The work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2007 (debate) (debate)
The next item is the report by Alain Hutchinson, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2007.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report I prepared for the Committee on Development reviews the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in 2007. Those of you who are actively involved in this work or are simply interested in it know that it is not a purely formal or symbolic structure, indeed quite the reverse, since the Assembly increasingly functions as a true parliamentary assembly. Its members are increasingly engaged in it, influential figures sound it out and as a result it is acquiring growing political importance. This is the first point that I wanted to emphasise.
The growing political importance of this Assembly also derives from the fact that apart from the fundamental issues relating to cooperation between ACP and EU countries, it also discusses issues which are topical both for Europeans and ACP countries. This is the case, for example, with the Economic Partnership Agreements negotiated between the Union and ACP countries. On this issue, the JPA has confirmed with the Kigali Declaration that the leaders concerned clearly want the European Commission to give ACP countries enough time to negotiate regional development agreements. Kigali is not only an opportunity to show that there is real resistance to these agreements, as they currently exist, but also that this resistance is founded on concerns which are entirely legitimate and which must now be properly taken into account.
In the same way, it is only through participating in the work of the Assembly that many MPs in ACP countries have learnt of the existence of Country Strategy Papers that define areas of cooperation between the EU and their own countries. This serves as a reminder that, for many MPs in ACP countries, the Assembly is sometimes the only possible forum for democratic expression.
I would also like to stress that in 2007 we witnessed the increasing engagement of civil society in ACP countries, with excellent meetings and initiatives being organised on the sidelines of each JPA session. In the fight for development by civil society in ACP countries, the Assembly also represents an extraordinary opportunity for exchange and encounter. In this respect, the Union must be able to support, technically and financially, the presence of these associations and NGOs in the work of the JPA.
Finally, I would like to underline that in our report, we encourage the JPA to strengthen the role of its Committee on Political Affairs. The idea behind this is to make it a true forum for conflict prevention and settlement and to encourage close collaboration between the activities of ACP and EU parliamentarians as election observers within the framework of EU election observation.
You should also know that in 2007 the Assembly met in Wiesbaden, and then in Kigali. Nine resolutions were adopted. The standing committees met four times: twice on the sidelines of the sessions and twice in between those sessions, in Brussels. These committees, which are in charge of following up the resolutions, have since 2007 organised the hearing of the responsible committee members in the corresponding areas.
Apart from several reports, the Wiesbaden session adopted a resolution on the situation in Darfur. There was a very constructive urgent debate on the situation in Zimbabwe. The workshops on immigration, climate change and medicines for neglected diseases all attracted a great number of participants and great interest. The Kigali session adopted three resolutions contained in the reports by the Standing Committees, Committees and two urgent resolutions on natural disasters in the ACP countries and the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Mr President, Commissioner, there you have it. I have briefly summarised a formal report that I wanted to give a political content, in order to help explain and more effectively support the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you very much, but I can assure you that I am really enjoying it here and I know that my dear colleague regrets very much that he cannot be here for this discussion. This exchange of views is very close to his heart, but I can assure you he is not wasting his time: he is travelling to an important meeting outside Brussels.
The Joint Parliamentary Assembly is a unique institution. Mr Michel is my neighbour in the college meeting and this morning he explained everything to me about the functioning of the Assembly, so now I can claim to know a little bit about that.
He mentioned that the JPA is where the spirit of partnership that lies at the heart of the Cotonou Agreement can be witnessed directly, as 156 elected representatives from the European Union and from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries discuss together the core issues of their cooperation. That is real North-South dialogue, a dialogue on the basis of equality and mutual respect, going beyond the traditional recipient-donor relationship. That is the parliamentary embodiment of ownership and control.
Over the past years the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has become increasingly parliamentary in stature and in conduct, reflecting the maturity of the cooperation between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Those debates are more open and regional conflicts less frequent. That is indeed a worthwhile achievement.
The Assembly has indeed become a framework for an open political dialogue, showing itself capable of discussing issues of great sensitivity and major political relevance such as good governance, access to healthcare and the impact of foreign direct investment, the migration of skilled workers and the Economic Partnership Agreements.
The excellent report of Mr Hutchinson and the Committee on Development presents this evolution eloquently and on behalf of Mr Michel and myself I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work. It presents the achievements and the challenges and explores the possibilities of future development.
One achievement was the leading role that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly played in the monitoring of the EPA negotiations, ensuring a two-way information flow thanks to the discussions with the chief negotiators and with my dear colleague Mr Michel on this matter during the year.
Another important leap has been the transmission by the Commission to the Assembly of the Country and Regional Strategy Papers. That demonstrates the confidence in the capacity of the Assembly to play a more political role and provides an opportunity to show further signs of maturity.
In order to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, Commissioner Michel asked the Commission Delegations to transmit these strategy papers also to the Speakers of the national parliaments via the National Authorising Officer of the EDF in the beneficiary countries. As you are aware, the Commission cannot transmit them directly since according to the Cotonou Agreement the NAO is our official contact point for all questions of programming and of EDF implementation.
At the same time, the JPA secretariat has also been transmitting these documents to the representatives of the respective countries in the JPA. We thus have reason to believe that the national parliaments are informed and can take their part in the monitoring and control of development programmes.
It is true that the capacity of national parliaments to play their role fully in the preparation and execution of the EDF is often limited. That is why the EDF finances institutional support in many ACP countries.
Beyond the scrutiny of Country Strategy Papers, the best way to ensure parliamentary control of EDF funds is to put in place general or sectoral budget support programmes. In this way the external funds are completely integrated into the national budgetary procedure where national parliaments play a key role. That is one of the reasons for the Commission's decision to attribute about 45% of the 10th EDF to budget support programmed in 44 countries, compared to just 25 at the start of the 9th EDF, so there is an upward trend.
Lastly, let me take this opportunity to add my congratulations to the Government and Parliament of Rwanda and to the German Presidency for their excellent organisation of last year's Assembly sessions.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Hutchinson and congratulate him on his report, which is very good. I share the rapporteur's opinions, observations and satisfaction concerning such issues as the deeper involvement of members of the Assembly in its work, the quality of debates and the more relevant nature of these debates. I agree that the greater involvement of non-governmental organisations in the work of the Assembly is a very positive phenomenon.
Meanwhile, I cannot remain silent about a couple of sadder aspects arising from observation of the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly. I think it is a great shame that during the discussions, debates and negotiations on joint projects between the ACP side and representatives of the European Parliament, not all subject areas are tackled with an equally deep dialogue and desire to find a common position. My impression is that the ACP side concentrates more on economic matters, devoting less attention and involvement to political matters.
In 2007 unusual enthusiasm and determination was displayed in discussions of an economic nature, primarily in negotiations relating to economic partnership agreements (EPAs), and of course there is nothing wrong with that. It is, however, hard to perceive an equally strong motivation to resolve difficult but important political problems. Mr Hutchinson recalled that we had debated the situation in Zimbabwe, yet there was no resolution. This trend of not adopting resolutions is still continuing, though. This year we held a debate on Chad; a compromise text of a resolution was adopted, but the resolution itself was thrown out by our ACP partners.
It seems to me that our goal should be to achieve more of a balance between economic and political goals. I appreciate that it is sometimes easier to concentrate on economic matters, as they seem more significant and easier to develop politically. Our European side should, however, concentrate on showing that there can be no continuing development without peace, stabilisation, human rights, the rule of law and better management.
Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate Mr Hutchinson on his excellent report.
In 2007 we had confirmation of both the rise and relevance of the role of the JPA on the principal challenges of the North-South dialogue. Regarding political crisis situations, for example, our urgent debates have allowed an in-depth constructive dialogue free from taboo on issues such as Haiti, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia. The introduction of the JPA regional meetings, the first of which may have been in Namibia, I believe, will help to further deepen this political dialogue.
