43. A new Digital Agenda for Europe: 2015.eu (


Membership of political groups: see Minutes


7. 10th Anniversary of the Mine Ban Treaty (Ottawa Convention) (vote)
- Motion for a resolution (B6-0518/2207)


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.45 p.m.)


Closure of the sitting


3. Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors (Mr Gijs M. de Vries, NL) (
(BG) This morning, activists from some environmental organisation took it upon themselves to deface sixteen of the twenty seven national flags of the Member States of the European Union. Whatever the point, whatever the cause, I believe, and I am certain that you will support me, that defacing national symbols should not be tolerated. Furthermore, defacing the Bulgarian national flag is a criminal offence under the Bulgarian criminal code, and the guilty party has to be handed over to the appropriate authorities. I am sure you will agree, regardless of the cause, that defacing national symbols of Member States must not be allowed.


7. Civil liability and financial guarantees of shipowners (vote)


1. The Radio Caracas TV Channel in Venezuela
The next item is the debate on five motions for resolutions on the case of 'Radio Caracas TV' in Venezuela.
author. - (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Venezuela we are witnessing the classic phenomenon of the gradual concentration of authoritarian power. The Venezuelan Government often speaks of itself as the promoter of a revolution and we should therefore be asking whether that revolution is leading in a democratic direction or not. Unfortunately it is not.
Things are increasingly moving in the opposite direction to freedoms, fundamental rights, pluralism and social harmony. There are other worrying phenomena that I could mention in the political, constitutional, legislative, social and also, recently, military spheres. These events are worrying for all democrats, for the Venezuelan people's friends in the world and also for the large Portuguese community that lives and works in Venezuela.
We know that the Venezuelans have paid a high price to win democracy over the last fifty years, and we want it to be maintained. We also know that political and social stability is valuable for democracy, freedom and peace.
Today we are focussing on the Radio Caracas Televisión case and on the threat that it represents to freedom of expression, a universal fundamental right. I shall not go into details, but it was his Excellency President Chávez who, on 28 December, announced the decision to close down the broadcasts of Radio Caracas, making extremely serious political accusations against it.
The competent authority did not issue the administrative act until three months later, on 28 March, and that act does not mention any of the serious accusations that the Venezuelan Embassy in Brussels has also communicated to us. None of these accusations have been brought before a court and the administrative act of the National Telecommunications Council (CONATEL) mentions other intentions involving the creation of a public service channel, in a process which, in our countries, we would consider illegal and arbitrary.
The mood has become more heated and we have seen people protesting against this decision in the streets. We also know from the polls that public opinion is against and we know that this is a political case, and, being a political one, it is therefore a bad case.
We are calling for the Rule of Law to be upheld and we are appealing for dialogue: dialogue and law. That is what is needed.
author. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, an international campaign is being conducted to delegitimise Venezuela, its freely elected President and all its democratic institutions. There is a direct relationship between today's debate and this international campaign; even the European Parliament is inappropriately debating an issue that is for the Venezuelan national government alone to decide. What is more, our debate focuses on an inappropriate sector, that of human rights violations, when in fact we all know that no human rights have been violated.
The reality is that this represents a political move; it is no accident that this agenda item was put forward by a group of MEPs and not by an official European Parliament delegation as some have tried to claim, to be precise, by a group of MEPs who went to Venezuela and met with members of the opposition only.
In reality, the non-renewal of the licence for Radio Caracas TV is a matter for the Venezuelan Government alone, and their decision respects the country's laws and constitution. Radio Caracas TV will be able to transmit via cable, satellite and the Internet, and therefore those who claim that the decision represents an act that is hostile to freedom of expression know this to be a lie. There are a great number of cases in Europe in which frequency licences are not renewed and yet this Parliament has never spoken of human rights violations and curbing freedom of expression.
The fact is that freedom of expression and pluralism of information and television broadcasts are guaranteed in Venezuela. In the particular case of Radio Caracas TV we are talking about a television station that played an active role in supporting the coup in 2002 and the oil blockade in 2002 and 2003. Any accusations of subversive activities should therefore be made to those who have encouraged the breakdown of Venezuela's democratic and constitutional regime through a terrorist campaign and by manipulating information, and certainly not to a democratically elected government actively demonstrating its social commitment.
author. - Mr President, RCTV is a privately-owned TV station, which has been operating in Venezuela for more than half a century. RCTV's history is, unfortunately, stigmatised mainly by its alleged controversial role in the April 2002 attempted coup in Venezuela. This is seen as the main reason behind the recent National Telecommunications Commission's decision, supported by a Supreme Tribunal decision, not to renew RCTV's broadcast licence.
Against this position, one has to set the upholding of the principle of freedom of the press and of media plurality. I admit the situation here is not black and white and the line separating one side of opinion from another is very fine, but only by a tiny margin we consider the freedom of the press prevails and any alleged ill-doing by the RCTV station must be properly substantiated in a court of law. Consequently, my group supports the resolution as it stands.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance believes that the non-renewal of the frequency licence for RCTV represents a politically inopportune precedent, insofar as such measures should be restricted to the specific cases laid down by law.
At the same time, we refuse to become involved in a campaign that is justified not only by events in Venezuela, but has arisen within a Member State of the European Union, that is to say in Spain, where this idea is actively used. In our opinion, dealing with such matters in an atmosphere of urgency, in a situation in which there is no opportunity for background work on freedom of expression, not only in Venezuela, I might add, but also in various other countries of the European Union, does not enable our Parliament to work on these issues in a credible manner.
We cannot divide ourselves into left and right on such subjects, we cannot take a vote in which one side of the Chamber goes one way and the other side goes another. We must send out a positive message that encourages dialogue and does not conjure up phantoms and devils. Although we will not support the resolution, we believe and we hope that approval will be given to a paragraph enabling our competent committees to work together on these issues to achieve a united position that may be of use to the debate in Venezuela.
It is not a question of interfering in national affairs, but words like 'legitimacy' and 'illegitimacy' are not to be bandied about at random. We are talking about a serious topic; we recognise that there is indeed a risk of restriction of freedom in Venezuela, but this does not justify a witch-hunt that is, moreover, unworthy of the European Union.
author. - (PL) Mr President, when we speak about freedom of speech and the fact that President Chavez decided not to renew the licence of one of the largest radio and television networks in Venezuela, we should consider in general terms what the limits of freedom are. We agree that freedom is not absolute, that it is restricted for the good of others, that it is limited by moral principles and that it may be restricted by legal principles. Freedom must serve a purpose. The freedom of the press is the very cornerstone of useful freedom.
That is why I am surprised that here, in this Chamber, there are those from the Left, as is often case, who are attempting to justify the fact that freedom can be limited simply because the freedom in question is that of political adversaries. Freedom for us, according to one of the previous speakers, is a good thing, but freedom for our adversaries is not. This kind of freedom is no freedom at all. This is something we have experienced and observed. We lived in a communist state where people said that freedom should exist, but only for us, and not for our adversaries, in keeping with the famous motto that 'there is no freedom for enemies of freedom'.
Communism fell and it seemed that we would have peace. Meanwhile, it turns out that Communism is like a hydra which springs back to life in various parts of the world and that there are those who defend it even here in this Chamber. They say that Mr Chavez is doing the right thing by silencing those he does not like, as it turns out that those people are also disliked by some of those present here.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us beware of the Left, the extreme Left, which is always prepared to defend all restrictions placed on human rights when it suits their purposes.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, dictatorships are not established overnight. They take form through a thousand small subversions of the democratic order - the targeting of opposition leaders, the subversion of the electoral commission, the vitiation of the judiciary, the dissolution of the national assembly and, not least, the silencing of independent media.
Hugo Chávez's Venezuela has something of the feel of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s. There are still elections, there are still opposition parties, there are still free newspapers, but the direction is unmistakable. True, President Chávez has not annulled the electoral process, but then there were elections every four years in the Comecon states throughout the Cold War. There are elections today in most of Mr Chávez's closest allies - Iran, Byelorussia, Zimbabwe - it is simply that opponents of the regime find it hard to contest those elections, and that is why we should be so alarmed by the harassment and expropriation of Mr Chávez's critics.
Venezuela is not Cuba, at least not yet, but the complacency exhibited by some in this House is at best naive, and at worst shameful. We are witnessing the slow asphyxiation of a once open and liberal polity. If we do nothing else, for heaven's sake, let us at least register our disapprobation!
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, I wish to speak in this House in defence of press freedom: here, in Venezuela and anywhere in the world.
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has supported a motion for a resolution, basically presented by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance with certain amendments, and we are still supporting it in this House.
We are doing so because there are elections in Venezuela, as previous speakers have said. Mrs Frassoni and I were there representing the European Union during the last elections, and we witnessed a fair election process. There is press freedom in Venezuela.
It is true that it is not good for press freedom to be restricted and we must be concerned about anything of that nature, but we must also acknowledge that the Venezuelan Government is a democratic government and that there are judicial guarantees. Any intervention by us could therefore be interpreted as the European Union interfering in the internal affairs of a country that is in a rather delicate situation.
Venezuela is currently split in two and the last thing we should do is contribute to a confrontation amongst Venezuelans. The role of this Parliament and of the European Union must be to act in a friendly manner towards the Venezuelan authorities, society and political forces in order to prevent this conflict from becoming any worse.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, it is true that President Chávez's economic and social policies are posing a big challenge to powerful interests and there may well be, as Mr Catania maintains, a campaign to delegitimise his government. However, we are not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of his socio-economic policies or indeed the internal politics of Venezuela. This motion for a resolution is an expression of worry about a suppression of pluralism and dissent, and that is our business. It is a shame if the elevation of President Chávez to an icon of anti-globalisation and anti-capitalism blinds some in this House to the drift towards an authoritarian and anti-democratic system. I find myself in rather rare agreement with Mr Hannan.
This has happened to the Mayor of my city, London, Mr Livingstone, who belongs to the Labour Party. A year ago he said: 'For many years people have demanded that social progress and democracy go hand in hand, and that is exactly what is now taking place in Venezuela. ... With Chávez the choice is not difficult at all. He is both carrying out a progressive programme and doing so through the mandate of the ballot box.'
It is true, as Mr Hannan has said, that there are still elections, but there is an undoubted drift towards autocracy and a suppression of opinions that do not fit with the regime. We had some amusement when six months ago Mr Livingstone went 5000 miles to try to see President Chávez but unfortunately got stranded in Cuba because the President could not find the time to see him. We had a laugh about that. However, it is quite serious when somebody who is democratically elected as the Mayor of, I would say, Europe's premier city, finds himself wishing to cosy up to someone who is not only populist but increasingly authoritarian. It is because there are breaches of human rights in Venezuela that we have this motion for a resolution.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Mr President, we have said it before and we must say it again: freedom of expression is not just a fundamental right, but it is also the guarantee of democracy. We must therefore condemn, and combat, any attempt to restrict it or violate it, wherever it takes place.
This is precisely what is expressed in the joint resolution presented by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, in which we call essentially for two things: firstly, for the Venezuelan State to guarantee the plurality of the media and non-concentration as a mechanism for promoting freedom of expression; and secondly, we call upon the Venezuelan media, both public and private, to treat information relating to electoral politics in an objective and impartial manner.
The resolution also takes note of the Venezuelan Government's statement that it will abide strictly by decisions taken by the judiciary, and we add that all of the parties should do exactly the same thing.
I sincerely believe that this is an extremely balanced resolution that is consistent with the principles of freedom of expression and plurality of the media. I can therefore only imagine that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Union for Europe of the Nations Group have presented their alternative proposal for reasons of Spanish domestic politics, not motivated by the fundamental issue that we are discussing but rather by the kind of political opportunism that we have seen on previous occasions in this House.
It ignores fundamental facts such as, for example, the fact that the non-renewal of the licence is only for VHF and not for broadcasts by cable, UHF, satellite or Internet.
It is not a question of deciding whether or not we are in favour of Hugo Chávez: that is not the issue. What we are talking about here is freedom of expression, but let us not indulge in demagoguery please.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the present resolution represents a further attempt by the conservative groups to exploit the subject of human rights for their own ends. This is not about the freedom of the media; it is about condemning the Venezuelan Government, one that has repeatedly received an overwhelming majority of the popular vote in democratic elections and is serious about fighting poverty and exploitation in its country - in contrast, of course, to most European governments, who with their neoliberal agenda are making the gulf between the haves and the have-nots ever wider.
In fact, it is Europe where the tackling of the power of private media moguls and private media conglomerates, and the establishment of a genuinely democratic media culture, is long overdue. Instead of arrogantly interfering in Venezuelan media politics, therefore, it would be far more appropriate to follow the example of the democratic and social standard of the Bolivian revolution. Europe, too, has alternatives to neoliberalism.
- (PL) Mr President, the President of Venezuela, Mr Hugo Chavez, has said that he will not renew the licence of one of the largest private television stations, Radio Caracas TV, which has been broadcasting for 53 years.
This move is nothing less than an attack on democracy and freedom of speech, as well as an attempt to undermine the position of private broadcasting companies that are critical of the Venezuelan Government. This decision is unacceptable and goes against all international treaties which Venezuela has signed and which compel it to respect the plurality of the media, not to mention the fact that Articles 57 and 58 of the Venezuelan constitution guarantee the freedom of speech, communication and information. Events taking place in Venezuela are extremely worrying, as they are yet another example of the flagrant abuse of human and civil rights in countries which call themselves democracies, such as Cuba, China or Venezuela.
The death of Anna Politkovska, a Russian journalist who denounced the Kremlin's activities in Chechnya, recently shocked the world. The European Union should clearly and emphatically denounce attempts to silence journalists who have dared to criticise the government. We cannot remain indifferent to the infringement of democratic principles.
(EL) Mr President, the superficial interest of the political groups of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Liberals and the Union for Europe of the Nations, to project on the pretext of freedom of expression and through a joint resolution by the European Parliament the groundless, false allegations by the owners of the Radio Caracas TV radio and television station and the reactionary political forces in Venezuela which together played a leading part in the attempted coup in 2002, in the oil embargo in 2003, in the subversive action during the referendum on the dismissal of the president and in the constant, blatant infringements of the rules of freedom of information, is a barefaced and unacceptable action against both the government and the people of Venezuela.
Information is a social commodity. 82% of radio and television stations belong to private companies. The spectrum of radio and television frequencies in Venezuela is a social asset that belongs to the people of the country and the legal representative for its management is its government. The government of Venezuela fully applies national and international rules on freedom of information.
It takes a great deal of courage for someone to attack the government of Venezuela from this tribune when it is clear that the reasons for the attack lie elsewhere. They basically want to restore the status quo ante in Venezuela, they want the wealth-producing resources in this country and they want the exploitation of the people of Venezuela to continue and the European Parliament and the people of Venezuela themselves will not allow it.
(CS) President Hugo Chávez has prevented Radio Caracas Televisión from renewing its license. Tens of thousands of Venezuelan citizens have gone out on to the streets to defend free broadcasting and they are expecting the help of democratic Europe. They are aware that if they lose their broadcasting freedom, what awaits them is the 'Cuban way'. They are aware that they will soon be prisoners in their own country, just like the Cubans, without independent information, because they are losing the opportunity to decide their affairs through democratic means. Chávez is planning to silence the media and to crush the opposition, which is warning that nationalisation and autocracy are bringing to the country not development, but food rations for poor people on the one hand, and luxury and unlimited power for the communist oligarchy on the other. Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia: this is a dangerous alliance of autocratic regimes spreading anti-democratic ideologies around Latin America and the Caribbean. Europe will not remain silent. We insist on Venezuela upholding its international obligations on human rights and on maintaining equal rights for independent media outlets.
Mr President, the Commission has been closely following the debate on the future of Radio Caracas TV, and our concern was raised at the outset by the statement made by the President of Venezuela and members of the Venezuelan Government to the effect that the frequency would not be renewed as of 27 May.
The Commission has raised this important issue with the Venezuelan authorities several times. We have always underlined each state's sovereign right to organise and regulate its own broadcasting policies, but we have also stressed the importance that the European Union attaches to freedom of expression as the cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law. In its contacts with the Venezuelan Government, the Commission has also underlined its support for all initiatives aimed at promoting dialogue and mutual understanding and stressed that licensing procedures for the broadcast media should be transparent and non-discriminatory.
The Commission received a letter in April from the head of television, Mr Granier, and members of Primero Justicia. It has also held meetings with the authorities and members of the Venezuelan Parliament and has listened carefully to the arguments and explanations offered by both sides.
I wish to assure Parliament that the Commission is keeping a close eye on developments through its delegation in Venezuela and by virtue of its close cooperation with the diplomatic representations of EU Member States in Caracas.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debates.


Dangerous substances and preparations (dichloromethane) (debate)
The next item is the report by Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC as regards restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (Dichloromethane) - C6-0068/2008 -.
Madam President, I actually wish that the French Presidency were here tonight, as I have to say that the cooperation that we had was extraordinarily good. Without its commitment and its willingness to find ways forward we would never have been able to reach an agreement. During the process, there was always a blocking minority on some issue or other. It is thus thanks to very good collaboration with the French Presidency that this legislation is now being realised, which is a very good thing.
What we are discussing is dichloromethane (DCM), a paint stripper. It is also an industrial chemical that is actually used a lot in the pharmaceutical industry. In its industrial application, however, it is entirely possible to protect workers and the environment when using this chemical. It is predominantly when it is sold to consumers that there are problems. DCM is a noxious chemical in that it is carcinogenic, has a narcotic effect and has harmful effects on health. It is easy to be affected by it. By the time you smell DCM, you have already exceeded the safety limit by a factor of three, which makes it extremely difficult to protect yourself against. A proper protective set-up consists of very high-spec gloves that have to be changed every three hours. You have to have equipment that usually costs around EUR 2 700 with an independent ventilation system.
The fact that this chemical is used today is very much dependent on the fact that it is used illegally. This meant that it was also important to restrict and prohibit use by professional users. It is often the self-employed and companies consisting of just a few staff who are out there cleaning up graffiti or stripping paint. The protective equipment is very often left at home or just not available at all. Banning this chemical is therefore, to a very large extent, a worker-protection issue. We know that, in those countries where it is used - which means 24 of the 27 Member States at present - DCM is hardly ever used properly in accordance with national and European legislation. I think it will suffice to quote the German Chemical Industry Association's own text, which states that even if there is good ventilation, paints are stripped in restricted areas, the paint residues removed are collected and the DCM pots closed immediately, the exposure limit is still exceeded on a regular basis. That is why self-contained breathing equipment is needed.
I think that it is very positive that the Commission put forward a proposal and that we have now reached a compromise that will, in practice, also prohibit professional use, with countries having the ability to obtain national derogations. However, those who obtain such derogations must guarantee that those who work with this chemical have suitable protective equipment, adequate training and awareness of the alternatives and they must be able to justify why they are unable to make use of these alternatives. It is, in fact, the case that there are functional alternatives available in all the areas in which dichloromethane is currently used. We are talking about the 5% that is used in the dangerous way, which is to say for paint stripping. The other 95% of the volume of DCM used is used within industry. It is a good thing that we are tightening up the protection of workers and the environment there, too.
All in all, I am, in fact, very satisfied with the agreement. It will improve people's ability to strip paint safely without being exposed to dangerous, carcinogenic chemicals. My fellow Members of this House have helped to make it possible to achieve this agreement so quickly, and I thank you all for that and for all the shadow rapporteurs and myself being able to reach agreement with the Council. This bodes well. This was, in fact, the last chance before REACH to ban chemicals in the old-fashioned way. It was therefore a type of grand finale for the old style of chemicals policy and it was certainly a good finale for us to reach agreement so efficiently.
In respect of DCM, there are those who argue that the alternatives may possibly be at least as dangerous, if not more so, but the assessments by the Commission and others have clearly shown that the alternatives are significantly less dangerous. We are now creating a market for the alternatives. The reality is that those companies that are currently grumbling will, in many cases, also manufacture the alternatives, while there are also smaller companies that manufacture alternatives. It is a good thing that they will now get the chance to exploit their competitive advantage of greater environmental protection in the internal market. We are heading for a safer future, and I thank everyone who has been involved in the process.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Schlyter, for his hard work on this proposal. We have now come to a good compromise with the Council, which can be accepted after the first reading.
It is question here of restricting the marketing of dichloromethane and its use in paint stripping products, in order to reduce the risks identified in several major studies carried out on behalf of the Commission. There is no doubt that dichloromethane is hazardous to human health because it is highly volatile. This volatility causes highly concentrated vapours to form in the ambient air which can easily be inhaled by users of paint strippers and which then have a direct toxic effect on the central nervous system.
In poor working or operating conditions, this has led to or contributed to fatal accidents in several Member States. The majority of accidents and fatalities have taken place in a commercial and professional environment, in particular as a result of inadequate ventilation and failure to use personal protective equipment. However, consumers have also been involved in accidents, although the number of accidents reported in this case is much smaller.
The Commission's proposal is intended to reduce as far as possible and as far as technically feasible the risks involved in the use of this hazardous chemical. In the version amended by Parliament and the Council, the sale of paint strippers containing dichloromethane to consumers will be banned completely. There should also be a ban on consumers using this substance, because they do not generally have the necessary personal protective equipment and cannot be trained or supervised to ensure that they use the substance safely.
The marketing and use of dichloromethane by professionals will be subject to a general ban. However, as some Member States believe that it is essential for professionals to continue using this substance in future, these Member States will be given the option of permitting its use under specific strict conditions. These Member States must impose specific rules and regulations for authorising professionals which fit into their existing national systems. Professional users will only be granted authorisation after they have completed a training course. The training course must, among other things, provide information about the risks of dichloromethane and the availability of alternative substances. Employers and self-employed people should preferably replace dichloromethane with other substances or procedures, taking into account the relevant workplace safety legislation.
The use of paint strippers containing dichloromethane will continue to be permitted on commercial premises, provided that all the necessary measures have been taken to keep the exposure of the people working there to a minimum. For example, it is essential to ensure that there is adequate ventilation in order to remain as far as possible within workplace limits. Measures to minimise evaporation from containers of paint stripper must also be put in place. In addition, protective respiratory equipment must be worn when the workplace limits are exceeded.
