1. Ombudsman's annual report 2010 (


One-minute speeches (Rule 144)
The next item is one-minute speeches.
Mr President, the mounting crisis in relations between Estonia and Russia affects us all. What we have is a clear case of undue pressure by a large country against a small one. This is the kind of behaviour from which the European Union protects small states. Russia has persistently accused Estonia of nurturing something that it calls 'fascism', without producing a shred of evidence. The campaign brings the very idea of anti-fascism into disrepute, above all because Russia itself is behaving like a fascist state. The campaign dishonours the memory of those who really did fight fascism and especially those who gave their lives in that struggle, millions of Russians included. Anti-fascism means democracy and equality of respect for all. Russia, by contradicting this, is reviving fascism and thereby turning into a threat to Europe as a whole.
Madam President, I would like to raise a serious matter of EU funding being misused, in my view, for the destruction of archaeological heritage in Ireland. I appeal to Commissioner Dimas to intervene directly with Minister Roche in Ireland to ensure that these subsidies, which are being provided to build the N3 motorway in County Meath, are not facilitating the destruction of a recently discovered Neolithic site - a 'woodhenge'. This is an extremely important site, quite close to the historic Tara Hill. The Director of the National Museum in Ireland has called for a complete archaeological excavation, but, given that Minister Roche has been deaf to all expert advice so far, there is a real risk that this unique Neolithic site will be lost. In view of the European investment in this motorway project, it is essential that the Commission step in to ensure that a significant part of not only Irish heritage, but by definition also part of European heritage, is properly excavated, and that if necessary the N3 motorway be reconfigured to achieve that objective.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we are about to witness a dishonourable - I repeat: dishonourable - episode in the European Union, the responsibility for which rests primarily with the Council and with the inertia of the Commission, which are in breach of compulsory mandates that we have given them. In December 1994 we were defeated by a mere eight votes when the universal moratorium on the death penalty was about to be established. Since then, for 13 years, the overwhelming majority of the UN has been ready to vote for this great principle of civilisation. Since then the European Union has prevented them from voting.
Parliament has said during this part-session that the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) that will take place on Monday 14 May is probably preparing, once again, to betray the mandate entrusted to it and to postpone for yet another year this certain victory.
Madam President, I would ask you to urge the President of Parliament to deal promptly with the issue.
(PL) Madam President, Poland's fruit growers have suffered yet another setback. Poor protection of the internal market against excessive imports and dumping has been compounded by frost which has destroyed some 90% of this year's harvest. The losses, estimated at some 1.5 billion EUR, are beyond the means of the Polish Government and insurance companies. Low returns on fruit farming, particularly soft fruits, and especially since Poland's accession to the EU, has meant a reluctance to insure harvests, both by insurance companies and by the farmers themselves, who simply cannot afford it. This situation requires immediate assistance from the European Union, both emergency aid and long-term aid for the coming years. If not, Poland's farmers will be condemned to bankruptcy, and the EU to importing its fruit from third countries.
Madam President, the European Commission has wisely dropped plans to enforce complete metrication in the UK. It realises that nothing would be more likely to ferment rebellion against the European Union amongst the general population than for them to lose the pound, the pint and the mile. This is a victory for Britain, but it is only a skirmish that has been won. The European Union has made a tactical withdrawal in order to fight more strategic battles later. The struggle for British independence is still being waged and the final victory, when Britain leaves the European Union, is still some way off. The next big confrontation will be over the revised European Constitution. At this point I would like to add my voice to those calling for a posthumous royal pardon to be granted to the metric martyr, Steve Thoburn, who was convicted in the year 2000 for the heinous criminal offence of selling bananas in pounds and ounces.
(DE) Madam President, I should like to inform the public and those responsible of an outrageous case of obstructing the work of an independent Member of the European Parliament. In Austria, the top candidate of the Liberal Forum at the last student elections, Martin Ehrenhauser, received a letter on 20 April 2007 stating: 'We are offering you a job as a contract agent from 15 May 2007 working for the political group of Non-attached Members in the European Parliament.' Mr Ehrenhauser travelled here. Suddenly the letter is no longer valid. The reason: a political instruction from the very top, from the new Secretary General, Harald Rømer.
This is unacceptable. It was a bolt from the blue and in this case it affects me. You will be aware that every Member has the right to work with at least one member of parliamentary staff in his group in his mother tongue. I am the only one who is denied this privilege, because there is a desire to make the work of an unpleasant critic more difficult. At the same time, it is precisely the large groups here that allocate themselves legions of staff who are loyal to their party. Altogether Parliament employs thousands of staff.
I call on the Bureau and those responsible to investigate this case. This kind of thing is detrimental to Parliament and it is also detrimental to our understanding of democracy.
(CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in these post-modern times, marriage is becoming less and less popular, especially among young people, yet it remains the foundation of the family. It is thus in the interest of the Member States and of the EU as a whole to support marriage. Following our accession to the EU, I frequently hear complaints about the long-term complications people face when they marry citizens of other Member States.
It is hard for EU citizens to understand that there is no agreement between EU Member States on the mutual recognition of official documents. Men and women wanting to get married have to spend time and effort going around numerous offices to complete bureaucratic formalities in order to make the wedding possible. For me too as an MEP it is hard to understand why the offices of one Member State refuse to recognise marriage certificates or confirmations of citizenship as stated in normal documents. Young people find the process of obtaining current documents and having them super-legalised especially arduous. I am under no illusions about our ability to harmonise codes. Nevertheless our citizens certainly deserve some simple measures aimed at simplifying those laws.
(LT) Russia is behaving disgracefully in Estonia and is not even trying to hide its behaviour. The Russians have commenced an economic blockade against a European Union Member State. In the past, Russia has behaved more subtly in Latvia or Lithuania, or in other countries, which is perhaps why the European Union has been nonchalant about most of Russia's actions. After the events in Estonia I urge you to reconsider the European Union's relations with Russia. Strategic partnership should be replaced by principled, honourable and pragmatic cooperation.
In my opinion, it is essential to postpone the 18 May meeting in Samara. We need to lay out the European Union's opinion to Russia on what conditions are essential for such meetings to be able to take place again in the future. Javier Solana must go to Moscow and clearly state the European Union's position. Europe has enough arguments. My fear is that some European Union leaders will want to have yet another photo opportunity with the antidemocratic Putin, rather than defend the European Union's democratic values.
Madam President, I start by saying to you - and I hope you will convey this to the President - how much I enjoyed the initiative he took in inviting Nobel Prize winners here this afternoon and particularly hearing from distinguished scientists speaking to us in this Chamber. We have many issues to deal with, colleagues, involving science and technology and we do not have enough dialogue with the science and technology community. Through this speech tonight, I would like to draw to the attention of all my colleagues the fact that the Parliament's own Science and Technology Assessment Unit, of which I am privileged to be Vice-President, with my colleague Mr Busquin as President, is holding a major event in the June Strasbourg week, called the STOA Experience. There will be exhibitions of recent work and many distinguished scientists will meet and talk to Members about the projects we have under way. I hope many colleagues will take a real opportunity to step up dialogue between ourselves in this Parliament and the leaders in the science and technology community within the European Union.
Thank you for drawing that to our attention, Mr Harbour.
Madam President, I would like to emphasise a point which is not universally known in the European Union. This is the fact that - with the exception of Denmark - cars are most expensive in my country, the smallest country in the EU. This is mainly due to the fact that there is an extraordinary tax called registration tax, which is sometimes higher than the value of the car itself. This means that, in a country where wages are on a par at most with middle-income Europe, the price of vehicles, whether new or second hand, is exorbitant. This creates undue stress for middle- and lower-income families when it comes to changing their cars. It also affects the whole idea of world climate change. Although Malta is small, car owners find it terribly difficult to change their cars to more efficient energy-saving cars and those which produce less exhaust.