On the implementation of the EDF, Country and Regional Strategy Papers have been submitted to ACP governments since the end of 2007. The JPA must now adopt a strategy and a working method to guarantee the best follow-up and supervision of the use of these funds.
On the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), through its discussions and meetings with economic leaders and members of civil society, through its open political dialogue with our parliamentary colleagues in the South, the JPA made EPAs a political priority in 2007. The Kigali Declaration, which Mr Hutchinson mentioned earlier, is an illustration of this.
I am sorry that the European Parliament dismissed this declaration, despite it being negotiated and voted on unanimously by representatives of the various political groups there. It would seem that, for some, a position adopted in Africa is sometimes harder to implement when we get back to Europe.
I am also sorry that the European Commission is ignoring the views of ACP MPs within the JPA and that it prefers a bulldozer approach by which it refuses to consider any renegotiation or reorientation of the EPAs. The proposal for the creation of a new parliamentary body under the Caribbean agreement simply adds to the confusion.
Finally, I cannot get over the fact that in 2007 Official Development Assistance from the whole of the EU fell for the first time since 2000. It is my belief that in terms of international solidarity, what matters most is keeping our word, and several Member States - including mine - are not keeping theirs. In 2008, the JPA should vigilantly and resolutely continue the fight for EPAs, lobbying for a proper renegotiation of interim agreements - for those who want it - in accordance with the promise made by Commissioner Barroso, and for the 10th EDF, which is now entering its active implementation phase, but which risks seeing its appropriations diverted to finance EPAs.
The JPA is a unique forum and a unique tool for North-South dialogue. It is an opportunity for fair, sustainable and joint development. My colleague Mr Hutchinson has already said all of this, and I would like to congratulate him once more.
(ES) Mr President, I will begin by congratulating Mr Hutchinson on clearly setting out in his report the work done by the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in 2007.
The Assembly is becoming the strongest pillar of cooperation between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. I would like to point out that it is the only international assembly that regularly brings together the elected representatives of various countries in order to promote North-South interdependence.
The JPA has led the way with economic partnership agreements, which are tools for the regional development and integration policy for the ACP countries and a means of progressively including them in the global economy in a sustainable way.
However, economic partnership agreements (EPAs) cannot be negotiated simply as free trade agreements. My group insists on the possibility of renegotiating issues in these agreements such as services, intellectual property and the 'Singapore issues': investments, powers and public markets, as well as employment and social regulations and other issues relating to sustainable development.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my compliments to Mr Hutchinson on his work and on the report's political approach, which I can endorse. I welcome the choice of the path of dialogue and cooperation.
I would like to stress one point. In order to respond to the needs of the people of the ACP countries and to achieve the ambitious millennium development goals, it is necessary for the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) on a national and regional basis to be increasingly open to democratic participation and monitoring. I therefore confirm that the commitments that we made in Kigali at the 14th session of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly are central to our actions.
I also welcome the reference to the need, when negotiating and applying the new agreements, to take into due account the protection and defence of democratic bodies and human rights. Our efforts cannot and must not be reduced to mere economic aid.
(PL) Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mr Hutchinson on an excellent report.
It seems to me important for us to look at the significance of contacts of this type between parliaments, between groups of parliaments and between the European Parliament and both the ACP countries and EuroLat in the context of world dialogue. I feel that this is the form that should predominate in our contacts. What is established between governments is of a rather different nature. The dialogue that takes place between parliaments is a much broader dialogue; it contains broader debates, and it seems to me that it better reflects the interests and concerns of the countries taking part in such dialogue, so this type of dialogue seems to me to be particularly valuable. Also important are the political aspects that we would like to maintain, namely the matter of keeping the peace, the observance of human rights and the functioning of a civil society.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I have listened with great interest to the speeches that have been made by the honourable Members. I do not think it is appropriate for the Commission to react to or interfere with your agenda and your priorities, so I shall not mention yet what the thoughts of our side are. It is up to you.
On the issue of reopening negotiations, it must be quite clear that the interim agreements are the only way to preserve the trade flows after the deadline of 1 January 2008, and they cannot be reopened. However, the discussion, and hence the negotiation towards full EPA - regional and with full coverage - is ongoing.
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your answers and comments. I would just like to point out that effectively, the JPA is a matter for MPs, but that the Commission plays an important role ,of course, in development policies at European level, and on that basis it is my wish that the Commission should not consider - and I think that Commissioner Michel, in any case, is included here - the work of this Assembly as anecdotal work, that it should not consider this Assembly as a sort of safety valve where the tensions between us are discussed, but rather that it takes into account the opinions expressed there, since for many of our ACP colleagues, this is unfortunately the only forum where they are able to express themselves.
In this respect, I would like to point out that so far you have observed that there has been no debate in ACP parliaments either on EPAs or Country Strategy Papers. Even though we are supporting the people's elected representatives - financing elections left right and centre, trying to export our democratic model - we do not have time to consult these elected parliaments, and some of your colleagues, as Mrs Carlotti said, are adopting a bulldozer approach to everything. I hope therefore that the Commission can really take account of this work and recognise how excellent it is.
People have congratulated me on my report. I would like to thank my colleagues, and I would also like to congratulate Mrs Kinnock, who is not here because as Co-President of the Assembly, she is in fact somewhere in the Caribbean. I would like to congratulate her on the exceptional work that she does as Co-President of this Joint Assembly.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
A good relationship between the European Union and the ACP countries is very close to my heart and I am therefore delighted that the ACP/EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly continues to take on a more political form and quality.
In negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreement and very generally in cooperation between the EU and ACP countries, subjects such as sustainable development, human rights, democracy and the creation of functioning constitutional systems must all definitely be on the agenda.
On no account should we disregard environmental protection and specifically the fight against climate change. Even in the regions of the ACP countries, the effects of climate change could turn out to be disastrous.
The EU must set a good example here and meet the aims and obligations of 2007. Only then can we expect this from the ACP countries as well.
Another subject we definitely have to deal with is water. Water shortage and drought are a major problem in the ACP countries, for which solutions have to be found so that there is no environmentally induced migration.


Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes


Tribute
I must begin this sitting by passing on some bad news. Firstly, it is my sad duty to inform you of the death of Mr Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz, who was a Member of the European Parliament for many years, from 1987 to 1999.
As you are very well aware as am I, since I got to know him very well within the context of Spanish political life he was a member of the Communist Group and then the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, of which he was Vice-President from 1992 to 1994.
Mr Gutiérrez Díaz was also Vice-President of our Parliament from 1994 to 1999 and President of the Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and Relations with Regional and Local Authorities from 1992 to 1994.
To those of us who knew him, his death is a great tragedy. I believe that political life has lost one of its best representatives.
I would ask that we observe a minute's silence in memory of our late colleague.
(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)


2. Accession of Bulgaria and Romania: recruitment of officials of the European Communities (vote)


Smoke-free environments (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Council on smoke-free environments by Edite Estrela, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, - B7-0225/2009).
Firstly, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs of all the political groups for their joint work and the effort they have made in order to be able to table a joint resolution in such a short time. I would also like to thank the secretariat of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the secretariat of my group and my assistant for their support. They have all been outstanding.
On behalf of the Committee on the Environment, I will begin by expressing my regret that the Swedish Presidency has decided to finalise this dossier without waiting for Parliament's report. This attitude shows an unacceptable disregard for those elected by Europe's citizens. Hence the question that I put to it on behalf of the Committee on the Environment: can the Council confirm its intention to adopt conclusions on this subject in the Council of 1 December 2009, despite Parliament's timetable? What are the reasons for the Council to rush into adopting the recommendation without the European Parliament's opinion? Since Parliament was consulted on the Commission's proposal, is the Council prepared to take Parliament's view into account when drafting the Council's conclusions?
It should be noted that the Committee on the Environment supports the objectives of the recommendation, since tobacco is still the leading cause of death and disease in the European Union. The Committee on the Environment would therefore like its timetable to have been respected, which would allow for a thorough debate to be held on the issue and for Parliament to adopt a position.
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, also known as passive smoke, is a significant additional cause of death, disease and disability in the European Union. Passive smoke contains more than 4 000 gaseous compounds and particles, including 69 known carcinogens and many toxins. There is no safe level of exposure to passive tobacco smoke. The most conservative estimates indicate that many thousands of people die every year because of passive smoke, and it therefore also puts significant burdens on the economy, in terms of direct medical costs, and also indirect costs associated with lost productivity.
Considerable progress has been made in recent years in establishing smoke-free environments in several Member States. To date, more than a third of Member States have adopted wide-ranging legislation prohibiting smoking in workplaces and enclosed public spaces. However, there are still significant differences in the level of protection against exposure to tobacco smoke within the EU. For example, workers in the hotel and catering sector make up an occupational group that is particularly vulnerable to the lack of global protection in most Member States and the exceptionally high concentration of tobacco smoke in bars and restaurants.
At EU level, the issue of smoke-free environments has, up to now, been the subject of several non-binding resolutions and recommendations which do not provide detailed guidelines on how to set up smoke-free environments. The issue also appears in a number of directives adopted in the area of occupational health and safety, but is only addressed indirectly in some cases and does not guarantee an adequate level of protection in others.
I would point out that Article 8 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which, to date, has been ratified by 26 Member States and by the Community, obliges all parties to guarantee effective protection against exposure to tobacco smoke in workplaces and enclosed public spaces and on public transport.
We believe that only a total ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces, including the catering and hotel sector, public buildings and public transport, will be able to ensure protection of the health of workers and non-smokers, and will encourage smokers to stop smoking.
I will end by saying that we hope that the Council takes account of this resolution, which, we hope, will be adopted by Parliament tomorrow.
Madam President, on 1 July 2009, the Commission submitted its proposal for a Council Recommendation on smoke-free environments, based on Article 152(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The principal aim of this proposal is to implement Article 8 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Article 8 concerns protection against exposure to tobacco smoke. So far, this convention has been ratified by 26 Member States and also by the Community.
With regard to the Swedish Presidency's work programme and in order to be able to give the other institutions sufficient time to give their opinions, on 8 July 2009, the Council called on the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions to submit their opinions at the latest by 26 November, 5 November and 8 October 2009, respectively. The European Economic and Social Committee has already adopted its opinion and the Committee of the Regions announced that it did not intend to submit one. I believe that the European Parliament is planning to adopt its opinion by March 2010 at the latest, which I find regrettable. Unfortunately, that will be too late for the Council to have the chance to take it into account. It is absolutely nothing to do with a lack of respect - quite the contrary, in fact.
The Minister for Elderly Care and Public Health, Maria Larsson, confirmed to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on 2 September that it is the Swedish Presidency's intention for the recommendation on smoke-free environments to be adopted before the end of the year. The text of the recommendation is currently being discussed in the Council and so far, we have made significant progress. I am certain that we will achieve our goal for the recommendation to be adopted at the Council's meeting on 1 December 2009. However, the Council is not planning to adopt any conclusions in this regard.
The Council has examined the European Parliament's resolution that was adopted on 24 October 2007 on the Green Paper 'Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level'. In the resolution, Parliament called on the Member States to introduce legislation on smoke-free environments within two years. Many EU Member States have now adopted such laws, and several are on the way to doing so. Parliament also considered that the smoke-free policy should be complemented by other supporting measures. The Council shares this view.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to report on the Council's timetable with regard to the proposal for a recommendation on smoke-free environments and look forward to hearing your views on the matter.
Madam President, the Council Decision to promote its proposal on smoke-free environments to the Member States post haste, without giving Parliament sufficient time to process its position is, in our opinion, a mistake. Our reaction, apart from today's question, is the resolution that I hope we shall pass tomorrow, on which we have achieved a good compromise and which, I think, expresses the majority view in the House. This resolution contains numerous new elements. We in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) are particularly proud of the emphasis placed in this text on the protection of children from passive smoking and, at our proposal and with the acceptance of other groups, numerous new elements have been introduced.
I would highlight, for example, the reference to the need for particular awareness and protection because children, unlike adults, do not have the facility to give their legal, moral or even psychological consent to their exposure to passive smoking. Parents have a duty to protect, but they need our help, because passive smoking by children has not been researched sufficiently and, consequently, neither parents nor anyone else knows what the consequences are of children's long-term exposure to smoke and to what degree they need to be protected.
That is why our proposal that the Commission conduct a Europe-wide study into the problem, including third-hand smoking, is particularly valuable. The information obtained may provide a massive service. Moreover, there are numerous important elements in the resolution and we hope that the Council will bear them in mind.
The European Union's citizens and environment must benefit from the protection offered by the ban on smoking in public places. We cannot ignore the fact that smoking currently remains one of the biggest causes of illness and death. We fight with all our might against dangerous epidemics and invent complex and costly vaccines to protect ourselves against new viruses, but making the effort to protect our children, families and the environment from the harm of smoking is much more achievable for us.
Simple logic, if not the appeal to concepts such as the right of the non-smoking majority, should convince us to make this effort a priority. Some recent studies indicate that the ban on smoking in North America and Europe has led to a rapid decrease in certain serious health problems. In fact, this effect was noticed almost immediately after the smoking ban was introduced. In countries where smoking has been banned completely in public areas, the positive impact on health has been attributed to a number of factors. These include not only the removal of smoke inhaled indirectly by smokers, but also the reduction in passive smoking affecting non-smokers.
I would like us not to lose sight of one essential fact: smokers are a minority in the European Union. Of course, no one can suggest curtailing the right of individuals to smoke, not even for the sake of certain principles which we all support, such as strong protection for public health and an environment rid of sources of pollution. At the same time, however, the majority made up of non-smokers want a smoke-free environment. This reality should guide us when drafting and supporting anti-smoking legislation.
As the evidence suggests to us that smokers are likely to give up smoking with the help of these support measures, I think that we must strengthen anti-smoking legislative measures as part of a Community policy for controlling tobacco consumption, in order to make a practical contribution to improving public health right across the European Union.
Madam President, with this resolution, our Parliament intends, as a matter of course, to support the Commission's very proactive policy on the fight against smoking. However, we are also asking it - and this is essential - to go even further and guarantee that, in 2011, European men and women will have the right to a clean area in all public places, means of transport and places of work.
In fact, Europe has the right - it is obvious - and even the duty to offer protection, and thus in this case to introduce a ban, as it did and as it continues to do in respect of a whole series of toxic substances, substances that kill, in some cases, far fewer people than tobacco: chemical substances, pesticides, some heavy metals or even asbestos, to mention but a few.
When I say that Europe must introduce a ban, and therefore guarantee this non-smoking area for all workers, as an overwhelming majority of citizens are asking us to, that obviously does not mean that we are launching a crusade against smokers. I am a liberal and am virulently attached to this notion of freedom, free choice and free will. A European text can provide for dispensations, smoking rooms and areas of freedom. To legislate does not mean to oppress. Here we are talking about public areas, but you cannot tell me that Europe does not have a role in this debate.
Madam President, I would like to point out that this is, of course, a worker-protection issue. That is the only reason that the EU is getting involved in the matter at all. We prohibited DCM, dichloromethane, for example - a matter that I was responsible for - precisely because it affects the health of workers. Workers have the right to be protected by European legislation, and we are now talking about the health of restaurant and hotel workers.
A smoking ban in these environments would save many more lives and be much more effective in preventing a lot of poor health than most of the laws that we make here. It is one of the most effective instruments we can introduce to protect the health of workers in the workplace, and especially children and other innocent victims of smoke. Dozens of substances in cigarette smoke are so toxic that, if you want to use them in a laboratory, you have to have a special permit, and yet this is what we want to release into people's everyday environment. It is a completely absurd situation. It is not about freedom of choice, because those who become sick have not chosen it at all. We can now help those people and prevent them from becoming sick in future, and this is an opportunity that we must take.
I am delighted that we have succeeded in creating a joint resolution which represents a decent compromise and which can contribute to reducing the incidence of deaths and ill health caused by smoking. I welcome the wording of Article 15, which should ensure that the effort to control tobacco is protected particularly against the commercial interests of the tobacco industry. The mechanism established in Article 22 for submitting reports is a good one, in my opinion. I am disappointed that we have not managed to incorporate a reference to standardised packaging in the joint resolution. Studies have shown that standardised packaging would greatly reduce consumption and demand, especially among young people. I am also disappointed that, for reasons of time, the proper consultation process was not followed and I hope the Council will back the aforementioned proposals. I would also like to add for the record that we have adopted at today's session measures that will put the protection of non-smokers in the European Parliament on a proper footing.
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the resolution. Passive smoking is a huge problem, particularly for children. The president of the German association of paediatricians once said that smoking in the presence of children constitutes intentional bodily harm. I would not express it as drastically as that myself, but it is clear that we need to act.
I very much welcome the legislation that has been introduced in Ireland, Italy and other countries. I think that the legal and practical situation in Germany is shameful from a health policy perspective. We have a lot to learn from other European countries in this respect.
Nevertheless, it is not as easy as paragraphs 2, 10 and 13 of this resolution suggest. We have only limited authority at a European level and introducing legislation in this area could be politically counterproductive. We can only protect workers. We cannot provide special protection for children by taking action at a European level. However, it is this sort of protection that is urgently needed. Therefore, I would ask you to support the amendments put forward by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) on this subject.
One word about the controversial tobacco subsidies, which we have been discussing for years. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has always called for them to be abolished. Now we have a good compromise in the Council and, therefore, I would like to make a strong personal plea, subject to a discussion with my group, for leaving paragraph 9 unchanged. It is an effective compromise and people will not understand it if we continue to pay subsidies as we have in the past. We need this change and we should support it.
Madam President, during the 2004 European elections, Ireland introduced a ban on smoking in the workplace, so we met many irate voters outside restaurants and public houses. They were furious about the ban. But this is 2009, and there has been a huge acceptance that what we did was good for workers, good for employers and good for the public health system. People have come to live with it.
This morning, I took the healthy option and walked into Parliament and I was dismayed to see in cars young parents, with children strapped into the back, smoking cigarettes. There were parents pushing children in buggies, with a cigarette hanging over the child. Obviously, we have a lot of work to do to educate adults about the dangers for children.
So, I support my colleague, Peter Liese, in his call for the protection of children. They are so vulnerable, and it is so sad to see that they are exposed to this danger.
But let us not demonise smokers. Remember that tobacco is a terrible addiction and smokers need all our help and support to kick the habit. Those who chose, as others may say, not to kick the habit should carry on with what they wish to do, without doing harm to others, and understand fully the harm that they are doing to themselves.
This is a good resolution and, obviously, in Ireland, where we are well advanced in this legislation, we are fully supportive.
(LT) Here in the European Parliament, we often discuss human rights. According to a Eurobarometer survey, 70% of European Union citizens do not smoke and the majority would like smoking to be banned in public places. There could be some discussion about whether this might discriminate against smokers. However, I believe that given the recognised damage to health that smoking can cause, we cannot risk people's health. Of course, when talking about a smoking ban on an EU scale, we must not forget the principle of subsidiarity and we must allow the Member States themselves to decide how they will defend and protect their citizens. In Lithuania, for example, as our Irish colleagues have already mentioned, we have the Law on Tobacco Control which is one of the most progressive when compared at EU level. Of course, there is still more to achieve. In Lithuania, tobacco consumption is banned in public institutions, in workplaces, in enclosed areas, in all eating establishments and on public transport. In Lithuania, the Law on Tobacco Control was accepted quite willingly and in truth, even smokers themselves admit that they are now smoking less or, in some cases, have even stopped altogether. Of course, Lithuania, like other EU Member States, must devote somewhat more attention to the problem of under-age smoking. I believe that we are all interested in having a clean and healthy environment, especially for our children. Therefore, the good examples set by states banning smoking in public spaces should encourage and inspire those states that are more sceptical in this area to defend the rights of non-smokers and they should encourage EU institutions - having heeded the opinion of the European Parliament - to find ways of adopting legislation of an obligatory nature.
Madam President, firstly I would like to compliment Mrs Estrela on her initiative. I agree with the points that she made.
In Ireland, I have also seen the transformation in attitudes to smoking and I have seen a transformation in the habits of Irish smokers. I was President of the Gaelic Athletic Association, which is Ireland's largest sporting body. We introduced a ban in our biggest stadium, which can hold 82 500 people. People resisted it but now they accept it. There is a complete change. I have no problem with people smoking but it affects others and that is the problem. Passive smoking has basically been eliminated in Ireland and adults have also cut back on smoking. Many have given it up and also - and more importantly - young people are less inclined to smoke now than they were before.
The final point I would make is that, even in terms of their clothes, people find that there is no longer a smell. When you go abroad and go into restaurants, and if you smell smoke, you are inclined to leave, and it is the same for hotel rooms. It is a good initiative and, the sooner it is introduced, the better for everybody. They will not regret it, I can guarantee that.
Madam President, people have the right to smoke but I bow to no one in saying that others should not have to breathe in the smoke at the workplace or any establishment that is breathed out by others.
Personally I hate the stuff - just loathe the stuff - and I welcome the ban that has been introduced in my country. But I do not think the decision should be taken at European level. I do not think we should be calling for binding legislation to apply to every Member State. I am a federalist but I am not a centralist. Decisions should be taken at the lowest practical level and, in this case, that is the Member State, or indeed the regional government, as in Scotland, the first area of my country to go smoke-free.
It is so easy to disregard the principle of subsidiarity when we think we are doing good. In this case, I think we are trying to do good, but with the Lisbon Treaty now adopted, we should be bending over backwards to respect that principle.
(DE) Madam President, we need clear and practical rules for the protection of non-smokers to be introduced throughout Europe. However, in my opinion 'throughout Europe' does not necessarily mean 'from Europe'. Many Member States already have in place legislation to protect non-smokers and others are in the process of introducing laws of this kind.
Why are some of my fellow Members now saying that we in Brussels can do this much better than the Member States, regardless of the fact that the European Union has no authority on health policy and that we have to implement this via the circuitous route of health and safety at work? In my opinion, the Member States should decide which regulations to put in place to protect non-smokers. This makes sense, because they are closer to the local problems and issues. I do not understand why Brussels should impose protection for non-smokers in Lapland and in Andalusia which is identical in every detail. What has happened to the cross-border implications? We in Brussels have come up against our limits in this respect.
For me, protecting children and young people is particularly important. We need comprehensive protection in this area. If we introduce protection for non-smokers on a European level via health and safety at work, we are not protecting children and young people, because they are not employees. Therefore, I would ask you to support Amendments 2 and 13 put forward by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats).
Madam President, my thanks to the honourable Members for this important debate. It is extremely positive that we are all so committed to succeeding in achieving smoke-free environments. I believe that we have many points of view in common. As I said earlier, I regret the fact that the European Parliament has not been able to submit its opinion in time, but the Presidency will take account of Parliament's resolution.
With regard to smoking in the workplace, the Commission has initiated a round of consultation with the social partners at EU level. They have been asked to give their opinion of the current legislation and any future legislative initiatives in this area. The proposal for a recommendation states that it is particularly dangerous for children and young people to be exposed to second-hand smoke and that this could increase the likelihood of their taking up smoking.
The proposal for a recommendation on smoke-free environments invites the Commission to report on the implementation, the functioning and the impacts of the proposed measures, on the basis of the information provided by Member States. The Commission's report will also provide an appropriate opportunity to return to this issue.
The issue of tobacco control will have a prominent place on the agenda over the next year as well. We will then begin preparations for the fourth session of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The conference will be held in Punta del Este in Uruguay on 15-20 November 2010. I am sure that at that time the Council will want to discuss this issue with the European Parliament once again.
I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Thursday, 26 November 2009).
Written statements (Rule 149)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is often the case that good intentions cause problems. No one here would question the fact that non-smokers need comprehensive protection. However, the compromise motion for a resolution on smoke-free environments on which we will be voting on Thursday goes far beyond the protection of non-smokers. Even though the current draft explicitly supports the principle of subsidiarity, it also undermines it. The motion calls for strict and legally binding regulations at EU level. It abuses valid concern for health protection in an attempt to transfer invalid authority in the field of health policy and of work and social issues to a European level. We all want a Europe which is close to its people and the principle of subsidiarity is the key to this. The Member States or, in the case of Germany, the federal states, must have their own discussions on the protection of non-smokers. This is the only way to identify solutions which suit each country's traditions and culture and are therefore close to its people. For these reasons, I would ask you to vote against the motion for a resolution in its current form on Thursday.
in writing. - (DE) I am a non-smoker myself. I am fully aware of the damage to health caused by using tobacco and by passive smoking. However, as is so often the case, these plans from the EU go a step too far. Some of these regulations are completely absurd and, in some cases, do not even permit smoking in the open air. The EU is focusing obsessively on the consumption of tobacco, while there are a number of other activities in daily life which have been statistically proven to be hazardous and harmful, such as fast food, sun beds, alcohol and coffee, driving a car, taking no exercise and having too little sleep, to name but a few. I would welcome sensible regulations and awareness campaigns which aim to minimise the risks involved. However, all adults should ultimately be responsible for making their own decisions about the extent to which they are prepared to accept the resulting damage to their health. A total ban on smoking in businesses is planned for 2012 and this gives very little consideration to those businesses that will suffer most, in other words, those in the catering industry. They can expect a drop in their takings of up to 20% which will result in the loss of numerous jobs. In addition, in recent years, restaurants and bars were required by law to set up smoking and non-smoking areas on their premises. A total smoking ban in 2012 would make these expensive investments obsolete at a stroke. The draft Council Recommendation on smoke-free environments is not a sensible measure.
The Member States in particular have some catching up to do when it comes to the protection of non-smokers. Our central concern must be to protect vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women. However, the European Union has no direct authority in this area. Health care is, and remains, a matter for the Member States and the countries must take on responsibility for these issues. The EU should therefore focus on what it can do to protect non-smokers, which means protecting employees in the workplace. However, attempting to achieve the fundamental aim of making Europe smoke-free by introducing a large number of regulations to protect workers is not a satisfactory solution to the problem. In order to protect as many sections of the population as possible and, in particular, children from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, we need more campaigns to raise public awareness. This is the only effective means of changing the way in which people in Europe think in the long term and this is the only solution to reducing smoking in the private sphere.
(The sitting was suspended at 19.30 and resumed at 21.00)


Emission performance standards for new passenger cars (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Sacconi, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles - C6-0022/2008 -.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have 'saved the best for last', as they say. This report was the first to be finished, exactly two weeks ago, and strangely enough it is the last to be debated.
First of all and quite sincerely I must thank everyone who has worked on this report, particularly the delegation, among many, from the French Presidency. I too would like to mention Mr Léglise-Costa, who led this initiative with great professionalism. Together we have found an intelligent solution to the issue, at perhaps the most difficult time imaginable, that is to say when the motor industry is in the throes of an appalling crisis.
On close examination, this result was by no means a foregone conclusion, not least considering how this report's journey began, with all the controversy when the Commission adopted the corresponding proposal last December. Yet we have succeeded not only in seeing it through, but also in achieving three things at once: we have stepped up our efforts, enhanced our strategy and introduced greater flexibility.
I say we have stepped up our efforts because, as you know, the priority proposed by Parliament has been agreed; that is to say, a long-term reduction target has been included, of 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre by 2020. This is obviously important because it brings this sector into line with others covered by other legislative instruments such as the emissions trading scheme, but also, and above all, because it allows companies to plan their investment, innovation and research accordingly, which I believe is crucial at this difficult time.
Secondly, I say we have enhanced our strategy for the reasons that Mrs Corbey explained a short while ago: we have in fact helped to shape the future by encouraging eco-innovations and subjecting them to rigorous controls; we have encouraged research into new engines, or new fuels, shall we say; and we have introduced a system of super credits for vehicles with exceptionally low emissions. This opens up a strategic outlook that will, of course, hinge on the review in 2015 of the testing systems used to produce accurate and credible measurements of how much the various technologies help to reduce emissions.
Finally, we have introduced greater flexibility, as I said, because, as we have managed to strengthen the regulation, it has been possible, reasonable and fair to allow businesses to take a gradual approach, phasing in the new measures between 2012 and 2015. At the same time, as you will be aware, we have reformulated the procedures in such a way that they still enable us to persuade companies to make investments that will put them in a position to meet their own specific reduction targets, while at the same time facilitating their transition to the new system.
I would like to say again how pleased I am with this proposal; it is, I believe, a great work of industrial policy. It is shame that we do not have the power or all the tools we need to be able to intervene with other instruments or other levers, and I hope that under the Commission's coordination all the Member States will adopt intelligent policies to encourage demand, using forms of eco-taxation, for instance, as the French Government has done for its part, in order to prevent any distortion of competition. This would be an extremely useful additional measure in terms of replacing existing, obsolete vehicles, while permitting more efficient cars to be placed on the market on a large scale.
I hope that today we will also have the pleasure of finding out the Commission's opinion on this compromise, since up to now it has not been stated officially.
Mr President, I would like to very sincerely thank the rapporteur, Mr Sacconi, because this is a difficult issue, and the current, real and serious industrial and social crisis in Europe has not reduced its seriousness.
Moreover, we are dealing with something that is basically quite emblematic of our urban ways, the way we move around, our way of life, our industry, our society. It was therefore an impossible bet on a subject, moreover, in which there are many consumer countries and few producers, in reality. It was therefore very complex.
The Commission had already initially done this very difficult task, as far as possible. The rapporteur and Parliament have adjusted the realm of possibility and I believe that, with the prospect of the 95 grams, the details of which will be re-established in 2013, but which have now been clearly set out, manufacturers now have visibility and are going to be able to integrate technology in order to get there by 2020.
We are currently not sure what the emissions are from the existing stock. We only know about the stock that has been sold, which is not far off 160 grams. The target is 95 grams, and the current stock is probably at more than 200 grams. This is the extent of the challenge. It is really a very spectacular step forward. I do not know what the Commission will say now, but insofar as it has conducted this project from the start with so much intelligence, expertise and finesse, I have no doubt that all of this will end in a consensus.
Mr President, the proposed legislation on carbon dioxide and cars will, for the first time, establish binding emission targets for the automotive industry. At the same time, it is an important tool in helping the Member States to achieve their emission targets within the framework of the proposal on effort sharing between the Member States.
The compromise agreement achieved introduces a series of changes to the Commission's proposal. They include the gradual adoption of targets between 2012 and 2015, lower fines for the first 3 grams by which manufacturers exceed their targets up to 2018 and, finally, the provision for taking account of eco-innovations, which are disregarded today when measuring emissions during test cycles.
These amendments could also be seen as a watering down of the Commission's proposal. The proposal for a compromise on a long-term basis, by setting a long-term target for emissions from all new cars in the order of 95 grams per kilometre by 2020, offsets these losses. By incorporating the target in question, the legislation will achieve approximately one-third of the reductions needed in the sectors outside the emissions trading scheme, which is approximately what we had initially calculated for 2020.
The compromise agreement achieved benefits both the environment and consumers, who will save money from lower fuel bills. It will also provide stability in investments, allow manufacturers to predict movements, strengthen innovation and result in greater investment in research and development. Thus it will offer manufacturers the advantage of the initiative to move on global markets, where the demand for ecological cars is expected to increase, and by extension it will improve the competitiveness of the automotive industry in Europe. I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Guido Sacconi, for the important contribution which he made in achieving the agreement and I trust that you will support the compromise agreement in the vote tomorrow.
Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Guido Sacconi. He headed a good and fair negotiation and I think that the result can be seen for itself. The outcome of the negotiations in the trialogue reflects some of the basic points demanded by the Committee on Industry. We demanded ambitious targets for 2020, we demanded a slow phasing in, we want a fair distribution of the burden, and we want ecological innovations; the recognition of eco-innovations also had a broad majority. We want to treat niche vehicles and small series separately and the only point which is still under discussion is the size of fines. I am convinced that we could reduce the fines still further and still achieve the effect. This is the first time we have had binding targets and these binding targets will exert the necessary pressure. It is an ambitious programme and deserved agreement.
If we judge all this like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, then you have to say that they want to kill the cow that is supposed to provide the milk. Others want to milk it constantly without feeding it. We have found a reasonable compromise and that is how it should be.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, let me begin by paying a genuine heartfelt tribute to Guido Sacconi's work on this. It has been a pleasure to work with him. One of these days I may even learn Italian and be able to communicate with him properly, though he is leaving Parliament next year. He has done a fantastic job on this regulation.
Europe's car industry is particularly significant. It is very important in many ways: millions of people in Europe depend for their jobs and their livelihood on this very important and in some respects cutting-edge industry. It certainly accounts for a major proportion of our manufacturing export outlet. Through various measures we have succeeded in exporting much of the rest of our manufacturing capacity outside Europe. We have to be very careful that we do not do the same with the car industry.
I have to say that I thought the original Commission proposal was too draconian and placed too many burdens on the car industry, and large parts of it were probably unachievable without major change within industry.
However, we have now arrived at a very good and acceptable compromise. It was important that instead of always wielding the big stick we left some space for carrots. I think we have done that now: we have put in incentives for the manufacturers to develop cleaner and greener technology rather than threatening them all the time with swingeing penalties.
We must never forget the important role that the Member States will need to play in this, in terms of adjusting their tax systems to make the incentives for buying cleaner and greener cars much more attractive.
It is a good proposal now, and my group will support it in the vote tomorrow. I thank Guido Sacconi once again for his work. I think that, after much negotiation, much argument and much debate, we have reached an acceptable compromise, and I pay tribute to the French presidency for that. Albeit, I think the whole first-reading process is severely flawed, and I hope we do not adopt this for future legislative acts.
Mr President: 'When Europe meets a good idea, they go around the world together'. By giving this quote by President Mitterrand, I wanted to point out that this climate change package is an opportunity, a real chance for the development of our territory.
The CO2 regulation for new cars that is part of this approach is the result of a compromise, as our colleague, Guido Sacconi, said, whom I congratulate.
As with any compromise, we can look at it as a glass half full or a glass half empty. However, the target of 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre by 2020 perfectly fits with the technological revolution, the ambition and the philosophy that we want to see emerge in industrial policies for the vehicle sector, which is being seriously affected by the crises, and it gives perspective on the compromise.
However, this industrial situation requires several ingredients: the financial capacity of the Union to invest, to create a real European adjustment fund for a non-carbon economy, in particular in the vehicle research sector, and to bring together the employees of the sectors concerned through the creation of a consultative committee on climate change, in order to give direction to the social dialogue.
The crises and the demands of the fight against climate change mean that we urgently need to generate new industrial policies based on this capacity to anticipate, to manage the social dialogue and to develop employment. 'A wise man cures ambition with ambition itself'.
The MEPs from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament therefore remembered ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr President, this part of the climate package is one of the most important parts, because the automotive industry lies at the heart of the economies of many of our Member States. That is why this chapter had to be closed now, so that the automotive industry can focus on the crisis plaguing it and will not need to keep battling with what figures it must or can achieve.
We need security of planning and this package gives us security of planning. It is a now-or-never package. It is a now-or-never decision, because if we do not get it through now, if we were to go now to second reading, then we would not get an automotive regulation. For this reason and because it is a special omen, I should like to congratulate Guido Sacconi.
It was not easy, when he took over as rapporteur for this difficult part, to strike a balance here. He has managed to do so. I have to say, I have the highest respect for your work, because you have managed in this report to create incentives for industry but, at the same time, to introduce fines which, as Werner Langen said, are perhaps a little high, but which achieve a paradigm shift, which is precisely what we need here.
We cannot keep pummelling away at the automotive industry by saying you have not achieved your own targets. What about when the automotive industry developed the Smart car, the Lupo, the A2, and no one bought them? Cars in showrooms do no good whatsoever. However, now we are in a phase in which, as a result of the economic situation and as a result of the legislation we are preparing here, the transition to a new era of mobility can be achieved.
That is why I believe that this is not a watering down; it is a paradigm shift that we have before us and that we have helped to bring about, and this paradigm shift will also go down in history alongside the name Stavros Dimas. I should like to thank the Commissioner for his stubbornness, for his obstinacy, because that is ultimately what brought about this result.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to make a point of praising Stavros Dimas. He tabled a very reasonable proposal. It is a shame that Environment Minister Borloo did not give Mr Dimas strong support against the diehard reactionary Heads of State from Germany and especially Italy. It was Mr Berlusconi and Mrs Merkel who made sure that we now have a directive which will result in 2012, when the rules in this directive have been exhausted, in higher average emissions from the new European car fleet than we have today. Whatever happened to ambition?
Mr Langen, I asked you last time to bring me proof that you are capable of this sort of basic calculation. I, at any rate, come on balance to the conclusion that this directive will not exert any pressure to innovate because, apart from the unambitious regulation of limit values, it recognises no penalty mechanism and because the limit value for 2020 was not made compulsory.
The current crisis in the automotive industry in Europe was caused by the automotive industry itself. It slept through and sat out decades of pressure to innovate. It failed to respond to the need to protect the climate or to the demands of the energy crisis and we are again passing up an opportunity to ensure there is constructive pressure here until well into the next decade.
Unless agreement is reached tomorrow on a binding long-term target, my group will be unable to vote for this directive. I am sorry, Mr Dimas, that it should be so. We must make an example of this directive. We must ask ourselves if Europeans really are serious in their ambitions to protect the climate, if they are not more daring with their gas-guzzling cars and cars as status symbols than we are in this directive.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Sacconi, for his excellent work on the compromise, which was reached with decision, determination and, indeed, endurance.
The report on the reduction of CO2 emissions from light vehicles has added an important detail: the fight against climate change. For the first time, in fact, we have regulated CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles by imposing an ambitious and binding long-term target of 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre by 2020, at a time when the serious financial crisis and the subsidies given to the motor industry in non-EU countries are, together, severely testing our own industry. We have successfully fought to include a reduction in the penalties for slight deviations from the set targets.
We believe that the method the Commission has chosen to determine the reduction targets, based on the kerb weight of the average car, is questionable and unjustified from an environmental point of view. Indeed, a provision of this kind leads to a paradoxical situation in which vehicles that are lighter and smaller, and therefore less polluting, are in fact penalised. Nonetheless I believe and hope that, once appropriately balanced, the text will be able to give great impetus to a targeted effort. For these reasons I see the report on the reduction of vehicle CO2 emissions as a significant result and I am therefore in favour of its adoption.
Since 1990, emissions from the European transport industry have increased by over 30%. As early as 1995, the European Commission proposed an emissions requirement of 120 g per kilometre for European cars. However, what we are to vote on now is a lost opportunity. When this law comes into force in 2012, 35% of cars will be exempt. With so-called eco-innovations, car manufacturers are able to release even more emissions. The fines are so low that it is cheaper to ignore the law than to convert their production. What will become of Parliament's requirement of 95 g per kilometre by 2020? Nothing!
Vote for Amendment 50 put forward by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. Then we will have a truly binding emissions requirement for cars: 95 g of carbon dioxide by 2020. If this is adopted, we in the GUE/NGL Group are prepared to support this. Otherwise, we are not.
It is said that if two company managers are shut in a room they will immediately start to discuss how they can divide up the market between them and form a cartel. Unfortunately, this also applies to the two large political groups in this Parliament, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. Once again the PPE-DE Group and the PSE Group have chosen to ride roughshod over the rest of us. Who are the big losers in all this? Well, they are the environment and social democracy. For the environment, this is a lost opportunity to take control of the emissions from cars. As regards the Socialist Group, this agreement demonstrates that they are increasingly starting to resemble their environmentally unfriendly political opponents in the PPE-DE Group. It does not bode well.
Mr President, voluntary agreements to reduce CO2 emissions from cars were struck between car manufacturers back in the 1990s. According to these agreements, a considerable reduction in emissions should have been achieved by now.
There is very little evidence of this in practice, however. The average CO2 emissions from a car today are not that different from those of 10 years ago. That is why we must impose strict, binding rules. A strong industry lobby, however, has significantly weakened the original Commission proposal, which I regret.
What has been included, though, is a long-term goal of 95 g/km by 2020, which I am pleased about, but it depends on the interpretation to what extent this has been included effectively in the current text. Moreover, the short-term agreements have been watered down, which is partly attributable to a phase-in for both volume and penalties, as a result of which fewer efforts are made.
Consequently, I am unable to support the present agreement reached between the Council and Parliament, and I regret that the Commission proposal came to nothing.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have also been eager to take the floor to express my thanks for the work that has been done, above all by Mr Sacconi, who has by now accumulated experience that helps him to resolve even the most difficult of cases, but also of course by the French Presidency, the Council and the Commission. Their concerted efforts have enabled us to finalise all of these climate dossiers and this one in particular regarding the automobile sector which, as many have said, raised concerns due to the current economic situation.
Many of the speakers today have said that these are ambitious targets, from the initial ones for 2012 to the final ones for 2020, and that it was a wise decision to choose this single timeframe, which also applies to other reports that we will be adopting over the next few days. I also agree with the decision to introduce the modulated penalty system gradually, and the possibility of taking into account reductions achieved through the use of eco-innovations. All of these things stemmed from the trialogue among the institutions and, in my opinion, have enabled us to find solutions that lower the economic cost for manufacturers at this sensitive time, without affecting the general targets. An example of this is the introduction of super credits for cars emitting less than 50 g of CO2 per kilometre.
That said, I too would like to point out that, in all likelihood, the approach taken whereby the limit value of emissions will increase in line with vehicle weight will mean that smaller vehicles will not obey the general rule that 'he who pollutes the most, pays the most'. We are nonetheless pleased with the outcome and are happy to vote in favour of this report.
(ES) Mr President, I would first of all like to thank Mr Sacconi for his enormous patience and his wisdom, which enabled us not only to rescue a crucial regulation for the environment, economy, employment and industry, but also to rescue with this regulation the whole energy and climate change package, which in fact depended on this philosopher's stone.
I would like to congratulate him and us, because he has achieved an essential balance between carrots and sticks and, above all, he has succeeded in showing the carrots needed to drive such a complex text forward.
This report promotes the eco-innovations associated with reduced CO2 emissions, supports research and innovation into reducing emissions, and also promotes the biofuels and filling stations needed for that.
It also lays down estimates for the new car fleet by means of the target required, with a review and a proposal that the Commission should put forward in 2014, which will also take the framework into account.
It also considers zero-emission vehicles and very low-emission vehicles and their multiplier effect; this helps the industry and gives it not only a carrot but also an obligation, and it also provides consumers with better access to information.
All that is left for me to say is perhaps to beg Mr Sacconi to do everything he can to come back to Parliament again.
Mr President, when you consider the ambitions we had just a few months ago for reducing CO2 emissions from cars, these proposals are deeply disappointing. They let down the environment, they let down car drivers, who are going to be forced to pay more to use vehicles which use excessive quantities of fuel, and they even let down the European car industry, which will be at risk of being overtaken by more innovative competitors.
The argument is that the car industry is in financial crisis. But nothing we do, no proposals we make, no legislation we put into practice now will make any difference at all to the current situation of the industry. All we would be doing is telling the car designers to sit down in front of their computers and start building and designing the cars of the future.
This legislation is sad. It is bad. And, given that the International Energy Agency has just predicted that oil reserves across the world will peak within 10 years, it might even be described as completely mad. I shall not vote for it.
(DE) Mr President, I should like to express my thanks to Mr Guido Sacconi, because he has managed here to square the circle. If you look at what we agreed in the Davies report and in the CARS 21 report, where we actually want to start legislating in 2015, the substance of the Commission proposal has on the whole been safeguarded and there is a balance between social, ecological and economic criteria.
As far as innovation is concerned, I must say that Guido Sacconi has introduced a good instrument with the innovation bonus, because manufacturers of cars which emit less than 50 grams of CO2 will be rewarded if they sell the cars and not, as Jorgo Chatzimarkakis said, if they are sitting in showrooms or unveiled at motor shows. The cars must be sold in order for the bonus to be granted. That will exert pressure on the industry to get these cars to consumers quickly.
(PL) Mr President, it so happens that we debated the report by Mr Groote only yesterday. It was a very good report, and also related to the automotive sector, but to heavy vehicles.
Today we have Mr Sacconi's report before us. We have every reason to say loud and clear that, as the European Union, as Parliament, we are doing all we can to ensure that our people, that is to say, our citizens, benefit from an ever-higher standard of living, in relation to environmental protection. We need to ensure that industry can actually implement these actions. It will not be easy to do so, but it does appear to be possible.
A further point I should like to make is that there have to be buyers for the new products we are planning. Mr Sacconi's work indicates that there is reason to hope for success regarding these positive features, that is to say, the protection of the environment and the possibility of manufacturing vehicles of this type, which will then become accepted on the market. I should like to thank him for that.
(ES) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Sacconi on the work he has done and the results his work has achieved.
The proposal that we are now examining has two main aims: to reach a limit of 95 grams per kilometre by 2020 through technological improvements in new vehicles, and to achieve an additional reduction by improving other systems or components, such as tyres or air conditioning, and promoting more economical driving styles.
We support the agreement because it is balanced. It helps to make a significant reduction in CO2 emissions and preserves the competitiveness of the European car industry.
We are working towards an ambitious agreement for 2020. What we are asking of the car industry is comparable to what we have asked of other production sectors, and now the industry itself needs to draw up its strategy to achieve the targets set.
Europe now produces one-third of all the cars manufactured worldwide. If we want to retain this privileged position, we must ensure that our cars are the cleanest and the safest of all. We will therefore have to invest in innovation and in promoting the renewal of our vehicle fleet.
(PL) (microphone initially disconnected) ... account for approximately one-third of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. There can be no doubt as to the need to support innovative solutions, aimed at introducing environmentally friendly technology.
We have achieved considerable success in this area recently. The constant rise in the number of motor vehicles means, however, that the positive effects are still not making themselves felt very strongly. That is why the Commission's initiative to accelerate the changes seems to be a step in the right direction.
We should keep in mind the achievement of the summit's aim, namely limiting the emission of harmful compounds. Nonetheless, we must also take account of the arguments put forward by vehicle manufacturers. They point out that the European automotive industry is one of the symbols of Europe's economic power and employs thousands of workers. The imposition of overly strict requirements could make this industry less competitive, due to the higher price of the vehicles produced. This in turn would result in huge job losses.
Such concerns are certainly justified if we consider the negative consequences of the economic crisis for the motor vehicle sector.
(RO) I would like to congratulate Mr Sacconi on his report on an area which is extremely important from an economic and social perspective, a fact which is also borne out by the European economic recovery plan. This objective will be attained through improvements in motor technology and technological innovations.
By 2012 carbon dioxide emissions produced by passenger cars should not exceed 130 g/km. Vehicle manufacturers must ensure, through a gradual process, that by 2012 65% of new cars meet these requirements and that by 2015 all new cars meet them. A bonus scheme will be applicable for cars with emissions below the specified limit, while penalties will be imposed on manufacturers for cars with emissions above this limit. The car manufacturing industry therefore needs to invest in new technologies to be able to produce green cars. Thank you.
Mr President, I much admire Mr Sacconi and usually agree with him, but not on this occasion.
The target of 95 g/km in 12 years' time is not an achievement, unfortunately. It is a major setback, and I wonder whether this legislation is about saving the environment or saving the car manufacturers.
I have the impression that on this occasion the environmentalists, not excluding Commissioner Dimas, have put up a fight to save the environment but they have lost to the major car manufacturers. This is very sad because we had a chance to make a difference and we missed it.
(SV) Mr President, who are we trying to protect by imposing limited requirements on the car industry? We talk about loopholes in the legislation. These are not loopholes. These are absolute motorways with emergency exits for the car industry, which avoids any responsibility and any requirements. Who benefits from this? Are we to continue to produce cars that no one in the world wants to drive? No. Most cars will in future be sold in India and China and other developing countries, and they want low-energy cars. Our planet wants low-energy cars and Europe's consumers want low-energy cars. Are we, then, to allow the car industry to live in a fantasy world where they can continue to produce cars that no one wants? No. This is a bad policy for the environment, for consumers, for the economy and for research. A total failure, in other words. We are therefore unable to support this proposal.
Mr Sacconi, we have reached the end, but not the end of our understanding, I think.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, here is a simple calculation that anyone can do on their own, with paper and pen. Given that the average CO2 emissions from cars sold in 2005 were 159 grams per kilometre, on the basis of this regulation introducing a binding target for 2020 of 95 grams per kilometre, we will have cut the average emissions from cars sold by 38% in 2020. It is quite easy to work out, and you do not need an impact assessment to get the answer. I think it is extraordinary.
My apologies to those of you who have praised me and thanked me for my work and who approve of this compromise, which seems to me to be a large majority of you, but allow me to address mainly the dissenters and our friends from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, namely Mr Davies, who are once again demonstrating their inability to take responsibility. They just call for wonderful targets, but when it comes to decision time, they leave it to us to decide.
Well, I only hope that the same farce does not begin that I had over REACH (the Regulation on chemicals and their safe use), because these same groups said that REACH too was giving in, that it was a betrayal. A month later it was heralded on their websites as a great environmental success for the Union, making the EU the world leader, we might say, in the control of chemical substances. I hope that this time I will be spared such a farce.
Thank you, Mr Borloo, and Mr Dimas, too; your opinion as you expressed it is clear and will help us bring this difficult work to its conclusion with tomorrow's vote.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday 17 December 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
This morning I attended a clean mobility conference in a college of higher education in Limburg. The conference focused on electric cars. It is obvious that the time is right to switch to this environmentally friendly technology. The era of fossil fuels has run its course.
The current crisis which the car industry is facing also offers opportunities to completely change tack. The manufacturers must, in exchange for the government support and guarantees they are receiving, invest far more in this technology of the future, or affordable batteries with a greater range, in other words.
The government, in turn, should support this switch far more resolutely, not least fiscally.
Since 2005, there has been a Commission proposal on the table to reform car tax and to coordinate this at European level. This proposal should be re-submitted to the ministers. Car tax should be re-calculated on the basis of emissions criteria. People who drive electric cars and emit hardly any CO2 or soot particles, if at all, should be rewarded fiscally for this.
It is time for a radical switch. The engineers have done their bit. It is now up to the government to push the car manufacturers further in the right direction and to do so quickly.
The current debate on the so-called environmental package confirms the ambitious targets Europe has set itself in relation to combating climate change. The European automotive industry is part and parcel of Europe's strategy to achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases, make our economy less energy-intensive and increase the proportion of energy derived from renewable sources by 2020 in comparison to 1990.
This is particularly relevant as regards reducing CO2 emissions. According to EU data, private cars produce 12% of all CO2 emissions on the territory of the Community. This high level of emissions is mainly due to the increasing number of cars and to greater use of road transport, which has not been compensated for by improvements in engine construction or reduction in vehicle weight.
It is planned to reduce the CO2 emission limits for private cars to 120 grams per kilometre by 2012. It is also planned to set out a long-term strategy for the reduction of this limit to 95 grams per kilometre by 2020. This is in line with the European Parliament's opinion that it takes five to seven years to bring out new types of motor vehicles. This of course impacts on the development and production cycles of the motor vehicle industry.
The principles adopted are certainly ambitious from an environmental point of view. On the other hand, increased investment in research and development required due to the new standards will encourage scientific research on technical solutions to achieve fuel saving. This increases the level of innovation in the motor vehicle sector, which will in turn promote the competitiveness of Europe's economy.
The current financial and economic crisis poses massive challenges for the automotive and supply industry. Sales figures are falling and many factories have suspended production until the end of the year. In Germany, every seventh job depends directly or indirectly on car manufacture. One important policy objective must be to create framework conditions to protect jobs in Germany even in times of crisis. The regulation has therefore come along at completely the wrong time.
I am sorry that the report tabled does not create incentives to stem emissions. This would, in my opinion, have been the right approach to climate change, including in times of economic crisis. The threat of horrendous penalties is not a solution.
I am therefore of the opinion that private agendas are being pursued here to the detriment of the German economy. What is important to me is to promote protection of the climate, but not to the detriment of individual EU Member States. This regulation hits not only German car manufacturers themselves, but also, above all, the mostly medium-sized suppliers, many of which are located in the Nürnberg Metropolitan Region. As a new MEP for Nürnberg, I cannot therefore vote in favour of this report.


Closure of sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.25 p.m.)


13. Consumer Markets Scoreboard (