Mr Schlyter recommends that you support the compromise text negotiated with the Council. I also believe that this compromise represents a good balance. I am therefore in a position to give my full support to the compromise on behalf of the Commission.
Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur and reiterate that we have worked very well together to reach this compromise, which has the support of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. Attention must be drawn to the fact that this is a highly toxic product and that viable and safe alternative solutions do exist. Indeed, we cannot deny the hazards - as you mentioned, Mr Verheugen - associated with the use of dichloromethane, particularly if the conditions do not guarantee user safety. Often dichloromethane is used by individuals carrying out restoration work in their own homes. They find it to be an excellent and effective product, but do not realise that by using it in an enclosed space they risk losing consciousness very quickly, and that there is even a risk of death if due care is not taken.
Contrary to the extreme position of a total ban, as first proposed by the rapporteur, the compromise we have reached now leaves Member States the option of providing an exception for professional and industrial use, but under clearly defined conditions. This is a valid compromise and it is important to recognise that dichloromethane is responsible for many accidents. I regret, moreover, that we have very little information on the accidents at work that have happened. I would also point out that an impact assessment was performed before the Commission's work began and that its findings shaped the text. We must nonetheless ensure that very specific information is available to those individuals who may still be tempted to use this product, even though it is the Member States that are now responsible for drawing up clear rules and enforcing the general marketing ban on this product that is hazardous to health.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Carl Schlyter, and the shadow rapporteurs, on the very thorough and professional work that they have done on this dossier. It is a rare pleasure for me these days to be able to participate in debates arising from committee work and particularly at this time of day, or should I say at this time of night.
I have not had the privilege to participate in the debates in committee other than on one occasion when I wished to ensure that my colleagues understood the importance of voting to support the rapporteur's proposals. But this is an important issue, indeed an issue of life or death, and one that for me is doubly important because I have a particular constituency interest in it.
Dichloromethanes, as we have heard, are substances with a uniquely hazardous profile. They are so volatile that inhalation, even just the casual smell of them, is above all recognised health limits. They are carcinogenic and they cause neurotic effects with nerve damage. Under normal temperatures their use causes them to evaporate to dangerous levels. To work safely with dichloromethanes one needs an air-proof suit at a cost of about EUR 2 000, and to protect one's skin, gloves at a cost of EUR 25 or EUR 30, which need to be replaced every two or three hours.
Of course nobody does this, even if they know of the harmful nature of the substance. There is no effective way to ensure the safe use of dichloromethanes for the public. And, because they are so toxic, the rapporteur and the committee wanted to ban them, even for professional use, in order to prevent fatalities. Over the last eight years the Commission has on record some 18 fatalities from the use of these products and some 56 non-fatal injuries. I am sure that in reality there have been more. But there has been an industrial lobby which has created a blocking minority in Council, and for that reason the rapporteur and the committee reluctantly agreed to allow the Member States a derogation for professional use.
However, we have achieved not only strict protection for workers using them professionally, but also a commitment to control and inspection by the Member States. A complete ban on these products already exists in Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and I hope no Member State will ask for such a derogation. Industrial use is a different matter. These products can be used safely industrially in the right conditions.
Some Members have argued that they should be allowed to be used for the protection of cultural heritage, for the removal of paint from old monuments without damaging. But experts have suggested this would not be a good idea, and therefore my group will not be supporting any amendments tabled in that direction.
I mentioned that I have a constituency interest in this. I have been in correspondence with Commissioner Verheugen for seven years now on this issue. Why? Because I have in my constituency a company called Eco Solutions, which has developed a perfectly safe alternative to dichloromethanes. It is a water-based alternative. It has the same effect even if the process takes a little longer. I am sorry to say that the only Member State lobbying hard for the retention of dichloromethane use was the United Kingdom, which also produces in industrial quantities many such substances.
It took me four years' work with Commissioner Verheugen to get the Commission's expert committee even to look at the existence of this safer water-based alternative, and it has taken three years to get that water-based alternative recognised as an effective and useable technology. But I am pleased to say that, as with all the best stories, this one has a happy ending. Dichloromethanes will come off the market for non-industrial use. My constituents will become richer with their new technology, and everybody will live happily ever after thanks to the excellent work of Carl Schlyter and his colleagues on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
Madam President, dichloromethane or DCM is a dangerous chemical that can cause cancer, eye damage and acute damage to organs such as the heart, liver and kidneys. DCM is used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and as a paint stripper and degreaser, amongst other uses. Some Member States, such as Sweden, Denmark and Austria, have already introduced a ban on DCM.
It is a great thing that the issue of DCM is now on the agenda. It is even better that this agreement will mean a total ban on DCM when it comes to ordinary consumers. For this, I can but give high praise to our rapporteur, Mr Schlyter. Well done, Carl!
Unfortunately, workers in the pharmaceutical industry and those working on cleaning up walls and façades will continue to run the risk of suffering the effects of dichloromethane. This agreement will not, I am sad to say, mean a total ban on the professional use of DCM. This is a serious failing, and one that I hold the Commission entirely responsible for. This derogation, however, has been framed in such a way that what I hope is the small number of Member States that want to use DCM must guarantee that their workers do not suffer as a result. The burden of proof is thus on those countries that want to engage in the limited use of DCM, which must prove that the substance will be used in the safest possible manner and guarantee the protection of workers. In the end, this is quite acceptable.
By and large, this is a good agreement. I would like to urge the Commission to draw inspiration from this decision. Yes, we can! Let us now go further. I urge the Commission, please, is it not possible for you to give us an indication that, in the future, there will be more bans on hazardous substances such as carcinogenic azo dyes, bisphenol A and the flame retardant deca-BDE? If the EU cannot do this, why can you not permit individual Member States to go further and introduce their own bans? You, in the Commission, even go so far as to force the Member States to lift restrictions that they sometimes already have. My own country, Sweden, for example, was forced to allow azo dyes after joining the EU in 1995. Following threats from the Commission about legal action in the European Court of Justice, Sweden has now begun to permit deca-BDE. That is unacceptable and, more than anything, it is not environmentally friendly. That is not the way to conduct a progressive programme of environmental legislation. Commission, Commissioner Verheugen, please do convince me otherwise! Prove that environmental considerations take priority over the demands of the market in more cases than this single example.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, dichloromethane, which is available on the market and is authorised for common use in the shape of various commercial products, is also widely used in the chemical industry, as well as the textile and pharmaceutical industries. Dichloromethane is easily absorbed by the human body, it is highly toxic and carcinogenic, and is responsible for many cases of poisoning, including fatal accidents. In Poland alone, the number of people exposed to this chemical agent in the workplace is estimated to stand at several thousand. While industrial use of the chemical can be effectively controlled, the use of dichloromethane by individual consumers, or even by professional companies, is inevitably associated with a risk to human health and life, not only due to the fact that there is no way of implementing proper controls, but also due to the high cost of implementing protective measures.
All warnings and measures to regulate the use of dichloromethane have proved to be ineffective, in view of the high toxicity and the volatility of this chemical compound, which is why it is necessary to completely withdraw dichloromethane from widespread consumer use. Economic factors should not be used as a reason for maintaining this poison in common use. We must also avoid using the interests of industries which manufacture products containing DCM as an argument to support restricted consumer use of dichloromethane. As far as the common usage of this compound is concerned, the cost to society far outweighs any material benefits.
Madam President, I agree with the very last phrase that the Commissioner used, that we can welcome this compromise and, on that basis, I congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs on bringing this together.
It has been a hard road to get to this. Originally the Commission came forward with a proposal to ban this substance for individual use - not for professional use - and the rapporteur brought forward these proposals to extend this to professional use. And so we listened to the evidence of our constituents, as Graham Watson has done. He has talked about industrial lobbies. He has also referred to an industrial lobby in his constituency, which successfully persuaded him of the alternative. We know that 90% of paint strippers use DCM, so we had to look at the balance of this.
None of us wants to go over the top in our descriptions of the dangers. Sometimes when I was listening this evening to the hazards of this substance, I wondered why we are satisfied that industrial workers should be subjected to it but not allow professionals to use the substance, within the rules and under strict guidance; and all the clothing that Graham Watson is going to issue to people in the future - these white suits, or whatever they are, a space-age parliamentary benefit - will be coming.
I think that this, among many other substances, poses a high risk. It is potentially hazardous. There is evidence that there have been accidents and people have been hurt. It is probably right that we take stronger action than has been taken in the past. That is why I accept and genuinely welcome the compromise that is being sought. It leaves the door open to Member States that wish to, and believe it is right to, continue under the tight rules that have been laid down to allow professionals - and only professionals - to use this in addition to industrial use.
But, Commissioner, you now have a responsibility to go back and do the research on the alternatives. Look at the alternatives that are available: NMP has been available for 11 years, but only now is found to be reprotoxic; there are flammable solvents that can cause glue-sniffing problems; there are date-rape drug substances that are seen as safe alternatives; there is DBE, about which not much is known; and there are the more basic blowlamps and sanding methods that can be used, although dust and other problems arise there. So let us now go back and thoroughly investigate the alternatives so that we really can be sure that we are providing a safer alternative for our constituents. If we find that some of the alternatives are no less dangerous, then I am sure the Commissioner or his successors will be back to tell us so and to bring forward a proposal - and if they do not I am sure Carl Schlyter will.
(CS) Madam President, dichloromethane has narcotic effects causing damage to the central nervous system and loss of consciousness, as well as cardiotoxic effects. If it is misused there is a direct risk of death and this factor has implications for terrorism. I therefore support a ban on its use by ordinary consumers and strict restrictions on professional use. As alternative and possibly less toxic bleaching substances exist, then in my opinion it is unnecessary to permit exceptions. However, the proposal we will vote on tomorrow will allow Member States to apply to the Commission for exceptions in justifiable cases, although under very strict conditions. I would like to know how the Commission or anyone else will assess the validity of applications for exceptions and how they will monitor compliance with the restrictions.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by saying a few words to Mr Watson. You have played an important role in bringing about this proposal. At the time when you told me in person about the problem which you had had for several years with the Commission, I realised that there were alternatives to this substance and I am sure you will agree that from then on things moved very quickly. I personally instructed my Directorate-General to present the proposal because it was clear to me as a result of my dealings with you that there were alternatives. I have stated on another occasion in this Parliament, and I would ask Mr Holm in particular to listen to this, that although I am the Commissioner with responsibility for enterprise and industry, I do not believe that an industrial product which is hazardous should remain on the market simply so that it can be used to earn money. I am of the opinion that, when there is an alternative which can replace a hazardous industrial product, it should be replaced. This is the principle which I have adhered to when we discussed and adopted REACH in this Parliament. All the substances which you referred to, Mr Holm, are now governed by REACH.
Dichloromethane would normally also be covered under the terms of REACH, but because the health risks are so evident and because there have been so many cases, we have given priority to this substance. It is possible that we will have to act in the same way in the case of other substances if the health risks are equally obvious and if we cannot wait until the very comprehensive and demanding REACH procedure has been completed.
I would also like to make it clear, Mr Holm, that I would also have voted in favour of a more far-reaching compromise. If Parliament had been able to agree with the Council on banning the commercial use of dichloromethane, I would have voted in favour this evening. Please do not hold the Commission responsible for the fact that there are several Member States who did not want to take this further for reasons which I am not familiar with. This is the reason why the Commission presented its proposal in the way that it did, because we wanted to produce a proposal which had a chance of being accepted and this is now what has happened.
My last remark concerns the comments made by Mr Bowis in relation to the toxic effects of the alternatives. With chemicals it is always a question of weighing up the degree of risk involved. Our thorough and comprehensive studies have shown that none of the alternative substances currently on sale have the properties of dichloromethane which are so dangerous, in other words the direct toxic effect on the central nervous system. This occurs only with dichloromethane and not with the other substances.
We are aware of very few accidents involving the alternative substances. This also applies to countries where the use of dichloromethane has already been banned, such as Denmark, Austria and Sweden. If the situation should change, the Commission will, of course, investigate and, if necessary, propose measures governing other substances.
Finally, I would like to comment on the remarks made by Mr Holm, which I temporarily forgot, concerning the question of whether the Commission will force Member States to abolish progressive environmental or health regulations, because they conflict with internal market regulations. The Commission will not do this. Current legislation states explicitly that Member States have the right to enact national regulations which differ from those of the internal market if they believe that this is necessary for health or environmental reasons.
As I am responsible for monitoring the notification of these differing regulations, I can tell you that the Commission acts on the basis of a clear and unambiguous principle in this case. We take the healthcare-related and environmental arguments of the Member States seriously. If they enact different regulations for these reasons, we do not force them to revoke their environmental and health regulations. If you have any information from recent years to back up your accusation, I would like to find out more specific details, so that I can refute your claim. The case that you mentioned dates back to 1995, which means that I had nothing to do with it.
Madam President, I would like to come back on what Mr Watson said. He, too, has played his part. Though you are not a member of our committee, you have still had an impact on our committee and helped us to reach a compromise. Of course, the staff who have helped me to reach this agreement have also played an important role.
I can only reiterate what Commissioner Verheugen said. The Commission has been clear throughout the process, at least with me, that if the Council and Parliament had reached a more far-reaching compromise involving a total ban, the Commission would have accepted it. There has been no lack of clarity between the Commission and me in relation to this issue.
I would just like to illustrate this chemical to you all. If I were to open a single one-kilo pot here and now, spread it over the benches and paint it out, we would, in fact, somewhat exceed the safe limit throughout this exceedingly large chamber. That is how very toxic this particular chemical is.
I can only conclude this debate by appealing to the Commission to ensure, now, that those Member States which apply for a derogation for professional use have that derogation revoked if these new, stricter rules are regularly broken. We know, everybody knows, and all the studies show that, if dichloromethane is used correctly in such a way that the health of the workers involved is protected, this substance is both uneconomical and unecological. If DCM is allowed to behave according to proper market conditions, which is to say if the legislation is complied with, its own uncompetitiveness will very quickly mean that DCM will be completely abandoned to be replaced by the alternatives. I will take this opportunity to appeal to the Commission to ensure that the regulations are complied with. If this is done, DCM will phase itself out sufficiently quickly.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
With today's decision, the European Parliament is significantly restricting the use of the paint stripper known as dichloromethane. As the shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I welcome the decision, into which we have put a lot of work. In recent years there have been many fatalities as a consequence of dichloromethane use. This extremely volatile substance is damaging to the nervous system, and for the same reason is also carcinogenic. The victims were primarily individual users, those decorating their own homes and house decorators, since in industrial use certain safety regulations are observed. The concentrations measured in certain European industrial plants were so high that - in case of prolonged exposure - they would cause cancer in 10% of the workers.
According to the compromise text that has now been adopted, dichloromethane can in future be used as a paint stripper only in industry and under strict safety regulations. Consumers and professionals will have to strip unwanted paint using one of the many equally effective but non-harmful alternative chemicals or, for instance, by pyrolitic/thermal stripping.
The most important point is that this carcinogenic substance should not be permitted to be used in enclosed public areas such as shopping centres and underpasses, since the vapour produced by volatile substances is heavier than air, and therefore measurements have shown that it sinks downwards and endangers children in particular. In making its decision, our political group took ample account of the opinion of the trade unions concerned, since in the case of industrial use, our main concern is the health of the workers.
Madam President, as we know, many dangerous chemical substances are authorised for general use, in spite of the dangerous ingredients they contain. One of these substances is dichloromethane (DCM), which is generally used for manufacturing pharmaceuticals, solvents and other products.
It is a substance that is particularly harmful to human health, as it is classified as a carcinogen. It damages the nervous system and causes serious damage to internal organs, which can directly lead to death.
In view of their higher respiratory rate, children are more susceptible to dichloromethane poisoning, as are people with cardiovascular diseases. It also alarming that there have been deaths linked to dichloromethane poisoning.
In view of the fact that we know that there are products on the market which could provide an alternative to products containing dichloromethane, as well as the fact that certain Member States have banned the use of this substance, introducing a total ban on its usage seems essential.
A further argument in favour of banning DCM should be the fact that, as experts have pointed out, we cannot ensure that consumers will use DCM safely.
The Commission's proposal to introduce training on the use of products containing DCM for professional purposes will cost approximately EUR 1.9 billion in its first year of implementation.
Withdrawing DCM from general circulation therefore seems to be the most sensible and responsible solution.


3. Palestinian prisoners in Israel (vote)


Corrigendum to the minutes of the sitting of 5 May 2010: see Minutes


Anti-dumping cases - state of play and prospects (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on anti-dumping cases - state of play and prospects by Daniel Caspary, Cristiana Muscardini, Tokia Saïfi, Georgios Papastamkos, Kader Arif, Bernd Lange, Gianluca Susta, Metin Kazak, Niccolò Rinaldi, Marielle De Sarnez, Yannick Jadot, Carl Schlyter, Helmut Scholz, Robert Sturdy, Syed Kamall, Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left and the European Conservatives and Reformists - B7-0562/2010).
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, anti-dumping measures play an important role in the world. For us in the European Parliament, and I believe I can speak for the majority of Members here, this is not about protectionism, but about a sensible use of the anti-dumping instrument. We must be able to defend ourselves if other countries distort competition using state subsidies. We must be able to defend ourselves if companies dump products onto the market, in other words, if they sell products at less than the cost of producing them, in order to force their competitors out of the market and to gain an illegitimate advantage.
I would like to look at one point in particular. I would be interested in answers to the following questions from the Commission. Does the Commission have any experience or any feedback from the Council on the extent to which foreign governments are involved in these activities? Are there cases where governments in whose countries specific companies are based attempt to influence the decisions made in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices? Have there been reactions or perhaps even attempts to exert influence which have led to a difference in the results of votes? I would be interested in finding out about this, because companies have come to me in the past with their concerns.
My second point is that on several occasions companies have approached me and asked me to make contact with the Commission and to prevent anti-dumping investigations from taking place in certain cases. If you impose an anti-dumping duty, this will have a negative impact on European companies doing business in other areas, such as Asia. I would be interested to know what the Commission's feeling is in this respect. What is the current state of affairs? Are there cases of this kind?
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to challenge the Commissioner to clarify as fully as possible the position of the Commission on trade defence instruments, which include anti-dumping measures. The fact is that in a recent communication the Commission said that open trade depends on fair competition between national and foreign producers, and added: 'we protect EU production from international trade distortions or disruptions, by applying trade defence instruments in compliance with [World Trade Organisation] rules'. That is all well and good. However, besides a good legal basis there also needs to be an effective and predictable decision-making mechanism so that these objectives can be achieved.
My question is as follows: could it be that the Council's recent proposal on Member States controlling the Commission's implementing acts, which include trade defence measures, correspond to this wish for a guarantee that trade defence measures are actually undertaken? I recall that this decision by the Council provides for exemptions from the general committee rules, which means that it is possible to make difficult, if not block, delay and, at the very least, politicise decision making on this matter, which is the Commission's responsibility. My second question concerns the following: in this communication the Commission also mentions that it is going to analyse the way in which to proceed with the updating and modernisation of our trade-defence instruments, along with the relevance of doing so. My concern is this: If the Commission does not fight this proposal by the Council on the procedure of deciding upon trade-defence measures, can it give us any guarantee that when it comes to the issue of reviewing them, it will resist the Member States which are interested in undermining and weakening the application of trade-defence measures?
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are only a few of us here this evening to talk about anti-dumping, which is, however, an issue we speak about a great deal in our own countries. I believe that there is no issue in international trade that business people, small and medium-sized enterprises, trade unions and consumers care more about than dumping. Dealing with dumping is basically a daily task for a large part of our productive economy.
The Commission is working hard and is certainly doing its duty when it comes to anti-dumping initiatives, but we are calling for action based on the following principles.
Firstly, transparency of action, full transparency of procedures, of the evaluation criteria adopted and their results, and then communications and a communications strategy, because the actions taken on anti-dumping by the European Commission can serve to reassure our business people and workers.
Secondly, there is space for the exercise of discretion in anti-dumping procedures. This is common sense, but sometimes I have the impression that too much discretion is exercised in the decisions that are taken.
Thirdly, following the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament must be better integrated, involved and informed. It seems to me that there the Commission is labouring somewhat to recognise Parliament's role in international trade - even though much effort has been made, for which we are grateful to the Commissioner - and Parliament certainly needs to have a stronger voice on anti-dumping as well.
Lastly, there is the question of dialogue with society. Once again, perhaps, the Commission still has much to do on this issue. Parliament cannot merely sit and listen to the players in society, including in anti-dumping matters. In this respect, the Commission should probably take note of the new requirements with respect to the exclusive powers on international trade recognised to it by the Treaty of Lisbon.
Lastly, it is clear to us that anti-dumping must be part of a coherent commercial strategy and an integrated policy based on the criteria of honesty and openness. Bearing this in mind, Europe will be able to move forward with its head held high.
Mr President, we can now see the consequences here. It is a shame that the Commission did not take the opportunity to reform the Trade Defence Instruments in 2007 when we were talking about Global Europe, which was perhaps the original intention. When it comes to the question of the Treaty of Lisbon and which decision-making procedure we should have, perhaps none of those that exist really fit our purposes properly. However, we Greens actually have no problem with the question of implementation, provided the rules are clear, transparent and fair.
I would like to emphasise that, in this context, it is also important not only to safeguard the interests of producers, but also to include the interests of consumers and the actual purpose itself, just as Mr Caspary said, namely to put a stop to dumping below the actual costs. In this regard, however, I would like to stress that the actual costs must include environmental dumping. Obtaining an economic advantage by circumventing environmental legislation is just like obtaining another form of subsidy besides economic dumping, but in the form of the environment. It must be possible to include it when we look at the dumping issue.
We talked previously about trade policy as an instrument for achieving other goals. In this case, it may even be more effective to use anti-dumping measures to prevent carbon dioxide leakage within the Emissions Trading System, for example. In the current system there is a long list of hundreds of business sectors, covering tens of thousands of companies, with four different criteria for when they are to be granted exemption from the ETS or receive free allocation. In this case it is, of course, much easier to instigate anti-dumping proceedings when a European company is affected by unfair competition on account of a lack of environmental responsibility in other countries.
Mr President, Mr De Gucht, ladies and gentlemen, we have already discussed in the previous debate the need to put trade policy into a broader context and to comply with, protect and implement international law. One of the legal frameworks which the European Union and its Member States form part of is the World Trade Organisation (WTO). However, my group has been critical of its shortcomings right from the beginning and particularly in this respect. The Commission is under an obligation to protect European companies and their employees from unfair competition using the anti-dumping instruments permitted by the WTO. In concrete terms, this is about selling products below cost. We are calling on you to expand the definition of production costs and to apply this definition multilaterally, because social dumping and environmental dumping, as other speakers have already emphasised, cause production costs to fall. The result is unfair competitive pressure on European companies, which may even put their survival at risk. We are threatened by a global downward spiral, which we cannot and will not accept.
Against this background, we must continue to work on defining objective criteria for the use of the instruments, because they currently have the reputation among countries both outside and inside the European Union of being arbitrary. One reason for this is the lack of a functioning appeal body. Some small and medium-sized businesses inside the EU are complaining that their interests are seen as less important than those of larger companies when the anti-dumping instruments are used. This applies particularly to the global division of labour for manufacturing firms in Europe. These companies are questioning whether the Commission still has a clear overview of the consequences of the measures it imposes. I would like the Commission to address this using the specific example of case AD549, with the keyword being the European Saint-Gobain group. The Commission's decision on this company may well help to support it, but from our perspective it also puts many jobs in small and medium-sized manufacturing companies at risk. My question to you, Mr De Gucht, is: Were adequate investigations carried out, were there appropriate opportunities to object, were these opportunities used and were the small and medium-sized companies given enough information about the procedures?
author. - Mr President, I would say this to the Commissioner: since the start of the economic downturn, the Commission has repeatedly promised not to turn to protectionist policies but to embrace liberalisation - which you yourself have been very much in favour of - create opportunities for European businesses and make a more attractive opportunity in Europe for investment.
While I agree that anti-dumping measures must be used where they are necessary, the problem is, of course, whether you use them as a protectionist measure. The sheer number of anti-dumping investigations at the moment would suggest that they are being so used.
On this matter, Commissioner, I beg to differ with you on a particular problem in Belgium with an electronic company about which I spoke to you only about three or four weeks ago. In actual fact they have come to an agreement and they have sorted it out themselves, yet you have not dropped the anti-dumping legislation against that particular company. It was a Chinese company and a Belgian electronic company. They have sorted it out and are actually working together specifically to provide job opportunities in the European Union.
I will give you another example. We have a situation within the United Kingdom - and, for that matter, Europe - over fibreglass, which has an import duty at the moment of (and I stand to be corrected on this) 43.6%. This is a useful product used right across the United Kingdom and Europe for the manufacture of a number of products.
Finally, Commissioner, let me remind you that it was not you, not your predecessor but the predecessor of your predecessor who put in place anti-dumping legislation on fertiliser. Regarding agricultural products, at the moment we are deeply worried about the cost of production, supply and security of food. Yet the actual costs of fertiliser - because you have put in place anti-dumping legislation - have risen by 173%. Why is this happening? We must open up our markets. I trust you, of all people, implicitly to actually get rid of this protectionism across Europe. I look forward to hearing your answers.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am happy that the European Parliament shares our view that the defence of EU production against international trade distortions should be considered as a necessary component of an open and fair trade strategy.
I share your view that trade defence instrument (TDI) decisions must continue to be founded on technical and factual elements, and I am confident we have one of the most effective and fairest trade defence systems in the world. I am aware that, in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations, there are many interests at stake and that some stakeholders attempt to influence the decision. Nevertheless, I can confirm that the decision-making process is effective, transparent and based on factual evidence and thorough analysis.
I acknowledge that third parties have recently tried to influence our decision making by pressuring industries or, indeed, Member States and companies operating in these third countries. I strongly condemn such actions. In this context, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon provides an opportunity to address this problem.
I would like to assure you that the number of TDI cases remains stable over the medium and long term: so, in response to Mr Sturdy, no, it is not going up. We have managed to avoid any significant increase which could have happened as a result of the world recession, and have ensured that the anti-dumping instrument would not be used for protectionist purposes.
Most statistics show that the number of cases in the EU remains lower than in our main trading partners. China remains, by and large, the main source of unfair trade (around 35% of cases launched by the EU are against China). I am determined to take action where necessary, and this includes anti-subsidy action.
Mr Sturdy also put a question with respect to a recent case, the so-called 'modem case', where the Commission had, in fact, looked at three aspects: the dumping, the subsidisation and also the safeguards. The dumping and the subsidisation were investigated on the basis of complaints by the company concerned and, according to the basic regulations, complainants can withdraw their complaints. EU law stipulates that, where a case is withdrawn, the proceedings can be terminated unless such termination would not be in the Community interests. We are currently examining the implications of the withdrawals. It should be pointed out that the Commission has accepted such withdrawals in the past and has consequently terminated investigations without taking measures.
On the third case, concerning the safeguards, this is, in fact, a complaint initiated by the government concerned in the case - the Belgian Government - so that is a somewhat different procedure. The company concerned (Option NV) has now informed the Commission that it has asked the Belgian Government to withdraw the request for the imposition of safeguard measures, but the Belgian Government has not yet informed the Commission whether it will comply with Option's request, so we are waiting for the Belgian Government to take a decision on its position. That is precisely what has happened in this case.
Now, continuing on the broader issues, trade defence instruments are there for good reasons. In the absence of international competition rules and other rules associated with properly functioning markets, trade defence instruments are the only possible means of protecting our industry against unfairly traded goods. We seek to use these rules in the most efficient way for our industries. The existence of time limits ensures quick action for the industry and predictability for exporters. I intend to keep our instruments effective and fair, for the benefit of all the economic operators concerned.
The international rules on trade defence are being renegotiated in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The EU position there is clear: we want to maintain the effectiveness of our instruments while protecting our business against protectionist actions by others. These WTO negotiations, as well as changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon, are important in relation to any review of our rules that we would wish to undertake.
As regards SMEs, trade defence instruments indeed represent a challenge for SMEs, in terms of both costs and complexity. There is a need to reduce the administrative burden for SMEs in trade defence investigations. This is why I have commissioned a study to look at the specific difficulties that SMEs face when dealing with TDIs, and at possible solutions to alleviate these difficulties.
Regarding the institutional aspects, you will have noted that the comitology proposal submitted by the Commission in March provides for Parliament to be fully informed as to the committee proceedings. The Commission will also provide information on the proposed measures on which the committees are asked to deliver an opinion, the final measures and the final adoption by the Commission. At any time, Parliament can obtain further information on request.
In this context, let me confirm that the Commission is effectively ready to make a proposal on the alignment of the trade defence instruments with the new system of control of delegated and implementing acts (this is the so-called 'trade omnibus'). However, as you are aware, there is significant discussion between the institutions on the overall issue of implementing acts. The Commission is carefully following the discussion and gauging, on the basis of contacts with the other institutions, when such a proposal should be adopted by the Commission. However, let me be clear that the only issue is that of when the proposal will be made, not whether it will be made.
There was also the specific question by Mr Moreira on the comitology. There, I would like to be very clear. I see no argument whatsoever in the Treaty of Lisbon for having special treatment for comitology when it concerns trade, and we will not agree to that. Of course, the decision is in the hands of Parliament and the Council, although the Commission could also have a role to play, as, ultimately, could the European Court of Justice. Introducing a different majority - because that is what it really comes down to - for overruling the Commission on questions of trade is not acceptable to us, and it is certainly not acceptable to me.
Finally, regarding the use of trade defence instruments by third countries, we have indeed observed an increase since the beginning of the economic crisis.
I would like to assure you that we follow trade defence actions by third countries closely, and we take action when necessary - including intense monitoring, effective support for EU exporters affected and, indeed, the initiation of dispute-settlement procedures at the WTO.
In many cases the Commission's actions lead to the termination of the investigation without the imposition of measures. In other cases, these interventions often result in lesser measures being imposed on the EU exporters concerned.
There was also a question about possible forms of retaliation towards third countries in respect of pressures exerted on European companies. We have received petitions on this matter from European companies but we do not disclose their names, in order to protect them. For example, in a recent case involving China, China attacked the dispute settlement in the WTO and the panel supported us, but we have not made public the names of the companies concerned, and I think this was also to protect the companies.
Two final questions were on whether we are going to review the trade defence instruments. We are not, because I truly believe it is not necessary. There is an enormous amount of work to be done on trade in the coming years, and I must say that I do not want to reopen certain discussions through such a review process. I would consider doing so only once the Doha Round is over.
There was also a specific question by the Green member. Mr Schlyter, your question is an interesting one, I must say, because, as you most probably know, these anti-dumping cases are introduced by companies. They are taken on the basis of a complaint by a company. So if a company were to raise the issue that you put forward concerning carbon leakage, then the Commission would, of course, investigate and see whether the case ought to result in measures being imposed. But the issue is certainly not beyond the scope of the arguments that we consider. We consider the arguments that are put forward by the companies concerned, so if a company were to put this before us then we would certainly look into the matter.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, anti-dumping represents one of the most incisive instruments for defending commercial decency in the European Union in order to compete fairly on the market. It needs clear and enforceable rules within the new comitology.
The Treaty of Lisbon clearly states that the Commission is responsible for executive acts. The Council and Parliament have the power to monitor the work of the Commission. The compromise under examination today removes the role assigned to Parliament by the Treaty of Lisbon and could therefore create a new democratic deficit within the institutions.
In detail, we do not understand and we reject the proposal to apply differential treatment to anti-dumping measures, which introduces elements of discretional decision making, politicisation and legal uncertainty to proceedings, which should instead aim to protect the legitimate interests of businesses damaged by practices of unfair competition.
At a time of serious economic crisis like the present, it seems unreasonable and masochistic to make the conclusion of anti-dumping procedures complicated and perhaps impractical. Indeed, that would be the result of the current proposal if it were not amended.
We appeal to the Member States' sense of responsibility, as well as to that of the Commission, since their common interest must be to guarantee greater development. Development is only possible in the presence of rules that prevent market distortion, respect institutional roles and make procedures swift.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over recent years the number of anti-dumping procedures applied by the European Commission has increased. This is a sign of the increase in unfair practices operated by other countries against European businesses. Despite the economic and financial crisis, some 332 protectionist measures have been adopted by our international partners over the last two years.
We believe in free but fair international trade which is based on sharing rules which are the same for everyone. It is important to safeguard the effectiveness of Europe's instruments of commercial protection, which are used to correct illegal situations.
I am profoundly concerned about the effects that the current attempts to reform comitology may have on the effectiveness of these instruments. Leaving space for political and diplomatic negotiations to decide on the application of anti-dumping measures risks perverting a process that should instead remain based on concrete, objective information.
Mr President, I would like to return to what my colleague, Mr Sturdy, was talking about here. Anti-dumping is a good servant but a bad master. Just as it serves to protect European companies and the European economy from unfair competition and unfair commercial practices, so can it be abused in the interests of protectionism, unfortunately, to close European markets to imports from third countries. I therefore call on the Commission, and I call on you, Commissioner, not to allow such a development, and for us to warn against anti-dumping measures being abused in the interests of protectionism and in the interests of closing the European market and European economy to the rest of the world. In my opinion, this would not benefit us, and, in my opinion, a closed fortress Europe would benefit no one and, in my opinion, history always shows that if Europe is open and cooperates with the rest of the world, then it only benefits from this. Please bear this in mind.
(DE) Mr President, cheap labour and social dumping are methods which are used very frequently in developing and emerging countries. The problem of anti-dumping shows how important it is to call for environmental and social standards, in particular, and also trade protection measures during negotiations on free trade agreements with third countries. European companies in all areas of manufacturing must not be put at a disadvantage because of their high quality standards, which, of course, are reflected in their prices. The developments during the current Mercosur negotiations are causing me great concern in this respect.
We must not open the door to social dumping, but instead we must incorporate a sustainable approach into trade agreements. Dumping is a major problem in the agricultural industry, in particular when it results in the disappearance of small, independent farms which are replaced by agricultural contractors.
In this context, I would like to highlight the own-initiative report on trade relations between the EU and Latin America. This report clearly explains the concerns of the European Union on social, environmental and production standards. I would like to thank the Members who raised this important question with the Commission.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, this will be a very short reply. I still have to answer the question put by Mr Scholz on the Saint-Gobain glass fibre case.
Anti-dumping duties can make supplies more expensive - including for SMEs. The Commission is calculating this potential impact under the public interest test. SMEs can participate in the proceedings. We have an SME helpline to make cooperation easier. However, in this case, the impact is small because China has only 14% of the EU market.
Regarding the question put by Mr Zahradil on the use of the trade defence instrument as a protectionist tool and the risk of this happening, the only factor that influences the number of cases is the number of complaints received by the Commission and the quality of the evidence provided. The Commission's trade defence policy is a rules-based system in line with WTO rules. If a complaint is filed and there is sufficient substantiating evidence that dumping is taking place, then the Commission has no other choice than to open an investigation.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
In order to protect the European economy, it is necessary to introduce effective restrictions on the process used to lobby on behalf of products which originate in third countries. These products are very often made using materials which contain substances which are harmful both to the environment and to consumers. A conspicuous example are children's toys - dangerous ingredients contained in the paints or plastic parts can cause health problems, and poor workmanship can cause an accident which ends up with a visit to hospital. It is in precisely this way, of course - by using cheap materials and not paying attention to workmanship - that it is possible to achieve low retail prices and to flood markets. We must rigorously increase control over production of imported articles and ensure effective enforcement of the legislation which governs the introduction of cheap products from third countries to the European market. Trade protection instruments must be effective and must guarantee that all our businesses have fair conditions of competition.


Announcement by the President
Ladies and gentlemen, the Conference of Presidents has asked me to issue a statement in this connection and I can say, quite categorically, that there will be no debate or discussions on this matter. No speeches will be accepted.
The Conference of Presidents has instructed me to provide you with the wording of a press release issued yesterday by the President of Parliament and to make an additional comment in relation to this statement.
By a very large majority, the Conference of Presidents adopted the content of a press release which the President of the European Parliament issued yesterday on the issue of Mr Bronisław Geremek's mandate. Yesterday's press release reads as follows:
'The European Parliament has not, as yet, received any communication from the Polish authorities concerning Mr Geremek's mandate: Bronisław Geremek is a politician of high standing who has always supported democracy in his own country and European integration. We will examine all legal avenues to ensure that Mr Bronisław Geremek may continue his work.'
(Loud applause)
My statement from yesterday continues as follows: 'According to our information, the Constitutional Court in Poland is currently also investigating the questionable law on which the withdrawal of Mr Geremek's mandate is based. A decision by the court is expected over the next week. I have commissioned the European Parliament's legal service to check the exact legal position. This topic will also be discussed tomorrow by the Conference of Presidents.'
Ladies and gentlemen, this has just happened and the Conference of Presidents conveys its sympathy and solidarity to our fellow Member, Mr Bronisław Geremek.
(Loud applause)


Documents received: see Minutes


Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes