1. Mediation in civil and commercial matters (vote)
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - Mr President, just a little bit of respect for a rapporteur from my colleagues would be appreciated!
I shall be very brief. It was not possible to schedule a debate on this report; there are no amendments; we are voting because we want to now open discussions with the Council and the Commission.
I also wanted to say that this is not the last word, and we reserve the right to reopen some of these compromises if necessary with the Council and the Commission to ensure that mediation truly works for our citizens and that we achieve our objectives. We can now move to the vote.


Documents received: see Minutes


Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes


Membership of Parliament: see Minutes


Publication and translation obligations of certain types of companies (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs P-N. Kauppi, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 68/151/EEC and 89/666/EC as regards publication and translation obligations of certain types of companies - C6-0171/2008 -.
rapporteur. - Mr President, this report is part of the simplification package on company law. It is very important that in the European Union we try to simplify the environment for companies to flourish and to create growth for the European economy. The aim is to diminish administrative burdens as regards publication and translation obligations of certain types of companies. The proposal is part of the wide-ranging administrative burden reduction exercise; it would free up and redirect business resources and thus enhance the competitiveness of European economies.
Nowadays, under the First Company Law Directive, companies need to publish certain information in the national gazettes that has to be entered into the Member States' commercial registers. In most cases, publication in the national gazette entails additional costs for the companies without providing any real added value. The objective of this proposal is therefore to remove any additional publication requirements in national law that cause additional costs to the companies.
Anyhow, the Commission leaves flexibility for Member States concerning these additional publication requirements. It is still possible for Member States to have additional requirements, but these should be covered by the single fee proposed for the new electronic platform.
Member States should all have electronic platforms containing the full information and providing access to this information in the companies' electronic file in the register. This would be a cost-effective and easily accessible way of providing all the necessary information regarding the companies. Some Member States already have these electronic registers and databases, but others do not have this kind of digital database.
The most important thing is to introduce the single fee set by the Member States that covers all the costs related to the publication and administration requirements. This single fee should also cover any additional national requirements for the publication of information in local and regional newspapers as well.
However, the Committee on Legal Affairs also wanted to introduce some flexibility regarding these costs and we now say that, if there are well-founded reasons, it would be possible for Member States to have additional fees.
Regarding the 11th Company Law Directive, this proposal deals with the translation requirements for documents to be filed in the registers of company branches. When registering a branch, companies also have to file certain information in the register of the company branch. This often leads to significant additional costs for companies as they not only have to ensure the translation of certain documents into the language of the Member States where the branch is situated, but also have to comply with sometimes excessive requirements for certification and/or notarisation of that translation. So now we are trying to ease translation obligations by having this certification and authorisation abolished.
The objective is to reduce the costs for translation and certification to the minimum. This also leads to benefits for companies by achieving a certain reduction in costs while ensuring the reliability of the translations.
I agree with the Commission proposal and tried to keep my wording as close to the Commission proposal as possible. However, it was not possible to reach a consensus based on the Commission proposal here in Parliament.
In the report we introduced some amendments to clarify the practical implementation of the provisions relating to publication costs and translation provisions, and we also introduced some technical amendments in order to ensure correct cross-referencing with the Second Company Law Directive.
The Committee on Legal Affairs introduced three compromise amendments tabled by several colleagues to the effect that these additional publication requirements may be permitted if they are well-grounded, but we put them into recitals - they are not in the articles. I think it is very important that there is a recommendation in the recitals for the Member States to use this flexibility, but we do not call on them to do so. If the Member State feels that its companies really need to have this publication in the national gazette - and this is really something that Member States wants - they can do that, but we have not put any call to this effect into the articles.
The second issue is that I, personally, tried to introduce a transition period, which I still think would be a very good way forward. During the transition period these publication requirements would be there, but once the transition period is over we would have only the electronic database. I think this kind of proposal for a transition period would also be in line with the issue of internet penetration, namely that some Member States have better internet penetration than others; maybe after the transition period we could then make sure that there is enough distribution of information in all Member States. In this way we could take into account the fact that internet penetration in all the Member States is not at the same level.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work on this file, which has turned out to be more complicated than expected. We are taking our commitment to reduce regulatory burden on companies very seriously and are grateful for Parliament's continued encouragement in this regard.
However, it is difficult not to be disappointed with some of the proposed amendments to the First Company Law Directive. Let me recall that the European Parliament, in its resolution of 12 December 2007 on the Commission Work Programme 2008, welcomed the Commission's determination to reach the goal of a 25% reduction in administrative burdens on undertakings at EU and national levels by 2012. Parliament stated that it would regard this as a key priority for the coming months, in particular as regards SMEs, and as an essential contribution to reaching the Lisbon targets. Parliament therefore underlined that it would examine legislative proposals in this light.
Furthermore, in its resolution of 21 May 2008 on a simplified business environment, Parliament supported this specific proposal for modifications to the First Company Law Directive, agreeing that it should be easier for companies to publish statutory information. In particular, Parliament strongly supported the use of new technology.
However, the Legal Affairs Committee's report that is now on the table completely undermines the objective of the Commission's proposal. The Commission's impact assessment estimated the reduction potential at about EUR 600 million per year. Under the draft report, Member States could not only continue to impose all current administrative burdens on companies, but add new ones. So, whereas the Commission proposal is based on the idea that the new publication tool of an electronic platform should replace the current cumbersome publication methods, the draft report would, instead of reducing administrative burdens, add new ones.
The objective of the Commission's proposal has been supported by an overwhelming majority of stakeholders. It was also supported by a very large majority of Member States in the discussions in the Council that have taken place so far. But adopting the directive in the form currently proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs would risk jeopardising the credibility of the entire administrative burden reduction exercise.
To the extent that the objective of the Committee on Legal Affairs amendment is to secure the financing of newspapers that currently depend on the fees for company publications, this objective can in principle be shared by the Commission. However, other ways for this financing have to be found. It cannot be imposed on the companies by obliging them to comply with publication obligations that do not provide any significant added value in today's technological environment.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - (EL) Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I should like to convey our opinion to you. We endorse to a large extent the root cause of this Commission proposal, which is well structured and, of course, is designed to minimise administrative burdens.
We think that, alongside translation, the simplification of procedures and the recognition of translations by other certified translators from another Member State is absolutely justified and fully endorse this approach.
Now I come to the question of publication. Our committee believes - as the Committee on Legal Affairs, in my opinion quite rightly, believes - that, in addition to companies, there are also citizens who also have the right to know. Unfortunately, Commissioner, citizens do not have the same access to electronic media to which your initial proposal directed them.
We live in a pluralistic Europe, with different models and different values. You, as a Commissioner from Ireland, know that the outcome of the referendum in your country, the perception of many of your fellow countryman about one model for all of Europe, cost us dearly. We do not therefore want to introduce this model in Europe, knowing full well that in my country, in my region, access to the Internet is restricted. Why should we therefore deprive these people, these European citizens, of the right to learn about things which concern them via other traditional channels?
I therefore consider, Commissioner, as do the Committee on Economic Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs, that the electronic platform must be compulsory and quite rightly so. However, it must not be the only platform. We must allow all European citizens to access information. We do not want a situation in which someone in a region of Europe has to find out what is going to happen in his region on a BlackBerry, because where I live many people do not have a BlackBerry.
I therefore consider that, as the representative of the Commission, and I believe that we should send the Council the same message, you must take serious account of the position which we expressed unanimously in the Committee on Legal Affairs and by a large majority in the Committee on Economic Affairs. May I say that, if you are thinking about ignoring it, I would advise you to think again, because it is only through productive democratic dialogue that we can find mutually acceptable solutions for the benefit of the many, not just the few.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Mr President, the European Council in March 2008 ordered new, fast-track legislative initiatives to be taken in order to improve the business environment for companies in the Union by reducing administrative obligations and costs. In my opinion, the Commission's proposal for a directive which we are debating contributes little to the objective set.
The core problem for companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, is that objective conditions are needed for improving the bureaucratic, legislative and fiscal environment in general and we expect an even more substantial contribution on the part of the Commission in this direction.
In this particular instance, the main purpose of publishing companies' annual accounts and other financial statements is to apply the principle of transparency and publicity in commercial activities. However, the low level of penetration of the Internet in a significant number of Member States of the Union does not constitute an adequate guarantee.
Apart from that, having compulsory records in purely electronic format would also mean the loss of thousands of specialist jobs in traditional printed media. Furthermore, the press is an essential component of the principle of the transparency and democratic life of the Union, the contribution of which to the multilingualism and diversity of the European Union is beyond question.
I consider that the safety valve of adopting a single fee and of maintaining the parallel facility to publish in the printed media, in conjunction with the introduction of an electronic register, as formulated in the consensus reached and voted by all - I repeat all - wings of the Committee on Legal Affairs, is the balanced and rational solution needed.
In closing, allow me to emphasise that what is required of the European Parliament and what it has a duty to provide is productive consent to Community lawmaking whilst retaining the full independence of its legislative will. It is the will of the Committee on Legal Affairs, as already formulated, that plenary adopt the report by Mrs Kauppi, whom I congratulate on her work.
In post scriptum to you, Commissioner, I do not know if the consensus proposal by the Committee on Legal Affairs comes as a disappointment to you, but I should like to say to you and I honestly hope that, as soon as the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the culture of cooperation between the Commission and the European Parliament will - and must - change. That is what we are waiting for now; that is what the democratically elected European Parliament is waiting for.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, firstly I shall say something about the procedure. It is a pity that we did not discuss it this morning, Commissioner, when we were sitting together, because I was a bit surprised that you are so harsh now in your speech to Parliament. On the procedure, I am particularly harsh on the way that the French presidency has dealt with our proposals, in not meeting any requirements to negotiate or try to have a dialogue on a possible compromise.
It is the same for the Commission. With these types of issues it is normal to try to get together and find a solution that meets the concerns of the different parties. I regret that this has happened, and I hope that in the time between the plenary and the vote in committee there will be an opportunity to do that.
On the content, I think we do not differ so much. I am also very much committed to relief of administrative burdens. I am always pushing for the XBRL system in accounting and this type of electronic platform. I think we all agree that it is necessary, precisely because in some Member States the electronic society is not yet completely in place. It is necessary to have this temporary transitional solution so Member States still have the option of using this type of paper registration.
This is really a temporary problem and there could be a pragmatic solution. I heard this week that it is only 20 years since e-mail was first used and since the first internet connection, so in 10 to 20 years' time it will be completely normal for everything to be processed electronically. It is only a very temporary problem that we are facing and we should not make a big issue of it. We should try to find a reasonable, pragmatic solution in the spirit of what you are always telling us you want also.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I first want to thank our colleague, Piia-Noora Kauppi, for her excellent report and for her efforts to allow a reasonable solution to be found to the various issues, especially that of the platform.
The proposed directive is part of the wider action undertaken to reduce the administrative burden on companies, to reduce the restrictions upon them and increase their competitiveness. We, of course, actively support this objective which will benefit SMEs. We approve the creation of an electronic platform containing all information and the principle of a single fee to cover all of the costs related to the necessary publications.
It is appropriate, however, to provide the best possible information and to allow continuation of the usual publication methods, which are still needed, especially in the printed press. The text proposed by the rapporteur after negotiations, and unanimously adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, will allow the Member States to provide for the retention of the usual publication methods, as their cost is included in the single publication fee.
We have therefore, Commissioner, complied with the spirit of the proposal by making the platform a requirement and by maintaining the principle of a single fee. We have, however, taken account of the reality in various countries without the IT infrastructure that some other countries have, and which have information habits that should not be ignored.
Commissioner, you know that the citizens' views have to be taken into account and that Europe must not appear to be a source of new restrictions or difficulties. This is why we are looking for the flexibility to take into account the realities of the different Member States, whilst retaining an economical system.