Madam President, as an Irish Member I am delighted to have one minute to add my voice to the many voices who celebrate and applaud what happened yesterday in Belfast. Indeed it is fitting that earlier today we congratulated Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan, David Trimble and John Hume, all Nobel Prize winners, for their contribution to peace-building and peacemaking in Northern Ireland. Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan worked within their communities and that is where real peace building is achieved, between people, between families, between neighbours and between communities. But we also need political leadership to drive the process forward and today we honoured two of those politicians, David Trimble and John Hume. There were many other politicians at different levels who took risks for peace and they too deserve our applause.
As we celebrate 50 years of the EU, it is most appropriate to recognise that the EU has also played an important role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, giving us moral and economic support. For that support I believe I can say on my own behalf and on behalf of Irish people, thank you to the EU for believing in us and supporting us on the road to peace.
. - (HU) Over the past six years, factories on Austrian territory have been continuously polluting the waters of the Rába River. The Rába crosses the Hungarian border already filled with polluted, foamy water. The Hungarian Minister of Environmental Protection, who stepped down yesterday, gave the Austrian factories until 1 May to stop the pollution, but no progress has so far been made. On 1 April, together with my colleague I personally delivered to the Austrian authorities the petition of the Hungarian delegation of the People's Party, calling upon the provincial and federal government to take the necessary steps. To date we have received no answer to our petition.
The Austro-Hungarian Water Commission, which years ago granted the factories an operating licence, is currently holding its annual meeting. This commission is made up of delegates by the governments of the two States, and the revocation of water rights licences likewise falls within their competence. We must do everything possible to stop this harmful, cross-border environmental pollution; therefore I call upon the Austro-Hungarian Water Commission, and thus indirectly on the governments of the two Member States in question - in which I request the assistance of Parliament - to revoke, effective immediately, the water rights licences of those factories which are polluting the river.
Madam President, as we celebrate 50 years of European values and fundamental principles, democracy in a candidate Member State is struggling to survive. The elected Government of Turkey is openly threatened by the country's biggest enemy, its army generals. The Turkish army, instead of protecting democracy, is set on a course to destroy it. Irrespective of our personal stance on Turkey's accession to the EU, it is to our benefit and to the benefit of the Turkish people that Turkey continues its reform process. It is our duty to support the political powers of Turkey, represented today by Mr Erdogan's Government, in their fight against the anachronistic armed forces, represented by Chief of Staff General Buyukanit. I call upon the President of this House to make a statement as soon as possible to express our strong support for the Government of Turkey and our dismay at the interference of the army in the politics of the country.
The European Parliament's message to the Turkish army generals should be loud and clear: 'Keep to your barracks and stop your war on democracy'.
(SK) I have been following the situation concerning political prisoners in Cuba for quite some time. It was with pleasure that I received the news that several opposition groups had recently come up with a joint declaration in which they committed themselves to a united approach in the struggle for a peaceful transition to democracy on the island.
The signatories of the declaration include such well-known dissidents such as Oswaldo Payá from the Christian Democratic Movement for Liberation, Elizardo Sanchez from the Cuban Human Rights and National Reconciliation Commission, and Martha Beatriz Roque and René Gómez Manzano from the Assembly for the Promotion of Civil Society. The document was also signed by the members of the organisation set up by the wives of political prisoners, known as the Ladies in White.
A unified peaceful opposition is essential to pursuing the changes that are needed by the people. One must not overlook the fact that, despite some political and philosophical differences, these groups share the same goals, including respect for human rights, reconciliation, the release of political prisoners, non-violence and cooperation.
(SK) The purpose of my presentation is to warn European consumers who wear Chinese textile products. Regrettably, many of those products are coloured using azocolourants that do not meet the standards set in Directive 2002/61/EC on azocolourants.
When people wear such textile products, the azocolourants penetrate the body like silent killers and cause cancer. Just as recently as May 2006 the laboratories of an authorised entity operating in the town of Svit, Slovakia, tested a sample of 90 textile products for children randomly collected on the Slovak market, most of them imported from China, and found that every fifteenth product was hazardous.
One can reasonably assume that large batches of essentially identical textile goods are to be found on the markets of other EU Member States. As these are extremely dangerous products, I urge the Commission to take effective measures to shorten as much as possible the time between sample collection and the publishing of an alert in the RAPEX system. The 3.5 months or more that it now takes is long enough for the hazardous product to be sold out and disappear from the market. I find these facts disconcerting, and I strongly believe that we must not remain inactive.
(PL) Madam President, there is a saying that you can tell who your real friends are in a crisis. At the moment, Poland's soft fruit farmers are facing such a crisis because of the frosts that have hit Poland in recent weeks. Soon these farms and their families will sink into poverty. Poland's farmers are hoping for some support from the EU, and that someone will reach out with a helping hand. This is what should in fact happen, as that is what solidarity means, that is what being together and helping one another in difficulty means. Lech Wałęsa, who is present in this House today, could tell you much more about this. Help from the European Union will create a good climate and increase our citizens' regard for the EU. Here in this House, in the EU institutions, we need to develop instruments at EU level to help those countries, regions and industries that have been afflicted by natural disasters.
That concludes the item.


12. Fisheries - transitional technical measures (


Obligations of cross-border service providers (debate)
The next item is the report by Lasse Lehtinen, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the obligations of cross-border service providers.
rapporteur. - (FI) Mr President, first I wish to express my thanks to the shadow rapporteurs for their encouragement and excellent cooperation: to Mrs Wallis, who is here today, and especially to Mr Hatzidakis. He was so competent that he was immediately chosen to join my own country's Cabinet. I am grateful and glad that both Mr Harbour and Mrs Kauppi are also here today.
The internal market, as we know, is based on the four freedoms, one of which, however, the cross-border movement of services, is not working very well. The Services Directive, which was decided on in this House a year ago, will improve the situation, when the Member States have to implement it in two years' time, but that will probably not be enough either.
Services, of course, cannot be compared to products in all respects, but services will one day be more important than they are now. High-quality and cross-border services in particular are this continent's future. The problem is that the acquis communautaire does not protect consumers who purchase services as well as consumers who purchase goods. European consumer confidence in cross-border consumption is low because the standard of services and level of protection varies from one Member State to the next.
The Union has Community legislation in given areas, but has no common rules for services. Consumers, like service providers, are not always able to say which Member State's legal regime is applicable when there is a dispute. It is partly because of this that consumers are afraid to use foreign service providers.
In my view, the Union should agree common rules and obligations which should be binding on service providers. These would benefit not only consumers but also the service providers themselves. If the Commission should at any time look into the matter of the service providers' obligations, it should not distinguish between private and public services. Both should equally come under the scope of application of directives on consumer protection.
In 1990 the Commission made a proposal on the obligations of cross-border service providers. It had to withdraw it, however, for lack of political will. There is, however, political will once again. The Commission should, if this report is adopted, submit, within 12 months, at least a work programme which reassesses the need for a horizontal instrument.
We need to settle on basic general rules enabling the consumer to obtain, if he or she so desires, relevant information on pricing, contract terms and remedies in the case of defective or delayed services.
The Commission should also take into account the impact of any initiative on operating conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises. Not all these matters were raised in the Green paper on consumer protection but they are in this report.
I hope I will receive the greatest possible support for this report.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am pleased to be here tonight to represent the Commission in this very important discussion on consumer confidence in the internal market. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lehtinen, and the shadow rapporteurs of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for their very ambitious work in drafting this report.
I should stress at the outset that the Commission agrees with the report regarding the need to increase consumer confidence in the internal market; in particular, the consumer internal market for services demands our attention. So, one of the Commission's priorities is to bring the benefits of the internal market closer to our European consumers and I am grateful for the support of the Parliament in this endeavour.
The Commission has already undertaken a number of initiatives in order to boost consumer confidence in the internal market. I would like to mention two: European consumer protection legislation and the Services Directive.
Now, the consumer acquis already sets out a number of obligations for cross-border service providers. For instance, it regulates the information obligations for traders who sell services long distance or on the consumers' doorstep. It also provides consumers with protection against unfair terms in services contracts. And, with the ongoing review of this acquis, the Commission will elaborate if there is further need to address the obligations of service providers and the rights of consumers in these areas.
