7. Agreement between the EC and Montenegro on short-stay visas (vote)
- Report: Vălean


1. Armenia
The next item is the debate on five motions for a resolution on Armenia.
author. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, will the tragic events that have occurred in Armenia since the presidential election on 19 February 2008 send out the message that Europe is incapable of supporting the fragile little democracies of the South Caucasus in their struggle to become established?
Following the crisis in Georgia, it is now Armenia's turn to suffer major political upheaval. Despite the high level of attention directed at the country during the election campaign, the international community failed to promote the dialogue that might have prevented the clashes on 1 March. After 11 days of protest against the election results by the opposition movement under former head of state Levon Ter-Petrosian, police tried to disperse the demonstrators. The situation degenerated, resulting in the deaths of eight people, injuries to many others and the imposition of a state of emergency with curbs on freedom of information and freedom of assembly, as well as restrictions on political parties. Since then, 400 people have been arrested. There is an evident mood of anxiety among the population, who fear that a policy of repression will be imposed. We have a duty today, in our contacts with all the parties involved in the Armenian conflict, to reflect that fear.
The question, however, is what we should propose as a method of bringing all sides to their senses and getting them to the negotiating table against the current backdrop of heightened tension? That is the challenge. We need to restore the confidence of ordinary Armenian men and women in their fledgling democracy. Essential preconditions for restoring confidence are the setting up of an inquiry into the recent events and the release of those imprisoned. The next step - in conjunction with the international community, our Special Representative to the South Caucasus and our partners in the Council of Europe and the OSCE - must be to fix a timescale for our Armenian friends to return to the negotiating table, and we must bring all the conflicting parties to the table, on both the official and the opposition sides. The rules of democracy depend upon dialogue and non-violence and it is up to us to facilitate such an approach.
With your permission, Mr President, I should like to propose an oral amendment. I am not sure how to proceed for the fact is that we made a mistake in the resolution. In recital H we referred to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh where we should have said the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. It would seem that my colleagues agree with the oral amendment.
author. - Mr President, I was one of the four Members of the European Parliament election observation mission in Armenia and I fully agree with and endorse its findings concerning the presidential elections, namely that the election was mostly in line with the OSCE and the Council of Europe commitments and standards. The state authorities made genuine efforts to address shortcomings noted in the previous elections. Allow me to use this opportunity to thank the Commission's delegation in Yerevan for all the assistance provided to us.
The election was mostly in line with our standards, as I said, but further improvement and political will are required to address remaining challenges. I express my deep regret and concern at recent developments that have taken place in Armenia, with violent clashes between police and opposition demonstrators that led to the death of eight citizens and over 100 injured. It goes without saying that we expect a transparent and independent investigation of the events that took place and the partial lifting of the state of emergency which was imposed after the event.
Even though it is a step in the right direction, it is not enough. I call on the Armenian authorities to carry out a full lifting of the state of emergency. On behalf of my group, I call upon all parties involved to show openness and calmness, to tone down statements and to engage immediately in a constructive dialogue.
Last but not least, we regret and we are concerned at the recent unprecedented violation of the ceasefire on the line of contact with Nagorno-Karabakh and we strongly urge the parties to refrain from any actions that could undermine the negotiation process. We urge them to stay away from the loud and catastrophic power of arms, and we call upon them to exercise the silent and peaceful power of dialogue.
author. - Mr President, recent events in Armenia show how difficult it is for fledgling democracies in the former Soviet Union to trust the electoral process. Those who hold power are tempted to stack the cards in their favour, especially in the run-up to elections, whilst those who lose find the results difficult to accept.
The problems we have seen in post-election Armenia have been compounded by violent clashes, resulting in eight fatalities, and by the imposition of an extraordinary measure in the form of a state of emergency. Bans on all political activities and strict censorship of the media were imposed on 1 March 2008 for a 20-day period. The ban on political activities has subsequently been lifted. Media freedom, including unrestricted internet access, is to follow. Indeed, all normal constitutional freedoms should be restored next week.
Unfortunately, it cannot be ruled out that the state of emergency will be extended. For now, a lid has been put on the pressure-cooker. I am concerned about what is being done to release the source of the pressure.
Building democracy is a complex process. It must be safeguarded by institutions in which all parties place their trust. It is, therefore, regrettable that the outgoing President has attacked his country's human rights ombudsman, who criticised government actions. It is only by strengthening the role of the ombudsman and also by ensuring impartiality of the constitutional court, which investigates allegations of electoral fraud, that democracy can be protected.
Until there is faith in Armenia's own guardians of democracy, I strongly urge all parties in the dispute to make use of the mediation offered by the EU and the OSCE envoys and to do so immediately.
author. - (NL) Mr President, in presidential elections we increasingly see continuing uncertainty as to whether the preferred candidate of the ruling government has actually won a true majority of the votes as well as just a large number of votes. Even where that candidate does have a true majority, doubts remain about the size of that majority, certainly where manifest attempts have been made to inflate it artificially.
When, in addition, some candidates are prevented from standing, when only the government-endorsed candidate has access to press, radio and television, when the opposition or foreign observers are not able to monitor the count properly, when peaceful protests against the officially declared results are broken up by army and police and opposition leaders are arrested, there is every reason for very serious doubt that the will of the electorate has been upheld.
We have seen controversial presidential elections of this kind outside Europe in Mexico and Kenya, and within Europe in Belarus, Russia, Georgia and Armenia. Even without these elections Armenia was in an extremely difficult position. Traditionally it has strong ties with Russia but is separated from it by neighbouring Georgia, which has a serious conflict with Russia, and neighbouring Azerbaijan, which has for many years had a border dispute with Armenia.
When the Russian province of Transcaucasia was divided up along ethnic lines in the 1920s the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, populated by Armenians, was given to Azerbaijan by way of a compromise, with a guarantee of regional Armenian autonomy. That solution is no longer workable in the post-Soviet era, since the two states of Azerbaijan and Armenia are now enemies. In fact the territory is currently occupied by Armenia, and this has led to a protracted conflict with its eastern neighbour, though a ceasefire is in force. This kind of situation, with a permanent threat of war and blockades, provides fertile ground for authoritarian government to flourish and it is unremittingly difficult for democracy to function in the country.
The events since the 19 February elections come as no surprise. Even so we must make every effort to get democratic conditions restored and the rights of the opposition reinstated. The wishes of the European Union or its Member States for good relations with the de facto rulers of countries like Russia, Belarus, Georgia or Armenia must take second place behind this prime imperative.
author. - Mr President, Armenia is essentially a relatively recently re-born country, struggling to strengthen its democratic institutions and safeguard the well-being of its citizens whilst squashed between two not-so-democratic but rather hostile neighbours, namely Russia and Turkey, and whilst being disturbingly and unfairly involved in a territorial conflict with the totalitarian regime of Azerbaijan.
In this setting, the recently-held presidential elections were not perfect, but in the words of the international observation mission, were 'administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe [...] standards'.