You harshly said, Commissioner, that the Committee on Legal Affairs' proposal undermines the Commission's position. I do not think this is accurate, nor is it accurate to say that the Committee on Legal Affairs' proposal introduces new formalities. On the contrary, it is agreed that these are existing formalities which will be retained and we obviously reject the introduction of new formalities.
What is needed, Commissioner, I believe, is for Europe to show it is capable of reducing bureaucracy and administrative burdens, whilst respecting national identities.
(ES) Mr President, I want to thank the Commission for having presented this proposal. I believe it is positive and will help us to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.
As previous speakers have said, this Parliament has a duty to bring down to earth the Commission's very generous and very altruistic proposals. The reality is that we have 27 countries with different legal systems and very different languages which means that, in each country, we must adapt to the realities of that country, including on the issue of languages.
However, as mentioned just now by Mr Gauzès and also by previous speakers, it is vital that the recognition of these national specificities does not lead to increased costs, that fees are uniform and that governments, if necessary, shoulder this additional cost.
However, there is also another issue: the issue of translations. In the European Union we do not have a common language. Different languages are spoken in all the 27 countries, and even within some of these countries, such as the Commissioner's. We have to live with this.
Also, in legal terms, we are faced with a reality in which legal documents differ. The Committee on Legal Affairs has, for example, proposed amendments on the certification of documents, together with the certification of translations. At this moment in time, the Committee on Legal Affairs is preparing a report on the recognition of certified documents in various European Union countries, which should complement this report.
Finally, I believe that the Commission has done well in presenting this proposal. The rapporteur has done a magnificent job and we have all tried to develop a proposal for a legislative text that can be recognised throughout the Union, thus guaranteeing rights and which is based on the reality of a Union that is still being constructed, that has different national legal systems and that has different levels of access to electronic communications.
(FR) Mr President, firstly I wish to congratulate Mrs Kauppi, the rapporteur, on her excellent work as, thanks to her, the Committee on Legal Affairs has found a compromise which was, I recall, Commissioner, adopted unanimously. This is, then, a clear signal. It will reconcile the need of companies, especially SMEs, for administrative simplicity and the citizen's right to information, whilst leaving Member States the option of retaining publication requirements, if they so wish.
I am convinced that the European Parliament will follow the lead from the Committee on Legal Affairs. The 27 Member States have their traditions. Some advocate the Internet exclusively. Others still use more traditional paper methods of communication. These traditions have to be respected. Let us not forget that 50% of Europe's citizens have no Internet access. If the information were only available on a single electronic platform, those unable to access the Internet, or who prefer to use paper, would be unable to receive information about companies in their region.
I believe that the European Parliament well understands that simply abolishing the publication of judicial and legal announcements in regional newspapers, for example, would have disastrous consequences. As a result, the Member States must be able to organise the distribution of information via complementary channels, under specific conditions.
Commissioner, this is not an ideological debate. Do you not think, in the current circumstances, that you have other things to do instead of hindering something which is working well in the Member States?
In seeking always to simplify, there is sometimes the risk of making things more complicated. Reducing costs? Yes, but at what price? Easing the restrictions to increase competitiveness? Yes, but what happens to competitiveness when the simplification risks severely damaging the economy of an entire sector? There is a strong desire for the Commission to take notice of the fact that we support solutions which will allow the printed press to overcome the difficulties it currently faces.
Commissioner, you should not be impervious to the traditions of the Member States. By acting in this way, you are responsible for risking redundancies for a certain number of journalists and a lack of information for a large part of the population.
We are looking for a balanced directive incorporating the electronic platform and the single fee. We are convinced that we have achieved this solution, and you must respect the European Parliament's vote.
(PL) Mr President, the European Parliament has long been raising the issue of unnecessary and disproportionately high administration costs imposed on European enterprises. These costs not only make doing business more difficult, but represent a barrier to meeting the challenges of today's highly competitive world economy.
It is therefore pleasing that the Commission has finally turned its attention to this issue, proposing to apply the fast-track procedure to the amendment of the 1st and 11th Company Law Directives, which will contribute to a faster improvement of European enterprises' business environment. In the case of the 1st Directive, the elimination from national law of all additional disclosure requirements which increase enterprise costs seems very appropriate indeed. The proposed electronic platform with full information about companies will provide an economical and easily accessible solution, as will the single payment covering all costs, whether administrative or associated with disclosure requirements.
The proposal relating to the 11th Company Law Directive concerns the translation and certification of documents to be entered into the commercial register of a branch of a company established in a different Member State. The mutual recognition of translations proposed by the Commission as a way of reducing the administrative burden will undoubtedly contribute to reducing the costs borne by companies, while ensuring the reliability of the translations. Finally, may I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Kauppi, on the excellent report.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to use the privilege of being the last speaker to make a political comment and two technical comments on the directive which we are debating.
My political comment is that today we are witnessing a rare moment in the European Parliament: complete unanimity in all wings of the House, from the right wing to the left wing, on the direction in which Parliament wishes to take a specific legislative initiative. Numerous members have said and I too wish to emphasise the fact that this is a rare occurrence and must of necessity be taken into account in the Commission's final decision.
We are not undermining the Commission's proposal. We are trying to modernise it and make it more human, more logical and more practical. That is my political comment.
I have two brief technical comments: on the question of publication, Members have said and I too shall add that it is absolutely fair and absolutely right for the Member States in which access to the Internet is severely limited to be given the facility, alongside the general rule of electronic publication, of publication in the press for obvious social and financial reasons.
I should like to comment briefly on the question of translation, with which there is no problem whatsoever. The facility for there to be just one recognised translation gives us a practical solution. The question of translation raised here is not a question of language, it is not a question of transparency, it is not a question of style. It is a practical question which can be very simply resolved by recognising the translation.
There is a distinction, therefore, between the political issues and the technical issues. We are not undermining the proposal, we are improving it.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me begin by saying that if Ieke van den Burg had raised this issue this morning, I gladly would have dealt with it. I had asked you whether there were any other issues you would like to raise and, if you had, I would have spoken to you about it. If you had raised any issue at all - including the weather in Ireland - I would have discussed that with you as well. I have no problem doing that.
I do not have any problem at all as to what the European Parliament decides, because that is your job and that is what you must do. But the background to this particular proposal has to be kept in mind and, since I appreciate your position, I would ask you to appreciate mine.
This particular proposal was put forward in the context of reducing the administrative burden on small companies. It was part of the simplification of the business environment. There are estimates of what this proposal would achieve: reducing the cost annually by EUR 600 million. So the reason for putting forward this proposal was to reduce administrative costs for small business. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, the whole project of reducing costs has been welcomed by the European Parliament in various resolutions.
So this is the context in which this was put forward. With the idea of bringing down administrative costs and simplification for smaller business we came up with this particular proposal.
You can hardly expect me then to accept amendments by the European Parliament that go in totally the opposite direction by not reducing administrative costs but increasing them. If the European Parliament feels that, in this particular instance, the balance of advantages weighs further in keeping this the way they want, so be it. That is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. But this cannot be reconciled with the original objective which you brought forward, which was to reduce costs. If Parliament and others feel that for all the reasons you have outlined it should be kept like this, you can hardly expect me to stand up and agree with you that this is going to reduce administrative costs when it is going to do the opposite - in fact it is going to add to costs rather than reduce them.
The amendments tabled by the two European Parliament committees mean that the only change that Member States would have to implement following the adoption of this directive would make the use of an electronic platform mandatory. No reduction in the current administrative burden would be achieved by the savings which we expected from our original proposal, which have been assessed, as I said, in the impact statement, at around EUR 600 million per annum. So adopting a directive that leads to no reduction but only to cosmetic changes would definitely give a bad signal concerning the overall reduction of the administrative burden that we have been talking about.
So I would ask Members of the European Parliament to respect my position also. If the view of Parliament seems to follow that particular line - and there will be a vote on it tomorrow - that is your view and you are fully entitled to that position. I have no difficulty with it. But you have to respect my position in that I can hardly accept amendments that go in the opposite direction to the original purpose of bringing this forward in the first instance. We should not fall out about it, but I will not be in a position to turn logic on its head and say that what the European Parliament is doing is all right, because it is increasing administrative costs rather than reducing them.
I can listen to the reasons you put forward for keeping it as it is - and perhaps there is some validity in them - but that is not what we started off doing; that is not the reason why we brought forward this particular proposal. So, c'est la vie!
rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to make a comment about the procedure. Mrs van den Burg already said that the French presidency has not behaved very well with this dossier. We have tried to propose several possibilities for trialogue meetings to discuss possible compromises. Unfortunately the French presidency is unwilling to come to these meetings. They are unwilling to organise meetings in the Council working group in order to discuss the way forward. Also they are not present here today to discuss this very important matter.
The view of the Committee on Legal Affairs gives a lot of flexibility for the Member States. It gives much more flexibility than my personal view. However, the view of the Committee on Legal Affairs is going as far as we can possibly go. This is the only proposal on the table in Parliament at the moment. My opinion is that if the Council is not able to accept Parliament's view, i.e. the view of the Committee on Legal Affairs - which is to be voted on tomorrow - as we have requested them to do, then we have to go to second reading.
We cannot allow Council to play us. If this is not accepted in the form voted on tomorrow by Parliament, we will certainly have a delay in the process. Perhaps we will not have this project ready before the elections and there is a risk perhaps that the Commission will withdraw the proposal. I think that it would be very disappointing if Council does not have a qualified majority behind it and does not come up with proposals on how to reach a compromise.
We would be willing to discuss compromises. I would personally be very happy if the Council would propose something in the trialogue meeting on which we could then base the compromise, but it is hiding and not coming to meetings and it is not organising trialogues. It leaves us in a very difficult situation.
That is why I am upset about the discussions about the procedure. I hope that the Commission does not withdraw the proposal. I hope there will still be an opportunity to have a compromise that would suit all the Member States and also the European Parliament.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.


1. Modifications to the common agricultural policy (


14. Pure-bred bovine breeding animals (codified version) (vote)
- Mayer report


5. Statistical classification of economic activities in the EC (


6. Restrictions on the marketing and use of perfluorooctane sulfonates (vote)


Demographic challenge and solidarity between generations (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Thomas Mann, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the demographic challenge and solidarity between generations.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has sent out an important signal with regard to the issue of demographic change. Firstly, a combined package for young and old has been put together. It takes a new innovative approach based on justice between the generations. We are not thinking in terms of the generations existing alongside each other, but in terms of them coming together. In order to give the debate a stable foundation, the Member States should produce generational accounting. This will enable reliable models and forecasts of payment flows between the generations to be produced. For the statistical offices, it will be easy to calculate how high the tax revenue, social insurance contributions and pension payments are. The 'generation check' is intended, firstly, to introduce a statutory impact assessment of the desired effects and the undesired side-effects in connection with the burdening of the generations. It is intended to be compulsory in all of our Member States and at EU level.
We are sending a clear signal to the European Commission and the Council with regard to pensions, too. We do not need a uniform European retirement age. Instead, the national pensionable ages should be observed. Older workers must not be forced to stop working against their will because of an arbitrarily concluded compulsory retirement age. The European Court of Justice also clearly rejected enforced retirement as of retirement age in its ruling in October. Pensioners are most definitely permitted to apply for vacant positions and must not be placed at a disadvantage on account of their age. For older citizens, we are calling for a European fifty-plus employment pact initiative. Three aims are to be achieved by 2020. Firstly, the percentage of workers over 50 in work is to increase to more than 55%. Secondly, early retirement and its financial incentives must be eliminated throughout Europe. Thirdly, funds will be made available in the Member States for people over 60 to enable them to remain on the labour market for longer.