Then, the Services Directive: you know it very well, you discussed it not long ago. It improves the position of consumers within the internal market for services. And it ensures that consumers will be better informed by businesses, better assisted by public authorities, and it establishes a number of clear and substantive obligations on service providers.
The Commission of course is very keen to ensure proper implementation of this Directive in all Member States and we believe that those two initiatives are very far-reaching because we can, from both of those initiatives, expect a real change in the consumer internal market for services once the implementation of the Services Directive is complete and the review of the consumer acquis delivers its results.
Having said that, I have also to underline that the Commission takes a different view to Mr Lehtinen's report on the need for a separate horizontal instrument to cover obligations of cross-border service providers at this stage for the simple reason that we believe that we should first accomplish our ongoing initiatives before coming, if necessary, to a separate horizontal instrument. That is why I would like to thank you for your commitment towards helping us implement these two instruments; in also helping European citizens to enjoy the full benefits of the internal market for services. And I know that my colleagues, Commissioner Kuneva and Commissioner McCreevy, look forward to discussing with you, working with you, to establish this internal market together with Parliament, which is the real representative of the European citizens.
So, thank you for your collaboration, thanks for this openness and I am sure that my two colleagues - and, indeed, the whole Commission - will, in a very deep way, continue to work together with Parliament.
Thank you, Commissioner. I would just remind you that all remarks should be addressed through the Chair. It is late at night and there are few of us but it is a small point of protocol. But I am sure Mr Lehtinen took on board your remarks.
Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, who seems to be losing his voice like I am. It seems to be the case that most colleagues have sore throats in Strasbourg this week.
I represent the Committee on Legal Affairs, for which I was draftsman of the opinion. I would like to say that, first of all, we fully agree with the assessment of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on the importance of the services sector for the development of the European Union. It would be an absolute kamikaze mission for the European Union and the competitiveness targets if we do not let the services sector flourish and allow the internal market to be completed in this respect. I really think, out of these 11.7 million jobs created over the last eight years in the European Union, almost 100% of the net growth of new jobs in Europe has come from the services sector, and everyday statistics prove this. But I have to be - in Finnish, a fakkijuristi - a 'dull lawyer', and bring the Legal Affairs Committee's point of view to this debate.
First of all, we really share the Commission view that at this point it is maybe too early to have a far-reaching new horizontal tool to solve the liability issues. We have already pending several legislative initiatives, which are all aimed at ensuring legal certainty, such as Rome I, Rome II and also the Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis.
Also, I would like to say that Article 5 of the contractual obligations (Rome I) proposal is essential in order to determine whether the consumer protection legislation of the country of origin or of the country of the client applies. This is especially important for smaller Member States, where we might lack a supply of new services if Article 5 is not correctly solved.
We also regret the present mix of legislative instruments. Sometimes it is not very clear which legal regime is applicable to each aspect of the activities of the services sector: whether they have to obey the civil law of the host or home country or the regulatory regime of the host or home country. It is necessary that we also get some case-law from the European Court of Justice on these issues.
Also I would like to stress that cross-border services are provided in many different ways. Some of them sell online, some travel to another country for services, and sometimes the service provider visits the customer's home country.
I think that the internal market for services, the legal framework which is based on the country of origin principle, depends on the relevant measures being clear both from the legal and practical perspective, and maybe it is too early now to really do something. As the Commissioner rightly said, now it is time to implement all the good work we have done during recent years.
If colleagues want to place something on the record, they can always do so in writing during the course of the voting procedure.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I speak on behalf of my friend and former colleague in this Parliament, Mr Konstantinos Hatzidakis, who, as Mr Lehtinen says, has been elevated swiftly to the position of Minister of Transport in the Greek Government. I want to pay tribute to him for the work he has done on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I am essentially picking up the work where he left off, right at the conclusion.
I want to thank Mr Lehtinen because it has not been recorded so far that this is his first report, I think, as a rapporteur. Some of you may know that he is a distinguished author in his own right, though I think this is probably not his best work. I do not think he will mind me saying that. I have a copy of his book Blood, Sweat and Bears, which he gave me to read, and I think he has put a bit of blood and sweat into this. It is an important report, but I have to say, from our side, we agree very much with the line that Ms Kauppi and Commissioner Reding have taken.
There is some useful material in here but I just want to reassure the Commissioner that, if she reads Article 22, which in my view is a masterpiece of compromise drafting, where it calls upon the Commission to continue work and to submit a work programme for an assessment, you will be pleased to hear it does not actually ask you to produce a horizontal instrument but to do a work programme to assess whether we need one. You already confirmed, I think, what many of us feel - that with all the work that is currently going on to implement the Services Directive, the Green Paper on the consumer acquis, which we have just considered and which will result in a horizontal instrument in that area plus the other work that is going on - which my colleague from the Committee on Legal Affairs, Ms Kauppi, and I know Ms Wallis will cover later - I think it is much too early to contemplate any further detailed provisions at this stage. It is absolutely clear that we do need to monitor this, but of course within the Services Directive itself, with all the work we put in it, there are a very substantial number of provisions.
One of the amendments that we hope the House will agree to delete tomorrow does actually call upon the Commission to draw up voluntary codes of conduct. In my view that is not the Commission's role. I think we will have support to delete that. But in fact, if you look at the Services Directive, in Article 37 it actually says quite clearly that Member States, in cooperation with the Commission, shall take measures to encourage codes of conduct to be drawn up at Community level. It is not as if we did not already have that. So I think that we will take that out, so my summary of it is this: I think that this is a very useful contribution to the debate. I think it will add to the corpus of information that we are building up to ensure, above all, that the Services Directive is fully implemented and is implemented on time, with all the accompanying provisions - particularly the issues like the single point of contact for service providers, which will give them the sort of requirements and information that they need to provide services plus, we hope, the sort of work on codes of conduct. With those, I think we can look forward to a really effective and thriving services market that works to the benefit of consumers.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (SV) Mr President, let me first thank my colleague Mr Lehtinen for a very good piece of work. With the adoption of the Services Directive, the internal market for services has clearer rules on the way freedom to provide services can be used. On the other hand, there is a lack of clear rules on the obligations of service providers. This means that, even after the Services Directive has been implemented in all Member States by 2009, we may be left with an open market in which consumers do not have confidence.
Only 6% of consumers made cross-border purchases on the internet in 2006. The rules for goods purchases are much better established. Businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, also need clearer rules since they often choose not to provide a service or make a sale across borders, which leads to reduced competition and higher prices for the consumer. Clear rules will encourage both businesses and consumers to venture across a border and provide or purchase services in another country with peace of mind.
We must ensure that consumers have a well-founded sense of security when shopping on the internal market and that, even when they end up in dispute, they can easily get help and redress. For this to be achieved, many different measures must come together. Some examples which are mentioned in the report are voluntary codes of conduct for service providers and the possibility of collective action on a cross-border basis against fraudsters or businesses which do not honour their commitments to consumers.
It is not reasonable for consumers to get less protection when they purchase a service across a border than when they buy goods from another Member State. Hence the broad horizontal instrument which the report proposes is another important element in the consumer protection we want to develop in the provision of cross-border services. Consumers must know their rights when a service is provided too late or in an incorrect manner.
If freedoms are complemented by clear obligations on suppliers and strong consumer protection, we can strengthen consumer confidence. Once again, our consumers must be given priority. Without contented and secure consumers we shall not have a flourishing internal market.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, this is, of course, unfinished business from the Services Directive, and, although I agree with much of the Commissioner's analysis, we do have a problem. We have a problem of confidence. It is a bit like the Northern Rock bank in the UK over the past few weeks. Whatever it said, the customers were still queuing outside, wanting their money back. It is a bit like that with us and cross-border services. Whatever we say, consumers still are not confident enough to use those services. We have to find a way of addressing that.
Those in this House that sat on the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into the Crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society also saw only too clearly that there is this problem of confidence. But we will not be able to address that by going back to old proposals that dealt with problems perceived some 20 years ago. We have got to deal with the problems and situation that we have now.