Sadly, in post-election protests it would appear that the police used more than necessary force, which resulted in the death of eight people, including one policeman.
A thorough and fair investigation is called for into the events that led to these deaths. An investigation is also warranted into allegations that external forces are instigating violence in Armenia in order to destabilise the country.
I call for full support for this resolution.
author. - (PL) Mr President, it goes without saying that we would like Armenia to be at peace, to have secure borders and to manage its external affairs successfully. May I remind you that the elections in Armenia gave rise to no serious protests. What is happening there today must be seen in the specific context of the Caucasus, a highly inflammable region.
While I have the floor, Mr President, I would, with your permission, take this opportunity to voice my outrage at the news I have just received of the murder of Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul. He was abducted on 29 February and three of his bodyguards were shot.
This is a further attack, a further crime, by men who lack the courage to show their faces to the world, who kidnap innocent victims, ordinary people pursuing religious activities - mostly Christians, mostly Catholic Christians. Today we are again witnesses of such a crime, and it seems to me this matter should be placed on the agenda of our next meeting in Brussels as a special item. May the Lord grant eternal rest to the heroic martyr who died today in Mosul.
on behalf of the PPE-DE group. - (RO) What happened in Armenia must be vehemently condemned but unfortunately it was not a surprise. There are other quite similar events in another country in that area and they represent a continuation of the situation in place after 1990.
We are facing the consequence of several factors persisting from then to the present day: insufficient economic development, latent conflicts, and the influence of the Russian Federation. On top of all that we have the situation in Kosovo which, despite all considerable but useless efforts of the authors, will form a precedent for all those interested. For the population in the region, it can only result in insecurity, lack of confidence in the authorities, and vulnerability to manipulation.
There is only one solution to restore a state of normality: economic development that will generate a higher standard of living. There are energy resources. The development of such resources and of their transit will solve the problem of economic development, as well as that of independence from the Russian Federation and it will also solve Europe's problem in general.
The European Union did not really take a stand and if we want to find solutions to the problems in the Southern Caucasus, the Union must take active steps in the development of energy routes in the Black Sea region.
When a country that participates in the European Neighbourhood Policy and is favourably disposed towards the EU holds a successful democratic election, it is a victory for us as well. If it goes wrong, it is a case of mutual defeat.
The Presidential election in Armenia was conducted in line with international standards, according to the international observation mission. Alas, subsequent developments cancel this unsteady step forward. Bloodshed and the imposition of a state of emergency have swept Armenia off the road to democracy, impeding its relations with the European Union. Human rights are suppressed in Armenia and there is no freedom of speech.
Yerevan should lift the state of emergency entirely and the OSCE representative should assist in finding a solution to the crisis. Hopefully, both negotiating parties will show moderation and will base their work on European values.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the present political crisis in Armenia is not the first.
During the presidency of Levon Ter-Petrosian the country began to depart sharply from liberal and democratic standards. The main opposition parties were banned, freedom of the press was restricted, and parliamentary elections were generally recognised as not meeting all democratic criteria. Mr Ter-Petrosian resigned as president under the pressure of demonstrations. That brought some stability to the country, but it was ended by the dramatic murder in parliament of nine leading Armenian politicians, including the prime minister, by unknown assassins.
We are now seeing a repeat of what happened some 10 years ago. The present crisis, however, may perhaps be due to the weariness of Armenian society with the governments of the so-called Karabakh Clan, to which both the former and the present president belong. The government is widely accused of restoring authoritarian rule under the guise of democracy, with mafia-type control of business activities and a deteriorating economy.
There is also a growing fear of Armenia's increasing isolation and the gradual weakening of its position in the unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. When Mr Ter-Petrosian decided to return to politics and stand for election, his promise of greater flexibility in foreign policy won him considerable support.
The present crisis is very deep, however. Let us hope it will be resolved by political means, although that is not at all certain. If not, the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh may be stepped up in an attempt to unite society around the government. A recent incident in Karabakh in which 11 people died confirms this fear. Another result may be a further strengthening of Armenia's increasing dependence on Russia. The recent inauguration of the Armenia-Iran pipeline will not weaken that dependence, since the gas, and the pipeline itself, will of course be controlled by Gazprom.
Our attitude to the serious situation in Armenia should be friendly, but we should not refrain from criticism or from expressing concern where necessary. I believe the position proposed in this resolution meets those criteria.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the outcome of the presidential election of 19 February 2008 was a factor in the political destabilisation of Armenia, although it should be emphasised that the conduct of the election was recognised by the OCSE as complying with democratic standards.
The demonstrations following the placing of Levon Ter-Petrosian under house arrest and their brutal repression on 1 March ended with eight people dead, many others injured, and the declaration of a state of emergency. Restrictions on the media and the arrest of more and more members of the opposition are causing serious concern.
We call on the Armenian authorities to restore civil rights without delay, end the state of emergency, respect human rights and determine who was responsible for the tragic events of 1 March 2008. Investigation of this matter must not be a pretext for further persecution of the opposition. The situation in Armenia is very difficult indeed, and our representatives must pay great attention to it.
Mr President, I should like to add that the democratic standards in Armenia are not as we would like to see them. What aggravates the situation is the socioeconomic situation, and this, naturally, brings additional people to the street.
I would like to appeal both to the Armenian authorities and, of course, to Azerbaijan to endeavour to settle this long-lasting conflict. There are areas occupied by Armenia which should be freed because there are no Armenians there. What is really worrying is that both countries are in the process of rearmament, which, of course, reflects the situation as to the real social problems facing the countries, particularly Armenia.
Therefore, I support this joint motion for a resolution, but I think we should continue to follow the situation very closely, because it is worrying.
(PL) Mr President, Armenia is one of a group of countries that receive support from the European Union for introducing political and economic reforms, establishing the institutions of a state governed by the rule of law, and combating corruption and organised crime. We are therefore right to keep the political process and respect for democratic principles in that country under scrutiny. That is especially important in view of the changes taking place in Armenia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Governments very often seek to influence the media, but when they resort to violence and the use of force they must be opposed with exceptional determination. And when there are fatal victims, the situation is exceptionally difficult. We categorically demand the restoration of freedom, respect for other views, and the maintenance of democracy and civil rights. We condemn the use of force and the violent dispersal of democratic meetings, protests and demonstrations.
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission keeps a particularly close watch on the situation with regard to democracy and human rights in Armenia, which, as you know, is one of our partners under the European Neighbourhood Policy.
We follow developments there attentively through the intermediaries of our delegation in Yerevan, with the Member States, and in close cooperation with the European Union Special Representative, Peter Semneby. As part of the process, we are also in regular contact with local and international NGOs working in the fields of democracy and human rights.
In relation to the tragic events that occurred in Yerevan on 1 March in the aftermath of the election, the Commission shares the general concern over the violent clashes between police and opposition demonstrators, which resulted in a number of deaths. The Commission has therefore called for the immediate establishment of a thorough investigation and for the prosecution of persons who broke the law. We have also called on the Armenian Government to lift the state of emergency immediately. The Commission believes it is important that all sides should refrain from using force. We expect all parties in Armenia to commit to political dialogue as the means of overcoming their differences.