At the other end of the age scale are the young people. We are calling for a European Youth Guarantee. After a maximum period of four months' unemployment, all young people are to be offered a job, an apprenticeship or other training opportunities. The principle of 'supporting and challenging' needs to come into play here. However, support is not a one-way street. If the young people do not have sufficient qualifications, they are to have the opportunity to obtain them in order to become employable. I was very pleased to see that the European Commission has already taken up one of the initiatives called for in my report. A few weeks ago, it declared 2012 to be the European Year for Active Ageing. That is the right signal at the right time.
The only fly in the ointment is the decision by a majority in committee to call for additional anti-discrimination regulations. Thus, new criteria are to be laid down for older people in connection with concluding insurance policies, booking holidays and hiring cars. That will only serve to increase bureaucracy and ensure high financial expenditure that does not do justice to the basic idea of protecting people in an effective manner against exclusion. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has therefore tabled an alternative motion for a resolution which does not contain this demand. Otherwise, however, we were in agreement in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. By means of the numerous joint motions and 22 compromises, we achieved a broad consensus.
I would like to thank my colleagues and my fellow Members from other groups for their constructive cooperation. We can, and we will, bring young and old together. I hope that, with this report on justice between generations, we have, together, taken an important step forward.
Mr President, I thank Mr Mann for outlining these very important proposals for us. I think the most important thing in terms of the elderly is that we need to change our attitude to retirement and also to work. There should ideally be gradual retirement and voluntary retirement rather than compulsory retirement. I had a person come to me two weeks ago who said he had retired. I asked if he was 65 and he said 'No, if I waited till next year, I would have to go. I am going now on my own terms'. If he could have gone on to 67 or 70 he would have done so. I think that is a very important point that we should take on board.
Secondly, I think that young people in particular are disadvantaged, and youth in my country, in Ireland, are the most disadvantaged group ever because now they are landed with the big debt resulting from the banking crisis and, despite being highly educated, they have one choice only, to choose their ticket abroad if they want to work; there are no jobs for them at home.
We need innovation in terms of the way we employ young people. I welcome particularly Mr Mann's suggestion that if they are out of work for a number of months, at least some work should be given to them. These are very positive proposals and I welcome them.
(LT) I really want to congratulate the rapporteur, because I definitely agree with many of the provisions set out on addressing the demographic challenge and strengthening solidarity between generations. However, as far as elderly people are concerned, I cannot agree with the elimination of the provision on retirement before reaching the normal retirement age. Very often, elderly people are forced to take early retirement because of certain circumstances, and often not of their own will. However, given the consequences of the economic crisis, the opportunity to take early retirement is often the only chance of survival for elderly people who have been made redundant. Therefore, given the fact that national pension systems differ between the Member States, we must take into account the practice in all Member States and not follow the example of one or just a few countries.
Mr President, can I thank Thomas Mann very much for his work and for the good cooperation in committee. I am pleased that so many of my amendments were adopted in committee. We have to face the fact that many older people are still treated badly in many Member States and, of course, the worst example of this is elder abuse.
But there are other ways that older people are treated badly, including age discrimination in the workplace, and that is why I am pleased that in this report, we call for the proper implementation of the 2000 Employment Directive and for older people to be made aware of their rights.
I am also pleased that my amendment calling for an end to the mandatory retirement age, while, of course, maintaining a fixed pension age set at Member State level, was accepted. It is wrong to force older people to stop working if they want to carry on and still have the ability to do that.
We also need to keep up the pressure on the Council to unblock the horizontal directive on access to goods and services, covering, among other things, age discrimination. It is about time older people had the same rights as everyone else. May I ask you, please, to vote for the original report and not for the EPP amendment.
(DE) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Mann, on his excellent report. I think that justice between generations is an important characteristic of a developed society. Essentially, this merely means that no generation must, or should, live at the expense of another. What is logical and self-evident in people's private lives and in the family is harder to represent in society. If the state accepts credit that it cannot repay, it is burdening the next generation. Anyone who over-exploits raw materials is harming the next generation. The saying that we have only borrowed the Earth from our grandchildren is perhaps the best way to bring this conflict home. For me, this means that we must examine every act, every regulation and every directive to ensure that they provide for justice between generations. In my opinion, this report is an important step in the right direction.
(CS) The issue of intergenerational solidarity has many different aspects, a situation the rapporteur, Mr Mann, describes well in his document. One of the most important things is the question of security in old age and, in particular, the sustainable and stable financing of old age, guaranteeing a decent level of pensions in the long term. In this report, therefore, I think there are problems with point 99, in which the rapporteur states, among other things, that it is necessary to replace a continually funded pension system with a system based on capital funds.
The current crisis also pointed out the dangers inherent in constricting the solvency of some private pension funds, which have been hit hard by a fall in interest rates and a decline in the value of investments. In 2008, for example, private pension funds lost more than 20% of their value. As a result of the decline in their solvency, they were also forced to sell their assets at a loss. Many of them are still languishing on the edge of solvency. Capital pension funds cannot be a response to demographic trends. They are mainly financial products with non-negligible risks. I therefore do not think that it is reasonable to expose such a fundamental social task as ensuring dignity in old age to such risks.
(SK) Demographic changes gradually and fundamentally alter the structure of the population and the age pyramid. The average fertility rate in the European Union is 1.5 children, which is clearly among the lowest in the world. As a result of this, we can expect serious problems connected with the demographic ageing of European society.
One of the causes of this, in my opinion, is that certain structures have seen very limited development, preventing many families from accepting additional members. Policies aimed at harmonising work and family life, as well as providing tax relief and other benefits, are an essential precondition for boosting the fertility rate. On the other hand, we must adopt legal measures for improving the integration of older people in active life, which must be accompanied by the active elimination of unfair, age-based discrimination in practice.
I welcome and I fully support the so-called policy of active ageing, the aim of which is to allow people to stay healthy, even at an advanced age, to participate in social life, and to improve the quality not only of their own lives but also the life of society as a whole in a spirit of inter-generational solidarity.