What we are basically dealing with, in looking at service providers' obligations, is looking at basic contract law and basic contractual obligations. In this regard, we currently have on the table Rome I, which Ms Kauppi has referred to; if we get that right, it will help. We also have the whole review of the consumer acquis; if we get that right, it will help. We have the preparation of the Common Frame of Reference on contract law; if we use that, and if the Commission puts a great deal more effort into getting the Member States to take it up, that would also help.
So there is much that can already be used to help us get right the relationship between private international law and regulation. What we do not need - I agree with Mr Harbour - is the Commission writing soft law codes of conduct.
Let us use what is already being done at the moment and what is in preparation. We can keep a weather eye on whether or not we need yet another horizontal instrument, but, at this stage, I really doubt it.
What we also need to address is the possibility of giving our consumers the right to cross-border access to justice where they can act together as a group. This would be a balancing of arms against providers. It would make good the current lack of cross-border access to justice, which we saw all too clearly with Equitable Life. People do not like to use the words 'class actions', and neither do I, but a European right of collective redress might help give us the confidence for consumers that is currently lacking on this continent.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the development of the Union's internal market is very significant in terms of forging links between the countries and citizens of the Union.
Increasing cross-border exchange of services on a competitive basis requires an increase in mutual trust, which should be supported by a consumer-friendly policy. This policy aims to improve the legal framework for cross-border services whilst also simplifying procedures, which will increase competition. It will also improve access to services and raise their standard whilst reducing costs, thus benefiting European consumers.
The report contributes to improving this policy by indicating a range of issues impeding the dynamic development of the market. These include the lack of a single system regulating the obligations of cross-border service providers and the need to supplement Union documents in this regard. The report also highlights the lack of clarity in implementing provisions resulting in mental barriers concerning foreign suppliers, the poorer legal protection for service users than for service providers, the failure to regulate public and private services under the same provisions, the diversity of provisions concerning the obligations of cross-border service providers, and the lack of the necessary transparency for the protection of these services.
Consideration should be given to the introduction of quality certificates for service providers in order to improve the recipients' confidence. The conclusions and proposals emerging from the report coincide with the findings of the Committee on Legal Affairs. I would like to thank the rapporteur for a business-like report.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur, although sadly I have not yet had the pleasure of reading one of his books. However, I have made a note of it and will make good the omission at the next opportunity.
Many thanks for the good cooperation, and many thanks, too, for your efforts to address important issues in your report. Admittedly, legal frameworks are already in place for services in the internal market, such as the Services Directive or the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications, but the implementation of these Directives - both of them - sadly still leaves a lot to be desired. I therefore think it is regrettable that the Council is not present this evening, as we could have made it clear once again that we expect both Directives to be implemented by the deadline and the work in the Member States to be pursued accordingly.
However, we also need more initiatives - as the rapporteur has rightly pointed out - to increase consumer confidence in cross-border services in the internal market. Here, too, previous reports have addressed important issues. In her report, Mrs Roithová has pointed out that there are still very many deficits in relation to Internet sales in particular, and that consumers still lack the requisite confidence in cross-border services here. Similarly, Mr Lehtinen, in his report, draws attention to the obligations of service providers and to the issue of legal protection for consumers. I would like to come back to a topic which has already been mentioned by two previous speakers today, namely the right of collective redress in cross-border cases. We urgently need initiatives in this direction, so that consumers have confidence in cross-border services, and that can only be achieved by strengthening their legal position.
In my view, both reports - the Roithová report and the Lehtinen report - give important indications of the deficits that still exist. The Commission should take both these reports seriously in its work to genuinely overhaul, modernise and update the consumer acquis.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (DA) Mr President, we have adopted a Services Directive through which we have handed over to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg the power to decide what we have decided! We do not yet know if the Member States' agreements are to be respected. We do not know the extent to which the establishment of national quality requirements will be permitted. We do not know whether it is lawful for the Member States to decide which services they would like to have under private or public control. The report is therefore just as unclear as the legal situation. We are waiting to hear from the judges in Luxembourg whether we can retain our hospitals and a long list of other core services that together constitute our welfare state.
In Denmark all citizens have social rights, which we finance through high taxes that only 7% of Danes would like to see reduced. It would seem that this 7% will be rewarded by the judges in Luxembourg, but what about the majority? Who will safeguard the decisions and our democracy? We also have a flexicurity system, which is based upon voluntary agreements between parties within the labour market. How can they be protected? It is the nerve centre of the Danish social model that is being threatened by the uncertainties and judicial activism of the Services Directive.
The June Movement would very much like to contribute towards the creation of clear rules for a common market for all services that are suitable for the market, but we do not want to prevent the Member States from also having a democracy to set limits on what should be decided by the electorate and what should be decided by the capitalists.
on behalf of the ITS group. - (RO) Mr. President, the free movement of services is, as we know, one of the four fundamental freedoms decisively determining the functionality and efficiency of the single market, an important element of the first pillar at the basis of the European Union construction.
This is one of the reasons why I believe that an analysis of the progress in achieving this single market instrument is both important and necessary. It is important because the consistent economic and social development of the European Union equally depends on the area of services, the 70% weight of services in the Union's GDP being significant in this regard. It is necessary because the volume of cross-border trade in services is very low as compared to the trade in goods, a situation that also generates the lack of confidence of European Union citizens in the consumption of such products. Based upon these arguments, I support and I will vote for the approval of the report.
Nevertheless, I consider that, in relation to the pertinent and, at the same time, valuable solutions proposed by the Rapporteur, a more substantial analysis would have been required regarding the situation of some newly acceded countries, such as Romania, whose markets are far less developed than those of most of the other Member States of the Union. From this perspective, I believe that the report should also have contained a set of objectives for leveling the degrees of national markets development, a condition required for the development of the single market and, consequently, of the segment of border services.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would of course like to thank the rapporteur as well. The discussions in advance of this report were always very fruitful and interesting. Much of what came out of these discussions has been incorporated into the report, although not everything, which is unfortunate, at least from my point of view, as the report emphasises in some places that the completion of the internal market for services in the European Union is trailing far behind the internal market for goods. From my perspective, there is actually no real scientific or indeed objective evidence of that, given that we have not only the Services Directive but also the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications as well as other Directives in the services sector.
Secondly, the services sector in the internal market is far more heterogeneous than goods. It ranges from subordinate services to medical or legal services and finally large-scale services such as major banking and insurance services. Lumping all these services together, which is what repeatedly happens in this House, is risky, in my view. I believe - and a number of previous speakers have already pointed this out - that a differentiated approach would certainly be useful.
The third point which has been raised repeatedly, namely collective redress, is unlikely to become more relevant simply by being the frequent subject of discussion. I think what we can say, clearly and unequivocally, is that Parliament expects the Commission to undertake a study to review which of the diverse models that already exist in Europe would genuinely be best for the European Union. I think that is all that needs to be said on this subject.
The liability systems in the individual Member States - and this is my fourth point - are still highly diverse. That is why we need a unified system of obligations for service providers. Clarifying the legal system governing these obligations will generate more competition and create more choice for the consumer, but I believe - as some of the previous speakers have said - that it would be wrong to ask the Commission to produce a horizontal instrument at this stage. In any case, I am very sceptical about the creation of this type of liability law at European level.
(PL) I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which highlights many problems consumers encounter on the internal market.
This report rightly draws attention to the lack of legal clarity and certainty regarding safety and the quality of services. It also refers to the general lack of confidence in cross-border consumption felt by European consumers. This is confirmed by the statistics. In 2006 only 6% of European consumers made cross-border purchases over the Internet. This situation has a negative impact on competition and on the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises. It also contributes to the expansion of illegal trade. Dishonest entities often exploit the differences between the legal systems within the European Union to defraud people. Swift action is called for once such situations have been identified, hence our response.
I would like to remind the House of the many months of work devoted to the Services Directive, that is to say, to a review of consumer legislation. As Members will be aware, the Services Directive must be implemented in all Member States by December 2009. A substantial proportion of the problems referred to by the rapporteur will certainly cease to exist after the transposition period. It should be borne in mind that the Services Directive will significantly improve consumers' rights. Thanks to this Directive, service providers will have to offer consumers better information regarding the services proposed. This will enable consumers to make better and more informed choices. Consumers will also be more effectively protected by the relevant institutions.
The Services Directive also imposes a series of clear obligations on the service provider, including ones related to conflict resolution. I believe there is no need to introduce further legal instruments until the provisions of the Services Directive enter into force. In my view, it is premature to call on the Commission to present a horizontal instrument. The same applies to the entire review of consumer legislation. The Commission has already presented a Green Paper on consumer legislation and will in due course present legislative proposals in that regard. Ladies and gentlemen, there are times when more legislation does not mean better legislation. We would do well to keep that in mind.
(SK) The Service Directive, which is to be transposed into national law in all the Member States by 28 December 2009, will have a significant effect on cross-border services.
This Directive and even the Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis do not lay down the fundamental obligations of service providers and therefore I welcome the report by Mr Lehtinen on this issue. The report seeks to ensure that not only consumers but also small and medium-sized businesses buying and selling cross-border services can benefit from additional legal certainty, simplicity and reduced costs.
I believe that European standardisation is key to the success of craft, small and medium-sized enterprises and the introduction of European standards at European Union level is thus a means of supporting the safety of services and guaranteeing consumer rights with regard to cross-border services provided by Member States. Where consumers feel uncertain about the safety and quality of services, they tend to build up psychological barriers towards foreign suppliers, which dissuade them from using cross-border services. If a consumer has a negative experience, that experience will often wrongly have repercussions on all foreign service providers.
Consumers have an opportunity to resolve problems arising predominantly as a result of the different procedures in force in the individual Member States within the European Consumer Centres Network, ECC-Net, and the cross-border Consumer Complaints Network for Financial Services, FIN-NET. Where a consumer has enough information about his internal market rights but attempts to exercise them in vain in another EU Member State, he can seek help from SOLVIT.
Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the fact that this report focuses primarily on consumers since they, in particular, are a fundamental and important element of the internal market. Our common objective must therefore be to create the conditions for consumers that allow them to have the same confidence when making a purchase in another country as they have when doing so at home.
(CS) Mr President, although the EC Treaty guarantees its citizens free access to services beyond their national borders, only a handful of service providers and consumers make use of this advantage of the common market. A low level of competition thus makes services in the border regions more expensive and not always easily accessible, compared with services within a country.
Surveys show that the problem lies not in language barriers but in legislation. It is not always clear when to apply the legislation of the country of origin and when to apply national legislation. Unfortunately, thanks to the opponents of the country of origin principle, we lost out on the opportunity to provide a better definition in the Services Directive. Here in Strasbourg this report is also accompanied by an irrational fear of mentioning the country of origin principle, notwithstanding the fact that in many professions service providers do not have to know the neighbouring country's legislation in order to provide cross-border services.
Soon we will see case-law that will end the disputes about when the issue of consumer protection is governed by national legislation or the legislation of the host country. I consider Mr Lehtinen's report to be an excellent contribution in this respect because, in my opinion, our definition of providers' general obligations should be based on agreed European standards.
I agree that when it comes to consumer protection, the same obligations should apply to the providers of private and public services. I also support the financing of communication networks between Member States. This will lead to effective control and to progress in solving disputes out of court.
Commissioner, we owe the European citizens a lot when it comes to the conditions governing the free movement of cross-border services. This report settles one part of this debt. The European Parliament gives the Commission the political support to clearly define providers' obligations regardless of their origin. Mr Lehtinen's report is testament to the excellent work of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I have been listening very carefully to the discussion on Parliament's report on the obligations of cross-border service providers. I would like to thank the honourable Members for their comments. Now allow me to stress a few key points.
First, the Commission supports the aim of the report on which Parliament will vote tomorrow. We are indeed concerned with the lack of consumer confidence in the internal market for services. Let me stress that, as Commissioner for the Information Society, this lack of confidence in internet business is very important indeed and we will have to have a look at that.
Second, as I mentioned earlier, the Commission has already undertaken a number of initiatives which aim to remedy the current situation. I have quoted the Services Directive and the review of the consumer acquis. The latter, by the way, is one of the key priorities of my colleague Commissioner Kuneva.
I would like to say that we are very grateful for the support of Parliament and we would like to encourage Parliament to continue to contribute to the review process, and we would like, together with Parliament, to be able to deliver results as soon as possible.
What are we going to propose in a concrete way for the coming weeks and months? First a summary of the responses to the consultation will be published on the Commission's website at the beginning of October. Then there will be an impact assessment carried out with a view to a possible Commission proposal in the second half of 2008. The Members having had a look at this problem carefully will certainly be interested in this.
Third, the Commission agrees on the need to promote the safety aspects of services because it is very important to better ensure the health and the physical safety aspects of services provided within the internal market.
With the Member States, we will draw attention to possible shortcomings in national systems, or necessary enforcement of the assessment. We will promote consumer education and awareness-raising initiatives. We will facilitate access to existing information on accidents and injuries related to the safety of services offered to consumers, and one of the very important elements which has been stressed by several Members relates to collective redress. The Commission is carrying out studies and concerting stakeholders in order to assess the opportunity of an initiative in this area but one thing is certain, and I would like to underline it - this will not be a US-type class action.
Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work and Parliament for the importance it attaches to this issue. We are sure the parliamentary report will be instrumental for our future work in the interests of the consumers.
Thank you very much indeed, Commissioner, for an interesting debate, in which more than 50% of the speakers were women, which is just as it should be.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 27 September 2007.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (PL)
I should like to thank Mr Lehtinen for a well-prepared report.
The freedom to provide services is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the internal market. Over the years, the services sector has become increasingly important for the economic and social development of the European Union and has undergone substantial change.
Despite the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the ongoing process of transposition of the Services Directive into national law, in practice the free movement of services continues to be hampered by administrative provisions and differences between the legal systems of Member States.
Bearing in mind the threats and challenges stemming from globalisation, together with the shortcomings in the services sector identified in the report, it is particularly important to take action aimed at eliminating obstacles to the supply of cross-border services.
Lack of confidence on the part of consumers and the reluctance of companies to operate outside their home country limit access to the internal market. As a matter of urgency, the Community should introduce mechanisms making it easier for companies, especially SMEs, to benefit from the internal market. Community provisions on the supply of cross-border services should therefore be rationalised, and a minimum period for the harmonisation of quality standards introduced, so as to protect users' interests.
Strengthening cooperation between Member States, limiting administrative procedures and appropriate control of cross-border services will promote an increase of cross-border activity. Harmonisation of quality standards will strengthen consumer and supplier confidence in cross-border services.
Facilitating the provision of cross-border services will lead to a properly functioning single market for services, thus laying the foundations for an economically cohesive internal market.


Common rules in the field of civil aviation security (debate)
The next item is the report by Paolo Costa, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 -.
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we are today celebrating the conclusion of a procedure that started as far back as September 2005.
The road that we have travelled has been long and in some cases difficult, but ultimately I feel that it was worth the effort. The issue at stake is the security of civil aviation. The regulation that we had in force, that has been in force up to now, was adopted in the emotional climate surrounding the attacks on the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001. It had a difficult birth, but was then approved and applied and, while it has had some success in recent years, there have been practical gaps and inadequacies.
It is for that reason that we are now about to revise it. The aim is to provide a more flexible response to technological, psychological and behavioural changes in the fight against terrorism, obviously taking account of the experience that we have gained up to now. Security and protection from terrorist attacks are an obvious priority, but cannot be discussed in isolation. They have to be seen in a slightly more balanced context.
Checks have to be stringent and efficient, but should not overly inconvenience passengers, and their application should not entail unnecessary costs. Costs should possibly be shared and should not be borne entirely by passengers. It is for that reason that new checks cannot be introduced without adequate democratic scrutiny. It is on those two points - costs and democratic accountability - that Parliament's delegation focused its attention during the conciliation stage of this procedure.
As regards costs, I am happy to be able to inform this House that an article, not a recital, has been included to lay down that they - security costs - must be shared between passengers, airports, air carriers and national governments. Under a further article, not an interinstitutional declaration as in 2002, but an article, the Commission is to examine the problem in more detail and to put proposals before this House and the Council in order to resolve the problem through an appropriate sharing of costs between taxpayers and passengers.
As regards democratic accountability, we successfully managed to achieve the use of enhanced comitology or comitology with scrutiny, especially when any new check, control or limitation on passengers' lives is introduced. Were Parliament to decide in future that a security measure is disproportionate, it will be able to call for a public debate in order adequately to examine such considerations.
Overall, I feel that the balance between an effective fight against terrorism and, at the same time, respect which is as broad as possible for privacy, practices, and pointless irritations for passengers, has in this way been achieved. Obviously, only actual testing of its application will tell us whether this has been fully achieved.
It is for that reason, Mr President, that I would recommend to the Chamber, to our House, that it approves the agreement reached in conciliation so that the Commission can make an effective start on its work.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you a proposal for a new framework regulation on aviation security, with which you are all familiar. I appreciate all the work and effort you have put in to achieve a positive outcome in a long and difficult conciliation procedure.
We have now come to the final stage for a new framework regulation, further evidence of better regulation. On 4 March the Council formally completed the third reading of this balanced and beneficial text, which is important for both the industry and for passengers. It is now up to members of the European Parliament to conclude the process.
I am grateful to Mr Costa for asking Parliament to agree with the text and thus ensuring a successful outcome for the conciliation. Everyone has shown a spirit of compromise in the conciliation process, but I think I can say that Parliament came out the winner, because most of the amendments and ideas suggested are in the text on which you will be voting.
I understood your expectations regarding the financing principle. I made a very strong personal commitment in the conciliation process. With your permission, I refer to my previous statement that I intended to submit a draft legislative proposal to the Commission on the division, between taxpayers and users, of the costs arising from the stricter aviation security measures the Member States can adopt in addition to the basic rules laid down in this new regulation.
That does not prejudice the right of initiative of the Commission or compliance with domestic procedures, in particular conducting an appropriate impact study before any legislative proposal.
Furthermore, with the introduction of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, the change to the new 'comitology' decision will give the European Parliament greater power over the general rules the Commission has to draw up after the adoption of the framework regulation.
Whilst allowing more flexibility in the system for adapting the legislation in the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, all this provides a counterbalance in the general implementing legislation. Thus we are making institutional progress in all these situations.
As regards Article 4, I draw your attention to the statement made. The Commission is declaring its intention of proposing general measures as indicated in the current Article 4(1)(a), and detailed implementing measures within the meaning of the current Article 4(2). The Commission intends to use Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to propose any additions that are needed to the common basic standards laid down in this regulation.
The Commission notes that it is important to allow detailed implementing measures to be devised by methods that can not only ensure effective detection and deterrence, but also provide the necessary flexibility and speed, whilst at the same time keeping sensitive documents confidential in order to protect passengers. The Commission also points out that the continuity of the implementing rules will be maintained until they are replaced by new measures adopted under this regulation.
As for the substance, the new regulation allows the development of more appropriate legislation that is better able to address security issues holistically and flexibly, rather than dealing with them through a series of individual and repetitive approaches. Initial estimates by the Association of European Airlines suggest that the more flexible methods can reduce costs by up to 500 million.
To summarise, when this new regulation is adopted it will make it easier to adopt rules with non-member countries that have equally high air security standards. This one-stop security concept is in the interests not only of passengers but also of the European Union aviation sector.
Besides that, I hope that the latest technological developments will enable us to amend the total ban on liquids on board aircraft by the beginning of next year. As soon as the appropriate technology is available to detect liquid explosives, I shall endeavour to take that new factor into account in the regulations. The European Parliament will be able to review any plans for a change of rules in that area.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been a lengthy process. It has taken a great deal of effort by everyone to arrive at the compromise needed for the adoption of this new regulation. Not only will this new regulation help us improve security in the air, it will also reduce costs, simplify the rules and protect civil aviation more effectively.
So I thank Parliament for its work on drawing up this legislative proposal and I am obviously hoping wholeheartedly for your support and adoption of the text.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, as both the rapporteur and Commissioner Barrot have said, following long negotiations in the conciliation process, Parliament and the Council have finally reached an agreement, which I believe to be positive and worthy of our support.
In the light of the ongoing terrorist threat, we believe that clear rules for security and, importantly, common implementation across Europe's airports and airlines are absolutely necessary, and this proposal delivers on both counts.
Whilst we have been unable to reach an agreement with the Council on the issue of financing these security measures, the Commission has agreed to come forward with a separate proposal on financing these measures within the next few months. I hope that this will be sooner rather than later.
I want to make it clear, here and now, that when coming forward with this proposal both the Council and the Commission should take heed of Parliament's strong and united position on the issue. Parliament must not be seen as another hoop that the Commission and the Council must jump through, but instead as a serious and equal player in the process. Passenger safety and security are of paramount importance and, as such, I hope that the Commission's forthcoming proposal will reflect our strong stance.
Despite this sticking point, this report should be applauded. I can see the benefits in common security standards across Europe. And, given that the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today is one which is ever growing, this proposal offers important improvements for passenger safety and security. I therefore urge the House to give this measure its full support.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and other subsequent threats have made us realise how vulnerable the aviation sector is and how deadly the effects of an attack using an aircraft or perpetrated inside one can be. And what an enormous impact those effects can have on the economy and thus on each and every one of us. Consequently it is important that we do everything necessary to ensure maximum security and it goes without saying that we must have maximum harmonisation on the matter at European level.
But at the same time we must also seek a balance between security on the one hand and comfort, privacy and freedom of movement on the other hand, as the rapporteur says. That was always our view as the European Parliament's delegation during the negotiations, and I think we worked well together across party lines with Mr Costa, Mr Jarzembowski, in the conciliation procedure too. We all pulled together and we came out of it with a good compromise deal, as the Commissioner rightly points out.
That is not to say that we are one hundred percent happy. Everything will depend on how the agreements reached are implemented on the ground. And in two essential areas: firstly, implementation of the measures. We have secured a significant continuing involvement for Parliament via the new comitology procedure with scrutiny, and we have de facto obtained a kind of veto, for cases where we think the proposed measures are disproportionate. So there is room for interpretation, for debate, and I think the liquids ban made it clear that this is necessary. We cannot allow a committee of experts to have carte blanche and not be accountable; and so to me this new form of democratic scrutiny is altogether a plus point.
We can perfectly well take on that job if the Commission keeps us continuously informed and briefed, and I think this will be something very important. We must also devise the right procedure in-house which will enable Parliament to do this adequately.
Secondly, we did not quite get what we wanted as regards the financing of security measures, we know that. We wanted to remain consistent in our thinking. Our expectation is that the security measures agreed by Europe will be adequate for everyone. If Member States need or want to do more, then they should bear the cost of that. We did not manage to get that accepted, but I am sure, Commissioner, that the undertaking you have given will lead to a new debate and genuine results in future.
In any event, as of today we have a framework that should allow us to take security measures quickly but will at the same time provide democratic accountability. It remains to be seen whether the system works to everyone's satisfaction. My Group too will support this.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) To be blunt, there is no doubt that aviation is and remains a popular target for terrorists. So the need for stricter security rules for air transport, with the extra cost and burdens that entails, is immediately obvious. But when it comes to maintaining the basic framework for this, it is truly essential that the measures in place should be effective. In that respect this agreement, whilst not perfect, nevertheless represents an important step forward.
Regarding the enhanced role of Parliament, I very much hope we shall make full use of this. More than ever we need to apply a measure of realism to assumptions concerning the effectiveness of our laws and rules. It is of course important that collective stress should be properly managed. At the same time, the air traveller does have to be taken seriously. Costly but sham security does no one any favours.
Terrorists are getting more and more ingenious. The answer is not to confiscate bottles of water, shower gels or contact lens fluid. The solution lies in the efficient operation, across borders, of police, justice and intelligence services. I look forward accordingly to the phased plan which the Commissioner has just described.
The importance of aviation safety should not and ought not to be ignored and I am full of praise for the work that has been done to bring about this solution which ensures the safety of air passengers and workers.
When we draft and implement these types of regulations, we need to be careful that these regulations aren't regulations for the sake of regulations and that we consider other aspects of the aviation sector as well. On that basis, I welcome the provision in the Report which states that certain passengers - those who come from countries which have identical safety measures as the Union - need not go through extra security checks. It is a great pity that the same approach is not taken with regard to duty-free goods and transit passengers.
As it stands, if a person comes from the United States to Ireland and changes planes in Paris, any duty-free goods bought in the United States will be taken from that person in Paris. This nonsensical system means that passengers and retailers are loosing out.
I agree that security concerns are a priority. However, the solution that was agreed in Singapore shows that the two things can be done. Why is it then that those arrangements cannot be made with other countries? We know that there are plans being made, but it is happening too slowly for passengers and retailers who have to bear the consequences.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, this has been a very long-running saga, and I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my sincere thanks to Mr Costa. In the negotiations, including those with the Council, he remained steadfastly committed to the position formulated and supported by the Members of this House in committee.
One of the points at issue, as has been mentioned, was the funding of security measures - the reason why is fairly obvious. For example, these security measures lend themselves very well to the concealment of what would be less than entirely legal funding arrangements for the various national airlines. I presume this is precisely why there were all sorts of resistance in the Council to a set of rules that imposed greater transparency in this area, and of course it was our Group's clear and unanimous desire to have transparent, straightforward funding provisions that were designed to help preclude problems.
The second point was the arrangement whereby Parliament was to be more closely involved in the continuing development of the security provisions. This was fiercely resisted too, although I could not comprehend why, because the European Parliament, after all, had only tried to indicate an escape route that could be used, for example, to get out of measures that had once been adopted but had subsequently begun to prove inexpedient. I can just about support the compromise, but I would have wished for more.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) The European Parliament and the European Commission have been debating aviation security for several years.
The purpose of the amendment to Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of 16 December 2002 is to ensure an improvement of the common rules in the field of civil aviation security. The resulting document, however, is not very clear. So that not only myself but also many other Members of this Parliament can raise their hands in favour of the result of the conciliation procedure, I want to hear a clear answer to my question.
Commissioner, Monsieur le Commissaire, c'est pour vous: since the new Regulation does not guarantee a common procedure for testing pilot safety, how will this issue be solved once Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 is abolished? Can you confirm that the European Cockpit Association and the Commission have agreed on the preparation of a regulation establishing a common procedure for testing pilot safety? If yes, when will this text be presented? Your answer will determine how we will vote tomorrow.
- (EL) Mr President, let me begin by expressing my deep satisfaction with the agreement that has at last been reached on the amendment to the Regulation establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security. I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Costa, on his work, as well as the representatives of the political groups, Mr Jarzembowski and Mr El Khadraoui, who, together with our rapporteur, formed the core of our negotiating group. Armed with their detailed knowledge of the subject and its technical dimensions, and with their unwavering dedication to the European Parliament's position on transparency and respect for citizens, they have fought hard and unrelentingly to achieve this objective. I should also like to thank all the members of the European Parliament Delegation, of which I had the honour of chairing, for their cooperation at all stages and especially at critical moments. Let me commend the Portuguese Presidency's continuing efforts to achieve mutual understanding and agreement. I should also like to single out the European Commission's constructive and decisive contribution, to which Commissioner Barrot contributed so much.
The new regulation is not merely the result of successful negotiation. In the final analysis, it represents a shared view of the relationship between security on the one hand, and private citizens and our political objectives on the other. The new regulation is the fruit of the experience we have gained through applying the security rules. It is a better expression of the need for transparency and responsibility on the part of all the agencies involved. It provides an effective framework for the safe movement of passengers in a globalised environment, while enabling Member States to adapt their policy to new developments and the special needs that may arise during a particular period. The regulation also requires Member States to maintain transparency and bear part of the cost - vital conditions, according to the European Parliament.
As well as the Member States having to honour these obligations, the European Commission has undertaken to draw up a report at the end of 2008, which will contribute enormously to this endeavour. The European Parliament will then prepare to play an effective role in enforcing the necessary measures.
(RO)I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr. Costa and all colleagues that took part in the negotiations relating to the third reading. We are discussing this document after more than two years from the regulation being proposed by the Commission in 2005, with a view to replacing the regulation of 2002, adopted following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
Air transport has experienced an accelerated development over the last years. If in 1970 there were approximately 200 million passengers in the EU-15, in 2000 their number reached approximately 600 million. Unfortunately, the terrorist attacks of 11 September caused , a decrease between 2000 and 2001 of approximately 2% in the number of passengers using air transport.
The European Parliament believes that the safety of passengers and of the personnel working in the field of air transport is highly important. The debates as part of the conciliation procedure mainly focused on the distribution of costs related to the necessary security measures, the uniform performance of security inspections, the impact of certain programmes for the safety of civil aviation, adopted at national, airport or air carrier level. Common security standards should subsequently be adopted using the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, so that the European Parliament will have an important role in this process. The costs related to the additional measures for civil aviation safety should be incurred both by Member States and users.
By 31 December 2008 the Commission will submit to the European Parliament a report presenting the measures to be imposed, so that taxes related to the security measures be used only for this purpose and the required transparency on the calculation and use of such taxes will be provided.
As regards the use of security officers on board aircrafts, each Member State has the competence to decide on the registered and authorised aircraft in the Member State in question, but their role was improved by the enforcement of certain provisions on the training and security terms imposed thereon.
(PL) Madam President, air transport needs defined legal rules, but they must be as flexible as possible and at the same time sufficiently harmonised, especially with regard to flight security. The document we are discussing today meets those criteria. It is, in my view, a difficult but good compromise by the members of the Conciliation Committee, and I thank them for the work they have done. In this connection Mr Costa and Commissioner Barrot deserve special praise.
Since time is short, I shall confine myself to a few points. First: charges for air security must be transparent and relate only to actual cost. Second: measures taken in this area must not interfere with competition among airports and carriers, which is natural to the free market. Third: the principles governing civil aviation security need to be standardised at world level. It is therefore to be welcomed that the document refers to cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the ICAO. Fourth: security standards must also be met by third-country carriers, otherwise our European measures will be ineffective. Fifth: suitable procedures must be prepared for dealing with crisis situations, which may never arise but are always possible in the event of a terrorist attack.
Finally, let us jointly strive to make the passenger, including disabled passengers, the subject, rather than the object, of the action taken by all parties involved in air transport - especially when it comes to security measures, which involve a degree of inconvenience.
Madam President, I am pleased to see that progress has been made on this issue, because Parliament has always indicated that we should be very thorough on these measures improving security for air passengers. I want to applaud Mr Costa, my colleagues on the Committee on Transport and especially Commissioner Barrot, who has worked to ensure that the arrangements for financing the measures are properly set out and that comitology is used to scrutinise the definition of common basic standards.
EU cooperation is needed to provide consistency on this so that passengers are better informed. As I said late last year, mutual recognition of our differing legal traditions is the way forward in an EU of 27 Member States, but basic security standards should be established in the EU. When the Commission outlines the principle of financing later this year, I will argue strongly that Member States should be allowed to go above and beyond these, should they feel the need, as long as they are prepared to pay the costs.
This comes on the back of reports which claim that the British Airports Authority is to fingerprint and photograph all passengers checking in for domestic flights at Heathrow and several other airports. I believe these measures should be scrutinised to make sure they are effective. The use of biometric technology as proposed by Commissioner Frattini is in order to produce greater efficiency, and must not alienate public support.
The public have already tolerated a massive amount of inconvenience through security measures which may be desirable, but there appears to be a lack of clear objective analysis of their effectiveness. The random nature of some of the provisions is particularly disruptive and we should surely be asking for consistency in the approach of airport authorities across Europe, if not on a global basis.
The EU should be proactive rather than reactive with regard to all these security issues. We must be one step ahead of the threat by developing more sophisticated technology and by sharing best practice and pooling intelligence. I believe that this report certainly takes us somewhat in that direction.
(ES) Madam President, we are extremely pleased to reach the end of what has proved to be a protracted battle to achieve better security in a core sector such as aviation, which is essential to the economy and competitiveness of Europe, and of which the success and credibility are rooted in a high level of security.
This was demonstrated in the starkest way possible on 11 September 2001, when security itself was one of the key aspects which was shown to need improvement both on a global scale and particularly with reference to the European zone.
All the efforts made by the Commission, not only in this dossier but in others that the Commission has worked on - the whole issue of blacklists, and of gradually improving and implementing security measures - are, I believe, essential.
We particularly congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Costa, whose tenacity, although exasperating at times, has achieved an agreement, a matter on which I congratulate him from the heart. The best agreement possible.
Moreover, that agreement is on two fundamental topics. First, a topic fundamental to the absolute requirement of security, and more specifically the crucial aspect of funding it. We all agree that security is very important, but another key aspect is who pays for that security and how we try to improve transparency and a better distribution of costs. To that end I believe that the cooperation received from the Commission in proposing the study for the precise purpose of identifying and improving transparency in the cost-sharing between taxpayers and users will help us improve future measures and implement them.
Secondly, a topic fundamental to Parliament as an institution. From the institutional point of view Mr Costa has managed to increase comitology in relation to methods of scanning and I believe that in future this too will put right a few misunderstandings which have arisen in the past, for example in relation to liquids; this is another area where I believe we must improve. For the future we hope to complete all the key security dossiers for the aviation sector, having regard to the key factor, namely the human factor.
I hope also that the Commissioner will be able to update us on how things are going with the schedule for the social package both for cabin crew and for pilots as far as training and certification are concerned. We are aware that the EASA is working on this area, but would like to see a greater number of specific measures on this matter, which will be the central factor in this increase in security.
(DE) Madam President, Mr Vice-President, passenger security is a fundamental principle, but how is it actually protected? As top Italian football coach Giovanni Trapattoni would probably put it, 'Belts off, bottles empty, shoes off!' Do these measures actually secure anything other than additional jobs for poorly paid and poorly trained security staff? Besides, long queues at airports, hassle and economic disadvantages are once more being associated with Europe, even though in many cases these annoyances are the result of exercises in diligence on the part of bumped-up local and regional sheriffs. Surely we can do better than that!
Let us revise the implementing provisions on liquids as quickly as possible, and let us replace them with more and better technology and with better cooperation between the security services.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I should like in particular to draw attention to the technological modernisation that is necessary to avoid the collapse of civil aviation. My plea is for progress to be made in the CESAR project to promote technological innovation in aviation and make sure that civil aviation is no longer held hostage by certain forces on the ground. I should like to ask what progress has been made in the Member States on transfers of rights? Would that not have a great many benefits for passenger safety, protection of the environment and aviation as a whole?
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened carefully to your speeches. As you have all underlined, the challenge with our air security policy is to find a reasonable balance between the need to protect passengers against terrorist activity and, of course, the operational aspects at airports in order to avoid over-complicated checking procedures. The Commission proposal was aimed at significantly improving the chances of striking a reasonable balance. As I said before, the adoption of this regulation will enable us to establish more modern and flexible rules, using new checking technologies, to introduce the one-stop security concept for flights from non-member countries, with a high standard of security, to abolish certain duplicated requirements, to codify the participation of stakeholders in decision-making on the implementing measures and, of course, to involve the European Parliament more in the process of decision-making on the implementing rules. I personally undertake to launch initiatives in all areas of security funding in order to improve the current situation, ensure greater transparency and make the financial commitment of the Member States more visible.
So, as I said, I shall reply to some of your comments, although I am not claiming that I will answer them all.
The general rule the Commission will follow in future is to publicise all applications of the regulation, unless it is shown that awareness of the regulation might aid terrorists. That is very different from the present situation, in which the default rule is not to publish anything. That point is very important, because it means that Parliament can be fully informed.
So I shall reply to a few points. In answer to Mr Ó Neachtain, for me the duty-free issue is still important. We have drawn up a regulation that allows for derogations. Through negotiation with Singapore, we have managed to introduce this rule for all dealings with Singapore, and we are now continuing with a number of non-member countries in preparation for further derogations. Obviously, though, these non-member countries have to cooperate much more actively with us and we are letting them know of our interest in that. The Americans and Canadians are working with us, but it is absolutely vital - and, believe me, this is something I personally am very concerned about - for us to sign many more agreements with non-member countries if we are to make any progress on the duty-free issue.
Mr Kohlíček and Mrs Ayala Sender mentioned pilots and crew. We are working with the pilots. Consultation is under way, but I cannot prejudge its outcome. What is true is that we are paying close attention to the problems to which we need to find the right solutions.
It is true that, as has rightly been said, we need a very coherent approach at European level. I am obviously keeping a close watch myself on how the regulations are applied and it is true that, as Mr Kirkhope pointed out just now, we clearly have to harmonise the rules and procedures for their implementation as well. We also have to guard against some Member States taking initiatives that are more or less improvised and unilateral. It is not easy; we know the battle for funding of security measures and more transparent and balanced financing will be hard. Mr Costa has experience of that. I should also like to express my thanks to Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, who chaired the Parliament delegation and was a great help to us during the long and very difficult meetings.
Finally I should like to say something to Mr Costa, because his report and his work as rapporteur gave us a real feeling that Parliament was genuinely seeking the common good of Europe, the welfare of passengers, and also, of course, a system of protection that is effective but at the same time flexible enough to allow for changes. As I said earlier, we are keeping a close eye on the new technologies that will, I hope, enable us to simplify these procedures. The detection of explosives in liquids seems now to be well on the way. I hope we shall be able to make use of those technologies. They will obviously be welcome.
I thank you, Madam President, and I thank Parliament in particular for the high standard of this debate and all the contributions it has made in the course of the debate.
rapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the regulation is a framework regulation and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, when it is applied. As matters stand, we have merely compared recipes.
I believe that we are both aware that there are still two major problems. The first is that the problem of terrorism has heightened security and the problem of terrorism cannot be considered a matter for the individual. Imagining that every passenger has to be responsible for financing counter-terrorism activities is an idea that obviously does not work. Passengers are jointly responsible; and it is that line that should to some extent, sooner or later, come to the fore and make states more responsible for such activities.
The second is that unfortunately terrorism is forcing us to change the way we behave. We must not, so to speak, shirk the task of introducing rules which place limits on each of our activities, because the terrorists cannot be allowed to win out, but we must at the same time make every effort to ensure that we do not, little by little, help terrorism to win because terrorism is forcing us to change the way we live.
This is a difficult balance. We have fielded all the possible arms: codecision, enhanced comitology, simple comitology. Those are all the tools we need. We have much work to do in that direction, but I think that a good foundation has been laid.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 11 March 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (RO) The harmonisation of actions taken by Member States, airports and airlines concerning the provision of civil aviation security represents an imperative requirement in order to deal with terrorist threats.
Nevertheless, a balance must be established between the enhancement of security and the provision of comfort to the users of air transport services.
It is mandatory to take all necessary measures to enhance the technical performances of screening equipment, as well as to apply a single check in the case of transit flights, which would enable a reduction of processing time and, in the mid- to long-term, the effective decrease of actual costs.
On the other hand, the lack of transparency in the calculation and application of taxes related to security measures distorts the competence in the field of air transport, as well as understanding of the way in which the money is used in the direct financing of such measures.
The issues related to financing must be clarified as soon as possible, so that taxpayers in the European Union, as well as the users of transport services have a clear picture about the allocation of amounts collected, thus dissociating the financing of direct measures from the insurance costs, as well as from any state aid in support of additional security measures that a Member State may enact.