At the same time, the Commission also deplores the shadow cast by the recent events on Armenia's increasingly positive progress towards implementation of its ENP action plan, particularly in the areas of human rights and democracy. The call to pursue political reform and to respect human rights is an integral element of the partnership between the European Union and Armenia, and the Commission will therefore use every means at its disposal to encourage the Armenian authorities to forge ahead in those areas.
By adopting the joint EU-Armenia ENP Action Plan in 2006, we acquired a policy tool for promoting the observance of principles based on our shared values. We are firmly convinced that an ongoing dialogue with Armenia, conducted in accordance with the policy provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and the ENP Action Plan, is indeed the most effective means of conveying the European Union's messages about respect for human rights and international law. The annual meetings of the Cooperation Committee and Cooperation Council, and of the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee are thus particularly important.
The Commission also remains determined to contribute to the reform process by providing Armenia with financial and technical assistance. Supporting political reform in the areas of human rights and democracy continues to be a priority in the national indicative programme for 2007-2010. Approximately a third of our bilateral aid - which will amount over that period to EUR 98.4 million - will be used to assist relevant projects. More specifically, the 2007 bilateral aid programme with Armenia is targeting financial support in the field of judicial reform, to the tune of EUR 18 million. I am sure that the European Parliament will back us in that effort and, indeed, will be our staunchest ally.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debate.


7. Collective management of copyrights online (vote)


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


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)


Explanations of vote (continuation)
- (HU) I would like to see the ban on the use of cyanide in mining extended throughout the European Union. I would like us to be able to eliminate these technologies altogether in the future, in order to prevent further serious natural disasters, where various toxic materials enter our water sources. There has been such a case in Hungary, where almost all life in the river Tisza died out 10 years ago. Slovakia is also affected in this issue as the accident occurred near the border, and it intends to open mines in the near future where the same technology would be used for gold mining. This and similar issues are not disputes between two EU countries; it is our common interest to have a more sustainable environmental policy. This is why I voted in favour, this is why I would like to join the supporters of this measure.
(IT) Mr President, we are about to proceed with the ban on the use of cyanide mining technologies, because - as my fellow Members mentioned a short time ago - they have caused and continue to cause severe environmental effects and they pose critical dangers to human and animal health.
Our vote was intended to express the clear desire of the Italian IDV (Italy of Values) delegation of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe not to negotiate fundamental rights like the health of citizens and the natural environment by subjecting them to the economic interests of a few system manufacturers. On this point, let me say that since this deals with systems for mining gold and certainly not potatoes, the proprietor companies could easily allocate adequate economic and financial resources to researching technologies that are compatible with the environment and health safety.
(RO) I wish to thank almost 500 of our fellow Members who voted overwhelmingly yesterday against the use of cyanide technologies in mining. The word 'cyanide' is synonymous with 'death'. This outright vote will do us Romanians, in particular, a big favour. One of the largest natural fields in the world is located in Transylvania. Experts estimate that it contains 300 tonnes of high purity uranium, 800 tonnes of gold and 2 000 tonnes of silver, not to mention huge quantities of other precious metals and elements. Greedy mafia gangs, both local and cross-border, are prowling around these treasures, continually increasing the aggressive tone of their propaganda, full of the most ridiculous lies.
The use of cyanide technologies would have caused a huge disaster by poisoning the environment, resulting in four mountains being blown up, nine cemeteries being destroyed and eight Christian churches being demolished. This is without mentioning the disappearance of 1 700 km of Roman galleries, with the ruins of the Roman citadel Alburnus Maior being wiped off the face of the earth, an archaeological gem described by UNESCO as a unique cultural heritage site in the world. Europe has had enough of one Chernobyl and does not need another one.
(RO) I voted against the motion for a resolution yesterday because I was asked to do so by the local communities which regard this ban as a threat to the area's development.
In fact, I believe that the amendment suggested by me and more than 40 of my fellow Members, which called for a study to be carried out to clarify the impact issue, would have been an honourable and reasonable gesture. Otherwise, the passions expressed here have only served to destroy certain communities' chance of development.
- Mr President, may I ask you why so many Members are allowed to speak loudly and rudely in private conversations when other Members are trying to express themselves?
(Applause)
I abstained on the resolution on Kyrgyzstan. Five years ago the people of Kyrgyzstan mobilised for the Tulip Revolution against the corrupt regime and for a better life for themselves. The Bakiyev government that came to power unfortunately dismally betrayed the hopes of a better life for the masses, instituting a corrupt and authoritarian regime. The new government is made up, unfortunately, of cronies of Bakiyev and has no credence in terms of a new life for the people of the region.
I support my fellow socialists from the Committee for Workers International in the region who call for elections to a new parliament but make clear that nothing will change unless workers and the rural masses have their own candidates and independent working class party to reverse the disastrous privatisations of the last 20 years, to tackle neoliberal capitalism and to institute real democratic change and new institutions controlled by working people and with genuine planning of the economy and a Socialist Federation of Central Asia.
- (LT) I am very pleased that this document was adopted by a large majority, that is to say there was hardly any opposition to it. This in itself is quite understandable since health affects all of us and those closest to us. I also congratulate the European Parliament and all citizens of the European Union as well as the rapporteur for taking such decisions today that should advance more specific and targeted actions not only to cure those suffering from cancer, but also to ensure the prevention of cancer. Unfortunately, the prognosis in terms of cancer is really terrifying, and we must concentrate our efforts to overcome it.
I voted for the adoption of this document, because I believe that an integrated view of cancer cases and fighting them should be regarded as particularly important as part of the health strategy of both the European Community and Member States. Collective and coordinated work by Member States is required to reduce the risk in the area of cancer cases.
- (SK) The report on measures to combat cancer talks about the importance of prevention in the fight against this disease.
We know that early diagnosis of this disease will increase the chances of a successful cure. The incidence of some kinds of cancer can be predicted by genetic predisposition, lifestyle and so on. In my opinion, therefore, more extensive screening could be the first effective and rapid step towards preventing many deaths. A further important step would be the transfer and dissemination of successful methods of treatment to all countries of the European Union, including centres with less experience in the treatment of cancer, in order to improve the provision of effective treatment.
In any case, however, we must applaud the work of Mr Peterle in the hope that the EU will take more extensive measures in the fight against this disease.
(IT) Mr President I would like to express my appreciation of the work carried out by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Peterle. This development of a partnership in the battle against cancer, on a subject as sensitive as that which we faced, honours Parliament as a whole.
According to data from the World Health Organisation, around 2 million European citizens die every year from a tumour and in around 10% of the cases it was caused by being exposed to carcinogenic substances at work. I am convinced that the goal of reducing new cases by 15% by 2020 should also be pursued through joint action with the Member States. Europe must demonstrate that it is united in this area as well. In my opinion Article 66, which can guarantee the availability of medicines to everyone in every country, responds to this fundamental principle.
Mr President, that is why I voted in favour of the report.
- (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, in the past years we have seen an explosive development of information and communication technologies. The significant development and results seen in the ICT sector contributed to the development of other, previously stagnating sectors, such as mechatronics, nanotechnology, control and measurement technology. Therefore the initiative of the Commission to use ICT to meet EU 2020 goals should be applauded. I welcome the fact that we accepted this programme and I am glad that I, too, was able to vote for it. It is vital that we meet our planned targets by 2020, that is, we decrease carbon dioxide emissions and increase energy efficiency. The information and communication technology sector may be of strategic importance in the energy saving programme of the European Union and in increasing the competitiveness of European industry. However, in order to achieve it, support is needed for the standardisation of measuring devices as soon as possible, for starting research projects, and for passing a package of measures aimed at decreasing consumption and improving production and service supply management.
(IT) Mr President, I voted for and support the valuable work presented by Mr Prodi, in conclusion of the significant work carried out by the European Commission.
I represent southern Italy, which is located in the south of Europe in the Mediterranean basin. Our people have put their faith in us and deserve not to find themselves unprepared for the effects of climate change in our regions and our countryside, which depends primarily on agriculture, fishing and tourism and is largely made up of more vulnerable communities and social groups.
Hence I believe that solidarity among the different States and areas is fundamental, not least in the response to this new strategy that we are putting into action. Obviously it is very difficult to speak with all this confusion; in any case I am finishing. I applaud the implementation of the Solidarity Fund instrument, for which I am the rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), as additional support for a prompt and effective answer to the effects of climate change. It really is impossible to speak.
- Mr President, I support the Commission's white paper and the report by Mr Prodi. I think that such a white paper is especially needed in the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate change talks. The results that we saw in Copenhagen are definitely not enough. The non-binding document that was agreed in Copenhagen to halt global warming at +2°C would still mean a warming scenario for Europe, something that would be marked by extreme regional climate changes.
We need to pay special attention to the way we produce our energy. We need to make stronger efforts to set up a tangible common energy policy. We must support research into environmentally friendly technologies, but also set up clear policy frameworks on how renewable-energy technologies can be introduced and mainstreamed in our economies.
I hope this white paper will push the EU in the right direction and will result in some tangible policy action.
(DE) Mr President, I support the motion which Mr Prodi has tabled today. However, the amendment to this report tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and, in particular, by Mr Seeber, which has unfortunately been adopted by plenary, seems to me to be more questionable. I am concerned that the conservatives are using this method to reintroduce nuclear power by the back door. Promoting low-carbon energy sources is a well-known argument used by the nuclear lobby. I would like to emphasise the fact that the Prodi report is definitely going in a different direction. As an Austrian, I do not regard nuclear power as renewable energy. It is very important for me to make it clear that I have not voted in favour of this paragraph today.


Implementation of the Fuel Quality Directive (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the implementation of the Fuel Quality Directive, including an EU default value for tar sands and oil shale, by Mrs McAvan, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety - B7-0209/2011).
author. - Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the Conference of Presidents for making time for this debate this week at very short notice. I would also like to thank the Commissioner for coming here at such a late hour to discuss this issue, which is very important for our Parliament.
On the face of it, this looks like a very technical issue. It is about implementing measures for the Fuel Quality Directive and setting baseline or default values for greenhouse gas emissions for transport fuels. The real, very serious issue is: how serious are we in the European Union about tackling emissions from transport? We know that around 20% of greenhouse gas emissions come from transport. We know that figure is rising, unlike in the housing and energy sectors, where the figure is falling. Cleaning up our transport fuels is a key part of the fight against climate change and that is why the Fuel Quality Directive is so important.
That brings me to this question of tar sands and oil shale. Parliament was expecting the Commission's implementing proposals on the directive at the end of last year. There was a delay and we know the reason for this was because there was an internal debate in the Commission about whether to give a separate value to tar sands. We were told that the reason we could not have the measures was because there was no scientific study to back up the Commission proposal. In early drafts from the Commission, however, we saw there was a separate value for tar sands in the consultation papers, but in a later draft that value had disappeared.
Thanks to you, Madam Commissioner, we now have a study on tar sands. That study, which came out two months ago, shows something that other studies have already shown, i.e. that greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian tar sands are on average 107.3g of CO2 per megajoule, compared with 87.1g for conventional fuels. For shale oil it shows a rate of 122 and 139g of CO2 per megajoule. In other words, it shows that these fuels are dirtier than conventional oil. Now we have the studies, I am hoping that we will hear from the Commissioner tonight that we are going to see a proposal to implement the Fuel Quality Directive.
I said at the beginning that this is not just a technical issue. Last week, many MEPs who are here tonight received a petition from thousands of European citizens who are very concerned about this issue. They want what I want, which is proper, fair labelling of tar sands and oil shales. We often hear that the EU is leading the way on climate change, but California has already put in place a low-carbon fuel standard which assesses tar sands as high-carbon.
I know there has been a lot of lobbying about this, we have all heard about it, we have met the different lobbyists, and even now that we know that tar sands and oil shale are dirtier than conventional oil, we are now being told 'no, let us have more studies, let us have more time'. But we have the facts on tar sands now, so I do not see any reason to delay. Tar sands are one of the most polluting ways of producing transport fuel known to man. It follows that they should be given a different categorisation in the Fuel Quality Directive, otherwise there is nothing to stop transport fuels getting dirtier under the Fuel Quality Directive instead of cleaner.
Commissioner Hedegaard, I know you will hear in a moment how many of our colleagues from all groups across the House share our concerns. You are known for your commitment to tackling climate change and are respected for it in this House. We want to work with you to deliver your low-carbon roadmap to actually cut emissions from transport by 60% as you announced last week, so I hope that tonight you are going to come here with some good news for us and tell us that in the next few weeks we will have that implementing standard and we will have a higher value for tar sands and oil shale.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, we have just heard from Linda McAvan that she and the Commission share the same view of how important it is actually to tackle emissions from transport; that is also reflected in the White Paper on transport which will be coming out today. Unfortunately, development of the implementing measure linked to the greenhouse gas intensity reduction target contained in the Fuel Quality Directive has taken longer than anticipated. However, the delay will not affect the ability of suppliers to meet their requirements under the directive, as no Member State has set an intermediate target for 2014.
In preparing its proposal the Commission has considered that the appropriate legislative approach needs to balance the accuracy and complexity of the reporting method with the degree of variability in the GHG intensities of different fuels. During last autumn and the first weeks of this year, extensive internal discussions have taken place within the Commission which are currently being finalised, and thus a proposal could be discussed with the Member States in the coming months.
As concerns the default values for oil sands and oil shale, I am pleased to report that the Commission has recently published reports indicating an average default value for oil sands and a range of indicative default values for oil shales. These reports are available on the Commission's website. Given the wide interest in this matter the Commission believes that it would be useful to subject these reports to a limited peer review process. In taking this issue forward I have liaised closely with my colleague responsible for trade matters to ensure that our approach is robust in terms of our obligations under international law, and I will continue to do so.
So without prejudging the outcome of the peer review process and the subsequent Commission internal consultation, it is the Commission's intention at this stage to present a draft implementing measure to the relevant regulatory committee that will include default values both for oil sands and for oil shale, as well as for other unconventional fuels such as coal to liquids and gas to liquids.
It is also foreseen that the draft implementing measure states that the Commission will examine the GHG intensity of other categories of feedstock with high greenhouse gas emissions and, if scientifically warranted, the implementing measure will be amended through the addition of new feedstock categories.
This would make the measure non-discriminatory by demonstrating that the list of feedstock categories is open and that the Commission is actively looking at other categories and is ready to extend the list when enough evidence and data is gathered on other categories.
So, given that some weeks are necessary for the peer review and subsequently the finalisation of the Commission's internal discussions, there will be some delay before the draft implementing measure of the whole package can be discussed with the Member States. But as soon as it is approved by the regulatory committee the measure will be transmitted to the European Parliament for scrutiny.
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs McAvan for tabling this question. The revision of the Fuel Quality Directive would not only oblige fuel suppliers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced throughout the life cycle of the fuels, for example during transport and during the refining process, and to measure the reduction, but also to cut the emissions per energy unit by 1% each year from 2011 onwards and by a total of 10% by 2020. However, I believe that it is only possible to measure the reduction in emissions during the life cycle of the fuel if there are corresponding standard values in place. These must finally be identified and made public.
However, when Mrs McAvan tabled her question, I had the feeling that she would have preferred to have stopped production in this energy sector. I would like to warn against taking this approach, because the figures and the findings on emissions produced by the extraction of crude oil or of oil from sand or shale vary widely. Only an hour ago, I was speaking to a representative of the chemical industry who said that there is so much potential for technical development that it could be possible to achieve much better results in this area. I would like to remind the House that we are constantly talking about independence from energy sources outside the European Union. This raw material is available to us here in the European Union, so we should include this in our discussions. However, all of this will only work if there are standard values in place which must be checked. Therefore, I am calling on the Commission to act quickly.
Mr President, Commissioner, we are indeed debating a very crucial issue: emissions from the production of oil from tar sands are three to five times greater than from other production methods and this much-desired indicator that we want in the directive will ensure that we do not subsidise this catastrophic production method.
You said that the study has been completed. However, although we have a study, because we said that we needed a study in order to proceed, we now want to subject this study to peer review. The question, Commissioner, is when will this procedure be completed? What are the timelines? How much longer do we need to wait until this indicator has been reviewed, using this methodology, so that we can, at long last, include it in our legislation?
In fact, the problem with tar sands is not just the emissions. It is the destruction of unique forests, the Canadian arctic forests, our vital allies against climate change. At the same time, we are destroying the native land in which this massive destruction is taking place and, if we do not include the indicator in our legislation, this destruction will spread to other countries.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I want to thank Commissioner Hedegaard for her long-standing efforts on this issue and for her positive announcement this evening. Commissioner, you have met MEPs on a number of occasions and we appreciate that the stumbling block has not been of your making. Nevertheless the lack of progress has been deeply frustrating.
First of all we were told it was not enough that there were a dozen studies that all showed that tar sands had higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil. We were told that there had to be a study using exactly the same methodology. Now that we have that study from the Joint Research Centre - and it shows the value of 107g per megajoule, way above the 87.1g average for crude oil - opponents are saying that we need a peer review. It really does feel like timewasting on a grand scale.
It is a pity that the lobbying against a separate value for tar sands has come so heavily from one quarter, because it is absolutely not about discriminating against Canada. There are many other potential tar sand sites, some of them, as we heard just now, within the EU itself. The fact that these alternative sources of oil are attracting investment interest across the globe is precisely why we must insist on a separate greenhouse gas value for them. Otherwise, as tar sands creep up as an increasingly large part of the energy mix, we will find ourselves in the situation where we are complying with the Fuel Quality Directive's 6% reduction target on paper, but in real life we are producing fuel with even higher emissions than today.
It would be very helpful, Commissioner, if you could explain to DG Trade, as I am sure you have, that this is not an attack on Canada, and that apart from anything else, Parliament would want this issue of the default tar sands value to be sorted out in order to ensure a smooth passage for the EU-Canada trade agreement.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the climate package, we decided that the carbon footprint of transport fuel should decrease by 6% by 2020. It would be completely inconsistent and senseless if we now turned a blind eye to the dirtiest fuels of all, like oil from oil sand, at the same time encouraging their production around the world, in Canada and Africa, for example. It is quite obvious that we should have our own default values for the carbon footprint of oil from oil sand and oil shale. We also need to differentiate the other sources of crude oil as soon as possible.
In my view, the Canadian Government has very inappropriately put pressure on the EU, and we should not give way to it. If Canada's footprint from tar sands oil is lower than the reference value, Canada can prove it. Should we not adhere to the same principle with fossil oil as we do with biofuels, which is that the default values are differentiated according to the source of the raw materials?
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, global reserves of bituminous sands are very extensive. It is estimated that reserves of bituminous oil are over double the size of reserves of crude oil extracted using conventional methods. Present-day technologies make it possible to exploit deposits of raw materials in places where no one would previously have supposed it to be possible. At the same time, however, environmental protection requirements have become more stringent, and so there is a clash between environmental standards and the pursuit of raw materials and the desire to extract them at any cost. This results in land degradation, deforestation and the exploitation of water resources.
Extracting companies must be forced to recultivate the land they have used, to make it possible for forests to grow there again one day. Companies which make profits from the processing of bituminous sands must allocate some of these profits to environmental protection, for example in the form of a deposit. The European Commission should support such requirements and technologies for reducing CO2 emissions. After all, Europe and Canada have such strong economic links that Canadian industry, whether it wants to or not, must adapt to European environmental protection requirements in order to operate on the European market, for example in this area.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs McAvan for taking the initiative in this case and Mrs Hedegaard for addressing the problem. We are not happy about the speed at which things are happening, but we know that this matter is in good hands with Mrs Hedegaard. We would like to support her during the discussions within the Commission and with everyone else involved.
The environmental impact of tar sands is clear. There is an exhibition outside Parliament which makes it clear that, although we may question some of what is said or some of the figures, we have a serious environmental problem on our hands. This is indisputable. Given that we have discussed the effects of biofuels in such detail and even planned to carry out indirect investigations of movements in food cultivation, we must look at this problem, which is so obvious, much more closely. For this reason, this is an important initiative.
During the debate and during the preparations, I had a sentence running through my head which has been said repeatedly by the German Environment Minister, Norbert Röttgen: We have already picked the low-hanging fruit when it comes to fossil fuels. This becomes clear in the context of this subject and in the light of the exhibition outside Parliament. Extracting all our additional deposits of fossil fuels will involve a huge amount of work and give rise to new problems. Therefore, I would like to point out once again this evening that we all have cause to think more carefully about energy efficiency, especially given the events of recent days. I would like us to exert greater pressure on the Commission and on Mr Oettinger to follow up the 20% target for energy efficiency. I hope that the Directorate General for Mobility and Transport and the Transport Commissioner will be able to come up with specific measures rather than just empty words over the next few years and that they will not wait to do so until the next parliamentary term.
(NL) Mr President, in the square outside our Parliament there is a photographic exhibition on the tar sands in Canada. One of the photographs really chills you to the bone. You see beautiful virgin forests and then a sharp line which marks the beginning of a polluted black oily lake measuring 170 sq. metres. This really chills you to the very bone and I would recommend that everyone goes and sees the exhibition this evening.
Apart from leading to a huge loss of biodiversity, tar sand oil also emits extremely high levels of CO2. As far as I am concerned, biodiversity and CO2 emissions alone are sufficient reasons for us to vigorously oppose the exploitation of the tar sands in Canada, as well as in other countries. However, the least we can do is to include the polluting value of tar sand oil in the Fuel Quality Directive.
Having listened to what Mrs Hedegaard said, I assume that will happen, but I hope that she will also more vehemently oppose the exploitation of the tar sands in Canada and in other parts of the world.
(RO) Mr President, significant results can be achieved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 if investments are made in measures for increasing energy efficiency in buildings and the transport sector.
We had wide-ranging debates at the time when the Fuel Quality Directive was adopted. The car manufacturing industry thought then that, in order to increase the share of fuel deriving from biofuels, it needed a longer period for designing and manufacturing new engines capable of coping with increased vapour pressure.
However, the directive's final text makes it compulsory for both car manufacturers and fuel producers to invest in reducing polluting emissions and improving fuel quality.
I think that, in order to reduce the polluting emissions produced by the transport sector, the European Union should invest as a priority in developing a pan-European smart electricity grid which is capable of receiving energy produced locally and regionally from renewable energy sources and will be integrated into the infrastructure required for using electric vehicles.
(HU) Mr President, Commissioner, I must say that this directive gives rise to serious concerns among the oil processing companies of Central and Eastern Europe. This is not even because it has yet to come into effect, but rather because we are curious as to the methods by which emissions will be calculated. Will it be the 'fixed' method, which is based on an EU average, or the 'hybrid' method, which will calculate emissions from the time and place of extraction? If it is the latter, producers working with Russian oil would actually have to reduce their GHG emissions by 12%, since pollution is already high at the site of extraction.
Commissioner, I sent you a letter in this regard in January, together with four of my colleagues, and we have received your reply, but that reply has not dispelled our doubts fully. I would therefore like to ask you to reassure me, if possible, that this law will not put oil processing companies that process Russian petrol at a disadvantage, and will consequently not put Central and Eastern European Member States in a discriminative situation.
(GA) Mr President, I am not a member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE); I should be, I would like to be, and I hope to be a member of it. If anyone is leaving it, or if they are thinking of expelling anyone, let me know and I will get a place.
The Commission brought out a very good document on energy efficiency a few weeks ago. It pointed out the need for more work to be done on buildings and transport and I agree 100% on that.
Regarding transport, much more needs to be done in putting strictures on those who produce vehicles to come up with more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is a very important point and not enough has been done on that. I am a member of the Delegation for Relations with Canada, and the Canadians made a presentation to us yesterday about this matter. They are willing to take us out to show us how it works, and until such time as the technologies have been developed, we should keep a more open mind regarding these oil sands and shales.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, firstly I would like to thank Parliament for the very clear message it has given here tonight. I think it is very clear - including the impatience and sense of urgency. Mr Schnellhardt said that we should act promptly and Mr Arsenis asked particularly, with regard to the timetable: when will this end? I am happy to say that we are talking about a rather short time now. There is the peer review where we are talking about weeks, then it has to come back after that to the Commission, and there will then be the internal process. It will not end there but at least we will start to get it through to the next stage which is with the Member States.
So we are coming close but, as Mrs Hall was saying, this is absolutely not a discriminatory initiative, and I think you all understand why it makes sense to take care that its documentation is robust. That is what we have provided and we all know what the reasons are. One of the reasons is that it was not included from the very outset when this case started several years back. Now we are doing this work and so we can bring it to an end.
Let me finish by saying that, when it comes to this default value for tar sands the overall delay in the implementation of the directive means that we could get the default value included now in the same sort of round as when we are implementing the directive as such. In that sense, when it comes to the default value for tar sands, we will be able to do it a bit quicker than some of us thought possible when we started this nine months ago. Thank you for the very clear message. As I hope you realise, we are working very hard to bring this to an end.
The debate is closed.
Written Statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - Having visited the oil sands in Canada last year, I am an eyewitness of this phenomenon. I had the opportunity to engage in extensive consultations with the Albertan Government and the Federal Government in Canada regarding this issue. Before I went to Canada, Friends of the Earth Europe, WWF and Transport and Environment gave me questions to ask the Albertan Government regarding the oil sands. I received answers to all of these questions from the Albertan Minister for International Relations.
It was conveyed to me that Canada is fully committed to reducing global GHG emissions and de-carbonising fossil fuels, and has pointed out that studies show that the GHG intensity of oil from tar sands can be equal to or less than some other fuels. On the other hand there are remaining concerns about public health, biodiversity and local wildlife.
I would encourage the Commission to send an expert group to visit the oil sands in Canada to conduct an independent analysis of the oil sands, as it will be proposing amendments to the Fuel Quality Directive before December 2012, with a possibility of introducing additional measures for suppliers to reduce by 2% the lifecycle GHG per unit of energy.
in writing. - (CS) A struggle has been going on in Canada for many years between nature conservationists and investors, who are unfortunately showing ever less regard for the protection of nature as global prices and demand for oil rise. The supra-national oil companies regard environmental protection merely as an expense item that must be reduced. Their disregard does not even stop at the de facto genocide of local populations that depend on the environment for their livelihood. The alarming growth in numbers of cancer sufferers among local populations is a direct result of reckless extraction. We have become used to valuing everything in terms of money. In the global variant of the board game Monopoly which we call economics, we see only the short-term profit. We take no account of what we will ultimately pay for the further deforestation of the temperate zone and the grassing over of whole ecosystems in a much longer and more serious game of survival. Under the current economic and political circumstances, resources will simply be exhausted, and the anticipated damage to the environment will occur. The profits are too tempting, and the thirst for energy is too great. Who will decide? The people and their democratically-elected representatives, or the money men and managers of oil companies? Unless Europe takes a firm stand over the unsustainable extraction of tar sands and oil shales, then we are merely engaging in political theatre, which shows we are interested in the issue, while in reality we have neither the will nor the power to change the situation.


Mortgage credit (debate)
The next item is the debate on the report by Mr Purvis, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on mortgage credit in the EU.
rapporteur. - Mr President, what I was trying to tell you before was that Mr Allister's speech was coming through in a foreign language on the English channel, so the English was being translated into something else, I do not know what. I am sorry Mr Allister, but we could not make out what you were saying!
European mortgage loans outstanding amount to some EUR 5 trillion, or 45% of the EU's GDP, and mortgage lending has grown by 9.4% per annum over the past five years. A home is usually the largest purchase made in a lifetime, and the related mortgage is the most important financial obligation most people ever have. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Commission has focused on this area as it shifts its attention to retail financial services.
The mortgage market is fragmented along national lines and opening up this market should lead to consumers being offered better value and a greater choice of mortgage products. There could be more opportunities for those people who currently find it difficult to get a mortgage, such as first-time buyers or people with fixed-term contracts. It should make it easier for people moving to another EU country for work or retirement or wanting to buy a second property abroad.
For lenders, a more integrated market would offer greater economies of scale, reduce costs and lower rates for the borrower. On the other hand, local culture and traditions have shaped the products available and consumers will not want any diminution of existing consumer protection standards. Full harmonisation would be expensive for the industry and could limit the range of products it offers. The industry is highly competitive within most of our Member States, so we must not take heavy-handed action that might damage this booming sector. We want to see a European mortgage credit market with a broad range of products at competitive prices and any changes must benefit mortgage borrowers above all.
We are therefore against a grand harmonising piece of legislation. It would be bad for consumers and bad for business. Instead, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs agrees that we should focus on targeted measures aimed at removing specific barriers to cross-border mortgages. Any measures should only be taken after impact assessments have shown that the benefits outweigh the costs. Non-legislative means are to be preferred wherever possible.
Our first priority should be to bring about a better European funding market. There are a number of obstacles preventing this. I would therefore like to see a database covering the various mortgage markets and mortgage securities, so that investors can better evaluate and price mortgage pools. We suggest a range of standardised packages of European mortgages for trading on the capital markets. Mortgage brokers could play an important role in helping borrowers access mortgage credit from domestic and non-domestic lenders. I am pleased that the Commission has undertaken to assess any problems related to those credit intermediaries.
On the issue of the annual percentage rate of charge, we need an EU standard. The majority in the committee wanted an EU standard comprising all the charges levied by the lender, but with information as far as possible regarding any other costs. The report considers that restrictions on early repayment charges and interest rates are likely to restrict the development of new products, especially those for higher risk borrowers, as well as the development of the funding market.
Among other issues we raised are removing obstacles to the transfer of loans across borders and assessing the potential of the Euro-mortgage. The law applicable to mortgage credit contracts should be addressed, with the revision of the 1980 Rome Convention. On credit databases, we want to see a consistent format and non-discriminatory cross-border access to both positive and negative credit data, always subject to privacy protection.
In the area of forced sales, we support the idea of a scoreboard, comparing the length and costs of judicial processes in the various Member States. Various professional bodies should agree on common property valuation standards.
On land registers, the report favours improving access to standardised information, as well as supporting further work on the European Land Information Service.
Tax barriers remain a problem and need to be looked at, even if their resolution is dependent upon the Member States under subsidiarity.
The European Central Bank and the Commission have the important job of monitoring the potential risks of the massive and increasing levels of mortgage debt and their potential impact on capital markets.
I much appreciate the support and input received from my colleagues on all sides of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The Commission seems to be set on much the same line as we propose. We look forward to the White Paper next year and we hope we will be able to continue the excellent cooperation we have enjoyed so far on this important subject.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members, the White Paper on Financial Services Policy 2005-2010 sets out a roadmap for opening up Europe's fragmented retail financial services markets. One of the core elements of this strategy is our ongoing initiative on mortgage credit.
The challenges of integrating European mortgage markets should not be underestimated. Differences in product characteristics, distribution systems, consumer behaviour and many other economic, structural and indeed social factors all have a significant impact on the sector. We should not forget that for most European consumers, taking out a mortgage is perhaps the most significant financial decision in their lives.
Given the economic and social significance of mortgage lending, the Commission has adopted an open and consultative approach. Deliberations began in 2003 with the establishment of a forum group on mortgage credit, and a Green Paper was published in July 2005. A cost-benefit study was published in August 2005 to provide insight into the potential benefits of initiatives in the field of mortgage credit.
The public consultation that followed the publication of the Green Paper confirmed that the Commission was on the right track. At the same time, however, it identified areas where further analysis was required, for example on mortgage funding, before the Commission could decide on the appropriate policy responses.
Your report comes at an important moment in our deliberations. The consultation phase is drawing to a close and we are fast approaching a time when the Commission must decide how to proceed.
I wish to thank the rapporteurs for their hard work in preparing what I believe is a carefully thought-through and pragmatic report. I would like to focus on some aspects of the report.
I am pleased to read that you also believe that there are benefits to be obtained from integration. This position is consistent with our own analysis and the feedback that we have received in the Green Paper consultation. As the responses to the Green Paper consultation illustrate, there is a lot of debate on what the right means to achieve these benefits are. You propose a pragmatic and nuanced approach calling for focused measures accompanied by comprehensive impact assessments. As you know, I have a strong personal commitment to better regulation with a full impact assessment identifying the problems and setting out objectives and options. We in the Commission will be looking at the full range of tools at our disposal, not just legislative ones, in finding the most appropriate policy response to each issue addressed in the Green Paper.
I welcome the fact that the report underlines the benefits from enhancing product diversity and asks the Commission to ensure that actions do not hamper innovation and competition. A wide range of products is currently available to borrowers in the European Union. However, in no single country can consumers have access to a complete range of products. In some markets, certain groups of borrowers - for example, the self-employed, or borrowers with low or incomplete credit profiles - find it difficult to obtain mortgages or are even excluded. Barriers also exist that limit mortgage lenders' incentives to operate cross-border, thus preventing new and innovative products and processes from being introduced in other markets across Europe. In this respect I think our goals fully concur with those set out in the report.
Mortgage credit covers many contexts and technical issues ranging from consumer protection, through mortgage funding, to property valuation and land registration, to name but a few of the issues to be addressed.
I look forward to continuing our very fruitful dialogue with Parliament on how best to address the policy challenges emerging from this in the interests of assisting the development of a genuine single market for mortgage credit that creates new opportunities for lenders and borrowers alike, and that ensures appropriate protection for what remains for the vast majority of Europeans the most important financial decision the make in their lives.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. - (ES) Mr President, I believe that the Commission has taken the right approach in relation to mortgages, because, as the Commissioner has said, it is probably the most significant commitment European citizens make in their entire lives: the loan to buy their own homes.
We must therefore bear in mind that we are moving towards a single market and, within that single market, it does not make much sense to have 27 different national legislations or 27 different mortgage systems.
Furthermore, it is an issue that relates to the most essential elements of the legal system of each State. Results will not be achieved either easily or immediately; it will take some time.
In any event, we in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection wish to stress the importance of making progress in the legislative field. It is not of course possible to adopt complete European Union legislation on mortgages, but it is possible to make some progress, in the field of information, for example, maximum permitted rates, repayment of mortgages at a given time, so that, when a citizen moves from one European Union country to another, they do not find themselves in a legal framework completely different to the one they are used to.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the mortgage credit market continues to be divided up along national lines. Why is this so? Is it because of difficulties with language, because of the different financial cultures, the legal framework, or is it because people have confidences in lenders with which they are familiar and which are on their doorstep? What the Commission is proposing to do is to examine the possibility of harmonising the legal framework in order to increase the volume of cross-border lending and borrowing.
Such an inquiry is to be welcomed. Even more to be welcomed is the statement in the Green Paper to the effect that extensive studies are still regarded as necessary before proposals for regulations can be made, and the Green Paper's own emphasis on the difficulty of the matter in hand.
Legal differences in the Member States are not to be found in one area alone, although they certainly are present in mortgage law, but - as both Commissioner McCreevy and Mr Medina Ortega have just pointed out - they affect many aspects of the law, among them land registration, the practices of notaries, the law in relation to forced sales, the law of contract and the protection of consumers, all of which areas of the law are interconnected. In some of them, the European Union has no power to enact regulations, and harmonisation from the centre in one area could have seriously detrimental effects at the national level, doing, in fact, more harm than good.
What is unreservedly to be welcomed, though, is further promotion of the refinancing markets, and so I want to say an unreserved 'yes' to this being investigated and analysed and to the efforts at achieving integration, albeit primarily through convergence. While I do not want to exclude the possibility of Europe-wide regulation, we do take a rather sceptical view of European legislation as a consequence of its capacity for destroying functioning markets. Extensive studies are, in any case, still needed. We also, perhaps, need to face up to the fact that this is where we reach the outer limit of what can be standardised in Europe through legislation at the European level. I do not think this House's role as legislator is without its problematic aspects, since it, when the Commission itself says that more extensive investigations are needed, must, to some degree, stay its hand and should not be precipitate in calling for legislative initiatives - and, indeed, has not done that. I endorse the essence of the report.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, many thanks to Mr Purvis for the work he has done. The Green Paper on mortgage credit that the Commission published in July 2005 triggered intensive debate on whether the EU's legislators should initiate action, and, if so, in which areas.
Attempting to enact regulations applicable across Europe as a whole would seem to run up against very considerable differences between legal systems, and, above all, between financial cultures, but buying real property is the biggest decision on matters of expenditure that many households will take, and so the mortgage credit required to fund that is of commensurate importance. Studies show that private customers still - despite the euro and the internal market - have recourse to a credit institution they trust, as a rule to the bank with which they have an account, and that does of course have something to do with the fact that, of all financial markets, that for mortgage credit is the most complex. The giving of mortgage credit is therefore still carried out on a largely national, or indeed local, basis.
Of all mortgage credit, only 1% is taken out across borders, not least - or so one surmises - as a consequence of the market and tax barriers involved; further integration would represent an estimated net 1% gain for European mortgage markets - a not inconsiderable sum that would be achieved over no more than ten years. If, then, we want an internal market in mortgage credit, we will have to guarantee that new rules applicable to it will result in a measurable added value for private customers.
One of the most important things from the consumer's point of view is the ability to compare the various credit offers before signing a contract, along with the option of early repayment of part of the loan and the conditions subject to which variable or fixed interest rates may be agreed. The ways in which various associated charges are calculated must also be both comparable and transparent.
Any new rules must also improve the situation of borrowers with poor or incomplete credit ratings, above all by enabling them to afford mortgages. Persons in this category include workers on short-term contracts and younger workers in particular, and these potential borrowers should not be excluded from the mortgage market. Experience has shown that the voluntary code of conduct to which over 3 000 lenders signed up in 2003 has not, in fact, been complied with, and here too there is a need for the Commission to review the situation and take action.
In any case, though, the further integration of the EU's mortgage credit market would be beneficial not only to consumers but also to the economy.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (LT) I would like to thank the rapporteur for a well drafted report and to emphasise the importance of the initiated discussion on a common European mortgage market. New needs in the mortgage sector are emerging due to the rapid integration of the EU labour and capital markets, and the development of the internal market. We think it is extremely important to duly assess the emerging challenges.
First of all, there is a need to reduce the costs related to capital increase by creating a common market for mortgage financing and offering attractive and safe investment products. Secondly, there is a need to create favourable conditions for transition from the mortgage market of one country to that of another country in view of the increasing mobility of the labour force. Thirdly, there is a need to suitably organise the network of brokerage consulting services in order to provide the population with better choices and better access to more flexible and modern mortgage products. Fourthly, it is very important to enhance market transparency, as well as competitiveness, by unifying the payment procedures for various mortgage products and disclosing all costs related to the purchase of mortgage products.
Acquisition of housing is one of the major and most significant life investments; therefore, the impact of all proposals must be thoroughly assessed and considered. Presently, mortgage crediting is mostly developed within domestic markets and is very fragmented, while development of a common mortgage market is considered to be a possibility for the banks to offer their mortgage products via their branches in other European Union countries. Therefore, the creation of a new mortgage market will be a serious and demanding challenge for all of us.
(PL) Mr President, it is at present difficult to speak of a common European financial market. The financial market is highly fragmented, which causes legal, fiscal and regulatory problems. The majority of mortgages on the market are financed by the savings of small savers. Less than 40% of mortgages are financed by the capital markets, whose share is growing slowly, although this growth is insubstantial.
In Sweden and Germany there are quite extensive markets in mortgage bonds. In Denmark, for example, mortgage institutions issue bonds to the entire value of the mortgage credit. While the market for mortgage credit-based bonds is strong in many EU countries, there are some countries where they do not exist at all.
Over the last decade or so this market has also advanced a great deal in Poland, and this has had a substantial effect on economic growth. Seeing what a great impact this has had on the markets in our countries, I support the establishment of a legal framework allowing for effective portfolio transactions to be carried out.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, we are completing the consultation process launched by the Green Paper. Creating cross-border opportunities for lenders and borrowers raises important, but also very difficult, policy questions. There is no easy or quick fix.
Over the next couple of weeks, I will be discussing with my services the options available for moving forward. Parliament's balanced report is an important contribution to this. I thank Mr Purvis and Mr Medina Ortega.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 11.30 a.m.


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)
- (FR) Madam President, I would like to check something with you. Apparently it was decided, at the request of the French Presidency, to control photography during President Sarkozy's speech.
I would like to know who took this decision, who requested it, and who is in charge of photography at the European Parliament. Is it the European Parliament or the French Presidency? I would appreciate an answer before the start of the sitting.
Mr Cohn-Bendit, you will have an answer before the start of the sitting, but for now, if you do not mind, we will proceed with the voting.
- (FR) Madam President, as Quaestor of this Parliament, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the route to the Parliament entrance is blocked on one side by riot police. They are not allowing official cars to enter. If some Members arrive late because they have to make another detour, they should not be penalised if they cannot take part in the voting.
Mrs Lulling, clearly this will be taken into account, because some Members are having difficulty in being admitted to Parliament.