(RO) The current problem is that young and old people are encountering difficulties in finding a job. The task of achieving justice between the generations will therefore be one of the main social challenges facing European and national policy in the coming years. I believe that promoting the concept of flexicurity and the EU 2020 strategy objective of achieving an employment rate of 75% marks a major step in this direction. In my view, both the European Commission and Council should introduce a census of the generations as a means of providing information. It is also necessary to increase the Eurostat sustainable development indicators in absolutely every Member State.
I would like to end by congratulating Mr Mann because he has successfully identified in his report several extremely attractive solutions. These include the European Youth Guarantee initiative and the Fifty-plus employment pact initiative.
(RO) In the coming years, in addition to the impact of the crisis, there are numerous other major challenges to be faced. One of the biggest of these is demographic change and the subsequent depopulation of certain regions. Member States will have a vital role to play in providing conditions ensuring that the impact on citizens is kept to a minimum. They will need strong support based on their identified requirements, especially through the use of appropriate EU financing instruments such as the Structural Funds.
To tackle these challenges which are to come, I believe that particular attention must be focused especially on young people by getting them involved in the life of society. We must invest in young people and offer them access to suitable education, followed by the opportunity to acquire a suitable job or encourage them to follow a career path as an entrepreneur. This will enable us to ensure social inclusion for young people and, I believe, to combat one of the principal factors causing the declining birth rate and the socio-economic disparities between the generations.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me start by thanking and congratulating Mr Mann for his very good report. It presents a very thorough and comprehensive analysis of the challenges that we are facing in this demographic field. The Commission is very pleased that the report highlights strategies to allow Member States and the European Union to prepare for population ageing and how we can cope with these consequences in a better way.
In your report, you provide a wealth of practical solutions in this respect: the Senior Actions Programme, the European Youth Guarantee, the Fifty-plus employment pack initiative, the Age Management Initiative, the Intergenerational Tandem Initiative, etc. It also makes quite a lot of interesting proposals for defining and applying the concept of intergenerational solidarity, because this is, as you also said, a goal for the European Union following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
As you know, the Commission has already adopted two major initiatives in this area: our Green Paper on pensions, which will be followed next year by a White Paper outlining future activities, and our proposal - based on your proposal, Mr Mann - to designate 2012 as the European Year for Active Ageing.
The Commission will soon be presenting its third European demography report, which will outline the latest population trends. It will also show how the economic crisis has affected the Member States in terms of their ability to prepare for population ageing.
The next decade will be one of profound demographic change for the European Union. The large cohorts born during the baby boom are approaching retirement, while new cohorts arriving on the labour market are much smaller. The younger generations of Europeans are also much more likely to come from different migration backgrounds, for instance, and this transformation brings challenges for policy makers in the Member States.
It will prove a big hurdle to achieving the Europe 2020 goals if we do not succeed in mobilising our underutilised demographic potential. This calls for an effort to promote active ageing, to improve the labour market situation of young people, to integrate migrants and their descendants better and also to promote labour migration and to facilitate the reconciliation of work and caring responsibilities. In all this gigantic work, we on the Commission side look forward to working actively with the European Parliament.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 11 November 2010, at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the history of humankind, the great changes within societies have been brought about by the performance of two variables: the demographic factor and the religious factor. In our era, these two factors are coming dangerously together. Whilst there has now long been talk of 'a clash of civilisations' and the importance for Europe to represent an example of civil coexistence amongst apparently opposing cultures, the progressive ageing of the European population and the declining birth rate mean we also have to reconsider the productivity factor. As long as our old people have to finance our young people who cannot find work and are increasingly few in number, there will only be two possible roads left open to us: let other, non-European, people drive our growth or surrender ourselves to the flywheel of international finance, which can make our capital productive. Only if the two generations each become a resource for the other and work together for a shared development plan can we finally begin to talk about a European growth process. I urge the rapporteur, you Mr President, and you, my fellow Members, to consider holding a hearing on a new European policy for economic development based on generational contribution, to maximise the contribution of young and old to the growth of the European Union.
I would like to express my support for the concept of the Fifty-plus employment pact initiative, which would supplement the EU 2020 strategy objectives aimed at encouraging elderly people to be active on the labour market. In the coming decade, it is estimated that the labour force will shrink by 3 million just when the EU has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. The proportion of citizens on the labour market over the age of 55 is below the target level of 50% set by the Lisbon strategy. At a time when the age pyramid is increasingly dominated by the older generation, I believe that concrete measures are required to strike the balance between the need for social solidarity and the inefficiency of the social security systems facing the new economic and demographic challenges. I think that we need the experience acquired by elderly workers, which is not utilised enough at the moment due to discriminatory preconceptions which need to be combated more effectively.
Last but not least, I would like to highlight that elderly women are still victims of multiple forms of discrimination, in terms of gender and age. Greater attention must be focused on the situation of elderly, single women who, for reasons including a longer life expectancy, account for an increasingly significant proportion of the population.
Europe, which is affected by demographic change, is facing a real challenge in maintaining a balance between respect for social entitlements and services and the principle of 'society for all'. I think that it is beneficial to society as a whole to make use of the skills of people at the end of their career. This makes it necessary to encourage public authorities, private companies or NGOs which develop innovative programmes to get elderly people involved in various activities. The main instruments for establishing intergenerational solidarity remain social dialogue and debating the issue with the affected groups. Programmes can be devised for this, including within education systems, which will draw the attention of young people to such problems and facilitate dialogue with the elderly. On the other hand, it is beneficial to promote mixed-age work teams and encourage support for companies which take such initiatives because the varying distribution of generations increases competitiveness and helps achieve more harmonious economic growth. The social economy and financial support from the European Social Fund provide means for creating and developing specific programmes aimed at active ageing and boosting intergenerational solidarity.
The report on demographic challenges deals with socio-economic problems arising from the fact that there is an increasingly ageing population and the associated high financial burden on future generations. Ensuring intergenerational justice is one of the main objectives of European social policy. The European population is ageing. The birth rate in EU countries remains low. In many countries, although immigration has mitigated the insufficient birth rate, we cannot consider that a success. A large percentage of children from immigrant families only obtain a low level of education, and subsequently struggle with unemployment. The bulk of immigrants create their own social networks without integrating into society. I agree with the rapporteur that the willingness of immigrants to adapt and the willingness of the host to accept them are a condition on migration. Another hidden problem is the social composition of births. Percentage wise, the majority, apart from immigrants, is made up of children from the socially vulnerable and weakest layers of society. Unfortunately, it has already become a rule today that people with qualifications and a responsible approach to life often have only one child, while the maladaptive and the socially vulnerable have four children on average. They therefore often solve their current financial problems through giving birth. For these reasons, as well as the methods requested by the rapporteur, I would welcome the support programme for increasing the birth rate of qualified people with a responsible approach to life, rather than the maladaptive, as is currently the case.
(PT) Demographic change is one of the main challenges facing Europe. One hundred years ago, the European population made up 15% of the world population. In 2050, it is only expected to make up 5%. This serious situation is already having a negative effect on the economy, on social security systems, and on the very makeup of society. Therefore, measures to encourage an increase in the birth rate are urgently needed. According to the available studies, there is a significant discrepancy between the number of children that families want and the number that they actually have: 2.3 and 1.5, respectively. In order to respond to the challenge of an ageing society, Europe has to adopt policies that promote the employment of women of all age groups, and to make full use of the employment potential of women and immigrants. There are best practices, specifically in Portugal, as regards crèches and nursery schools, improving maternity, paternity and parental leave systems, as well as policies to balance family and working life.
If the current demographic trend persists, in a few years, we will see a profound change in the population structure and the age pyramid. It is estimated that the number of young people aged between 0 and 14 years will go down from 100 million (1975 figure) to 66 million in 2050, and that the working age population will drop from the current 331 million to 268 million in 2050. In addition, the proportion of people aged over 80 will rise from 4.1% in 2005 to 11.4% in 2050. The ageing of the population is one of the biggest challenges that the EU is facing. The EU and the Member States have to act urgently and in a concerted manner, not least because today, we are already seeing a high unemployment rate amongst young people, and there are already difficulties in financing pension schemes. The promotion of the fundamental values of intergenerational justice and solidarity will therefore have to be worked in such a way that it links pension schemes, the budget, debt, healthcare and rehabilitation, promotion of the birth rate and protection for the family and anti-discrimination policies. This should be done by implementing smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in accordance with the Europe 2020 strategy.
in writing. - Humane society can function only based on the principle of intergenerational justice and solidarity. There can be no justice without solidarity. Europe has to face two problems - the high unemployment rate among the young generation and uncertainty over the capacities to finance retirement funds. The proportion of people aged over 60 years will increase every year by two millions (beginning from 2015). At the same time, the fundamental issue to address is the declining birth rate - the process that has continued for several decades. This will put an increasingly heavy burden on the young generation whose numbers are diminishing and can lead to conflicts over burden sharing. Older people should be seen as an asset. Their experience and readiness to actively participate in society building should be encouraged at every level. Member states should value and recognise the informal activities in strengthening the intergenerational solidarity by millions of elderly family members who take care of both younger and older members of the society. One of the key solutions is better involving civil society that has a long tradition of organising social support. I also support the initiative by the AGE platform to declare 2012 the year of intergenerational solidarity.
The report by Mr Mann clearly reveals problems to which we ought to pay greater attention. Far-reaching changes to the structure of the European population are currently becoming apparent. Thus, the birth rate throughout the EU is currently 1.5 children per woman. This is something that we must pay due attention to in our policies. On the one hand, we need to highlight the importance of traineeships and jobs for young people. The call for a European Youth Guarantee, whereby young people, after a maximum period of four months' unemployment, are to be offered a job, an apprenticeship or other training opportunity, is an interesting proposal that we need to look at in more detail. On the other hand, reference must be made to the importance of 'active ageing' and justice between the generations. We need to bring about change in this area in the future, too. I support Mr Mann's report.
Ladies and gentlemen, demographic changes, the falling number of working people and the declining birth rate mean that age is a new cause of division in the world. It seems essential to create an intergenerational initiative aimed at older people and to improve relations between them and the rest of society. Special attention should also be paid to improving the housing conditions and the health of elderly people, particularly in regions in which the population is falling by 20-30%. In Bulgaria, for example, the average retirement pension amounts to around EUR 100, so there is a need to ensure pensioners a better and more dignified life. I would like to call attention to the fact that it is important to create a catalogue of the most serious problems, which will allow specific solutions to be prepared. It is also important to find and make good use of an example of good practice in the regions which are managing well with the problem of the ageing of society and its effects, particularly in the context of the European Year of Active Ageing. Thank you.
The demographic problem is a key challenge for Europe's states and regions, against the backdrop of a decreasing and ageing population, a situation faced by the majority of Member States. The demographic risks involved are a priority for EU-level social policies. At a time when the ageing of the population is continuing, the birth rate is getting lower and demographic disparities are prevalent, these policies must identify specific measures for countering the impact caused. During the last twenty years, the rural population has decreased considerably in the convergence regions, especially among young people. Young people have an important role to play in narrowing the disparities between urban and rural areas and balancing the demographic discrepancies, which is a significant objective of the cohesion policy. We must put into practice the benefits of the rural environment, from supporting investors to setting up broadband Internet. According to Eurostat, the average working age will increase by 7% by 2060. Member States need to devise a clear, coherent policy for creating intergenerational solidarity and involving the population in the labour market at much older ages than now.
I would like to welcome Thomas Mann's report. The demographic problems facing the European Union are becoming increasingly apparent, with their impact affecting rural areas in particular. The statistics indicate that just 7% of European farmers are below the age of 35 while, at the same time, 4.5 million farmers are due to retire in the next 10 years. We are in danger of seeing a drop in the working population in rural areas, the effects of which will have an adverse impact in future on agricultural productivity.
New instruments are required to tackle the demographic problems in rural areas. One of the fundamental issues is ensuring access to education in order to provide vocational training for young people in rural areas and attract them into the agricultural sector. Another important aspect would be for all Member States to implement measures regarding the early retirement of farmers, along with measures for setting up young farmers. Implementing both sets of measures would improve considerably the management of farm holdings through replenishing the generation of farm managers. Last but not least, another key aspect is the provision of support to entrepreneurs in accessing funds for agricultural projects, which must be considered as an incentive, especially for getting young people involved in agriculture.
in writing. - Mr President, I would like to welcome the report of my colleague, Thomas Mann, that addresses several crucial issues that the European Union will be facing in the near future if not already now. Recent protests in France against raising the pension age signify a distinct schism between the expectations of European citizens and general demographic tendencies. The life expectancy in Europe has been steadily increasing, while the population is in decline. Both trends, when combined, will inevitably lead to an increase in the tax burden of future generations, unless pension systems are reformed comprehensively. The dissent that the pension reform caused in France can emotionally be understood, but when considering the demographic situation in Europe, it must be noted that the proposal of the French Government and the ultimate decision of the parliament is the only appropriate response in order to avoid destitute futures for both the working and retired people of France. The governments of the Member States of the European Union must engage in further dialogue with the citizens to create greater awareness of the demographic change and the socio-economic challenges that it brings about. Consensus building is vital to justify necessary, yet unpopular reforms.
Europe's population is ageing year by year, despite significant immigration and a slightly increased birth rate, and, as a result, we have to face new problems and challenges. Reviewing the European demographic pyramid, it is clear that in future, we have to pay more attention to the labour market for elderly people, and I agree with the report that the ageing of the population also offers great opportunities to improve competitiveness and capacity for innovation, and thereby to increase economic growth and employment. It is certainly very important to increase employment among elderly people but, above all, we have to deal with the causes rather than the consequence, and perhaps we should give priority to raising the birth rate. Europe's experience with integrating immigrants has shown that the solution is not to encourage immigration, but the opposite. A large wave of integration into Europe has made indigenous people frightened that they will be a minority in their own country and that immigrants will not adopt the local language and culture. As a result, worryingly, many Europeans have started to support the far right, whose principles run counter to European values, as a reaction to this. Assessing Europe's ageing demographic situation, it is regrettable and contradictory that young people suffer from quite high unemployment, especially in Eastern Europe, and that we are not able to appreciate young people sufficiently. Ensuring intergenerational justice is certainly an essential issue to address in order to prevent conflicts relating to the sharing of burdens.
Europe is ageing more quickly than the other continents. One worrying fact is that the ratio between the population over the age of 65 and the population of working age (aged between 15 and 64) is due to double by 2060 (from 25.4% to 53.5%). The growth of this ratio in Romania is alarming as it is set to increase from 21.3% in 2008 to 65.3% in 2060.
In view of the magnitude and speed with which the population is ageing, Member States need to bear in mind, as part of their employment policies, the gender factor, new ways of organising work in companies, as well as methods for facilitating flexible formulas progressively leading to retirement, improving working conditions and promoting anti-discriminatory practices with regard to recruitment and vocational training.
At the same time, I urge Member States to:
promote a culture which provides for the management of ageing in companies and tailor its different aspects, particularly via the option of phased retirement, while taking into account how strenuous the job is and the working, health and safety conditions;
continue to retain the option of early retirement for certain groups of workers, according to their working conditions, and in special circumstances such as redundancy or restructuring.
This is a very important report, which should be used by the European Commission when identifying its priorities and planning its work for 2012, which is to be declared the European Year of Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations. I have raised the question of active ageing many times in Parliament, and it should be a priority for the European Union and all Member States in the coming years.
The demography cannot be changed. Faced by the ageing of European society, it is essential to achieve the professional activation of people of retirement age. We must not discard their experience or dismiss their desire to continue working. Therefore, I support the initiatives proposed by the rapporteur and, in particular, the European '50-plus pact' and the 'active ageing' initiative. Also of exceptional importance is the 'guaranteeing a decent pension' initiative. In keeping with the report, I appeal to the Council and the Member States to make swift arrangements to guarantee payment of appropriate pensions to all Europeans which will ensure them a dignified life and not just exceed the poverty level. We must work against all of the many forms of discrimination against older people. Many people wrongly think that older people have fewer needs. Difficulties for senior citizens in gaining access to loans and discrimination against them in the job market are commonplace. A common occurrence is the absurd situation in which a 40-year-old woman is considered too old for work, while at the same time, graduates are expected to have several years of professional experience.
The way out of the demographic crisis is through the family, since it was the weakening of the role of the traditional family that got us into this crisis. Increasing the proportion of older employees and women in active employment is only a short-term solution. It gives us a little time, which we must use in order to motivate young people in particular to start a family and raise children. However, our short-term strategy must not come into direct conflict with what we want to achieve in the long term. In order for mothers of young children to be able to return to work, we must build enough pre-school facilities. However, we are forgetting that children pick up their key social habits in the first three years of life; that in crèches, children learn to assert themselves by screaming rather than respecting other people; that children will use the models of behaviour they pick up during this period throughout their lives. Parental care is not a luxury for a child, but a natural standard. Crèches and nurseries are, and always will be, a compromise. As with any compromise, it is the case that if the bearable limits are overstepped, the consequences will be worse than we can imagine today. Can we be sure that a generation of children which spends more time with strangers than with their own parents will one day be just as willing to take on responsibility for old, ailing and disabled people as we are today?


4. Mobilisation of the flexibility instrument (vote)
- Report: Reimer Böge


10. Progress towards a European contract law for consumers and businesses (


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes


Implementation of the EU strategy for the Danube region (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes