at 7.00 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes