Safety of toys (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on safety of toys by Andreas Schwab, Anja Weisgerber, Marianne Thyssen, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), Evelyne Gebhardt, Christel Schaldemose, Anna Hedh, Barbara Weiler, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Jürgen Creutzmann, Antonyia Parvanova, Nadja Hirsch, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Heide Rühle, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists - B7-0658/2010).
Mr President, in relation to the adoption of the Toys Directive, I would like to point out that, when we adopted the directive, we had an objective in mind, namely, making children's toys safer, as children, in particular, still growing and developing as they are, have a particularly sensitive reaction to hazardous substances and chemicals. Considering the most up-to-date scientific knowledge at that point, we laid down the strictest requirements anywhere in the world for toys through European legislation.
As every year, this issue comes to the fore in the run-up to Christmas, and for me personally, too, as a mother-to-be, this issue is one that is close to my heart, and I think it is very important that we have the strictest standards. That is why I helped initiate this debate.
I did so in the light of new expert opinions that have concluded that the strictest limit values for heavy metals are not strict enough, given the latest scientific knowledge. We included a clause in the directive specifically for cases like this, which makes it possible to modify and tighten up the limit values at a later date, and we now need to make use of that clause. Commissioner Tajani, that was something that we also called on your predecessor to do a year ago.
I am pleased that, as I understand it, the Commission is to announce today, at least, that the limit values for certain heavy metals are to be tightened up, albeit with a delay from when we called on it to do so and certainly encouraged by the debate today. In general, however, we need to review all hazardous substances, and we should not, therefore, restrict ourselves to the heavy metals. Instead, we need to look into the latest information on the hazardous substances known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Should it also turn out that it is necessary to amend the limit values in order to protect our children, I call for a rectification of the legislation in this regard, too. At the end of the day, this is about the safety of our children.
Mr President, year after year, we have this debate about the safety of toys. Year after year, we have to observe that there is still much that is in need of improvement. We are talking, here, amongst other things, about what are known as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances (CMRs), substances that cause cancer and that may be very hazardous to the health and, in some cases, even the life of children.
The new information does indeed show that we need to ensure that the limit values are adapted and we are calling on the Commission to finally do so. Commissioner, I really hope that this will actually happen.
This is not the only problem, however. There is another problem in the shape of market supervision, and the Member States, too, have a responsibility here. They have a responsibility to ensure that only toys that truly satisfy the safety standards that we have adopted reach the market. That is not always the case, which is highly regrettable. We therefore need to ensure that these safety standards are improved.
The third and final point that I wish to make relates to the marking of toys. Many people wrongly believe that the CE mark is an indicator of safety. It is not, however, as the Commission itself says. It is therefore time, Commissioner, that the Commission gave some thought to how we could issue a European safety mark that is truly reliable and that is monitored by third parties, independent authorities or bodies, so that a dangerous toy simply cannot make it onto the market or into the shops where it can threaten the health of our children. I believe that we have a major debt to discharge in this regard, and there is still much that we need to do, and urgently so.
author. - Mr President, the safety of toys is a subject of great importance, and not only because it is the time of year when sales of toys increase substantially. It is our duty as the representatives of EU citizens to ensure that we are looking after the best interests of consumers and protecting children.
The revised Directive 2009/48/EC is meant to assure consumers that toys sold in the EU fulfil the highest safety requirements worldwide, especially those relating to the use of chemical substances. Market surveillance measures have been reinforced. The documentation which toy manufacturers and importers have to keep available for inspection now has to contain a detailed description of the design and manufacture of the toy, specific information on the components and materials used in the toy as well as an analysis of the hazards that the toy may present.
However, concerns are raised by the scientific opinion of the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks on the evaluation of the migration limits for chemical elements in toys, which states that the method used to measure the migration of chemical elements is not really reliable. We therefore require clarification of the calculation method chosen to regulate CMR - chemical substances in toys. There is also cause for concern regarding toys designed for children under the age of three. Since this is the most vulnerable age group, toys designed for these children should be tested independently.
The latest RAPEX reports also underline problems concerning market surveillance for toys. There are still a large number of toys entering the EU market that pose a high risk to the most vulnerable consumers.
There are clear signals that the revised Toy Safety Directive needs to be strengthened in order to assure the highest level of protection for our children. We consider that these issues need to be addressed as soon as possible, making sure that there are no loopholes following the implementation of the revised directive. We need to remain focused on toy safety, market surveillance and the prevention of the use of hazardous substances in products specifically designed for children.
author. - Mr President, I think the importance of the question that we are addressing tonight is the fact that this committee continues to be extremely vigilant about issues related to the safety of toys, as indeed it does on the whole gamut of consumer goods. So we put a huge amount of effort into passing the revised Toys Directive in 2009.
But things do not stop there, and that is why I think it is a welcome opportunity to give you, the Commission, the chance to reassure us that you are keeping a very close eye on developments, on test results, and ensuring that the provisions of the existing legislation and the future legislation will continue to be updated to reflect the growing amount of scientific evidence about potentially hazardous chemicals. And that, of course, includes the need for consistent testing methods. Part of the issue here is that, in many cases, we find that toy manufacturers are faced with difficulties about getting some consistent standards against which to test, and I know that is something that you will address.
But I also want to pick up the broader issue because I think, as a number of my colleagues have said, the issue here is not just about the regulation; it is about the whole supply chain for toys, much of which come from outside the European Union.
I was recently invited by your colleague, Commissioner Dalli, to represent the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection at a major trilateral summit between the Americans and the Europeans in China to talk about toy safety. And one of the important things that we did there and that the European Commission did - and I give them credit - was to talk to Chinese manufacturers about designing safety into the product from the beginning: the knowledge of those directives. This is nothing to do with marking, it is nothing to do with third-party testing; it is actually the basic principles of transferring information and knowledge so that we get safety designed into the products from the beginning. And then those safe products are sustained in production by proper quality systems, not just for the toy itself, but for all its suppliers.
Now that is how we ensure safety. It is not going to be about marking. It is about the right regulatory framework, which means getting everybody in the supply chain to understand their responsibilities.
Mr President, I have a comment that I would like to direct to Mr Harbour. That sounds great, Mr Harbour, but I still think that we have some work to do on our side, too. It cannot be a coincidence that we debate the issue of toy safety in Parliament in the run-up to each Christmas, as we are doing again this year. Just last year, it was the carcinogenic substances in toys known as softening agents that we were debating. Commissioner Verheugen promised us specifically over the last year that there would be new studies and that he would take action where appropriate. These studies have been on the table since the middle of this year. According to the study by SCHER, the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, the limit values for the PAHs - the carcinogenic substances - are too high. The methods of testing, too, are not reliable enough. We need to give this some thought. My questions to the Commissioner are, how will he deal with what he has inherited in this regard and what action will he take as a result of this criticism and in this field?
The limit values for heavy metals, too, especially for lead, are 'no longer appropriate', to quote another SCHER study. What does that mean for us? If we make adjustments for the heavy metals, will we provide different limit values in the comitology procedure? I call on the Commission to take action in this area, too.
In addition, we are also still awaiting the promised limit values for noise made by toys that is deleterious to health. We were promised these values when we passed the first reading; they should be presented to us soon. I hope that we will have these values soon.
Last but not least, I would also like, once again, to come back to the issue of market supervision, as the best directives are only worth as much as their market supervision, which ultimately ensures the monitoring of compliance with the directives, and of course, to the tariff issue. Mr Tajani knows, of course, that we would be happy to collaborate with him in this area. In the shape of Mrs Schaldemose, we have a rapporteur who is looking to bring about further moves in this very area. We will work closely together on this. This will be the next important step, alongside the issue of the limit value for heavy metals and for carcinogens.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate in plenary on the safety of toys in the European Union could not have come at a better time than this year, especially in the light of the recent events that have seen countries such as Belgium withdraw various types of puzzle mat from the market because the concentration of formamide, a chemical substance classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction, was high enough to be deemed a risk to children's health, and other countries, such as France, accordingly step up their market surveillance of these same products.
At the moment, we are awaiting notification of the measures taken by the national authorities, and then we will see to it that the data provided are analysed immediately by our scientific committees. If it is confirmed as a result of these tests, as a result of scientific data, that such concentrations of formamide do indeed present a risk to children's health, then acting under the committee procedure, we will take all the measures necessary to amend the provisions of the directive accordingly. The directive - and here I wish to reassure Mr Harbour - does indeed provide for this mechanism, which means that it can be constantly updated to reflect the latest available scientific data.
As Mrs Weisgerber mentioned, the Commission, for example, has already made these amendments for certain chemical substances, such as lead and cadmium, so that their values are in line with the latest scientific data. These amendments will be scrutinised in accordance with the regulatory procedure; hence, Parliament will be fully involved in this work. However, over and above the mechanisms provided for by the committee procedure - and I am addressing Mrs Rühle here - I personally undertake to keep you constantly informed of the progress of the work on these two substances.
With regard to the other specific issues raised in the question tabled, I would like to start with the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, which refers to a study conducted by the Joint Research Centre to analyse the methodology used in laboratories to identify traces of heavy metals such as lead in toys. These analyses were carried out in accordance with the EN 71-3 standard.
According to the study, 40 laboratories took part in the analysis, 15 of which are bodies notified by the Member States as being qualified to assess the conformity of toys within the meaning of the directive. Only three out of 40 laboratories misinterpreted the results of the analyses. The Commission has sent the results of these studies to the Member States that notified the names of the laboratories and to the laboratories themselves, inviting them to take the appropriate measures.
The study in question has also been sent to the European Committee for Standardisation so that it can be incorporated in the review of the EN 71-3 standard, which is currently under way. The aim of the review is to establish a new standard by the deadline set, namely 2013, for applying the new provisions on chemical substances.
As regards the new directive on toys, adopted in May 2009, it is based on a new legislative framework for the marketing of products and it provides for greater market surveillance. The Member States are bound to provide the instruments necessary to ensure that only safe products are accessible to European consumers. They have an obligation both to strengthen border controls and to ensure that their inspectorates monitor effectively products that have already been placed on the European market. Lastly, should the Member States discover any irregularities in toys, they must immediately notify the other countries of this information via RAPEX, the EU rapid alert system for dangerous consumer products.
Mr Harbour, the Commission is cooperating very closely with the Chinese authorities, in particular, with regard to the safety of toys. European and Chinese experts on the subject meet regularly to exchange information on applicable legislation and standards, and on administrative practices, too. The Chinese authorities' inspectors are receiving training with a view to improving the quality control of products.
As regards chemical substance limits, Mr Buşoi, it is true that a migration-based method is preferable from a scientific point of view, because it is based on the real risk to which children are exposed. However, setting migration limits means assessing the risk and the exposure to risk, as well as permitting acceptable daily intakes in order to calculate those limits. Given the large number of chemical substances - more than 1 000 - and the lack of sufficient information on all of them, we cannot implement this method with the scientific knowledge we currently possess.
That being said, the directive already lays down migration limits for some chemical substances for which scientific information is available and permits, again via the committee procedure, the future introduction of migration limits should further scientific data be made available for other new substances.
Mrs Rühle, as regards compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, these substances can be found in various consumer goods and not just in toys. Hence, the possibility of adopting specific measures has now been tested within the framework of the REACH Regulation, which has a broader scope, and this appears to be the most consistent and effective method.
Toys intended for use by children under three years of age are subject to stricter rules. Children below that age are more vulnerable and require greater protection. Should there be any doubt about the age group for which a toy is intended, the manufacturer must apply the most rigorous standards. However, there does not appear to be any justification for making all toys subject to the same restrictions as toys intended for babies. The exposure to risk and the way in which those toys are used are not, in fact, the same. Furthermore, certain categories of toys that are intended for older children and for which no risks or accidents have been recorded would end up simply being banned. This method would be disproportionate and would contradict the objective of better regulation.
The new directive also prohibits the use of chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction, but this Parliament itself decided that an outright ban without any possibility of derogation would have been neither justifiable nor realistic. However, if a substance presents no health risks, because it is inaccessible, say, then it may not be prohibited.
Assessments must be carried out on a case by case basis using the scientific information available for each substance. Stricter limits may be adopted under the committee procedure to ensure an adequate level of safety. The Commission will propose this whenever a genuine risk and specific data deem it necessary.
As you know, the new directive will apply to economic operators from July 2011. The obligations relating to chemical substances will apply from July 2013. Ensuring that all those concerned - Member States and economic operators - apply the new rules and integrating the necessary adaptations to scientific progress is a priority for the Commission.
In particular, the Member States have already met twice to discuss the changes in certain chemical substance-related obligations, in October 2009 and in September of this year. A further meeting is planned in April 2011 to conclude the work.
An expert group on chemicals has also been set up to give the Commission guidance. The group already held a meeting in November, which produced good results with regard to defining the issues to be addressed and the options to be suggested. A further meeting is scheduled for January 2011.
Mr Harbour, with regard to market surveillance, I shall have an opportunity to answer your questions at a later date.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Toy Safety Directive marked an important step forward in the protection of children up to 14 years of age. It lays down the essential requirements that toys must meet during manufacture and before being placed on the market.
The European harmonisation bodies drew up harmonised European standards on the basis of the essential requirements: the conformity of toys is assessed and guaranteed by the CE mark, which ensures a high level of safety with respect to international standards. Naturally, I hope that in time, the CE mark can be replaced by microchips. Moreover, I personally believe that the European Union is constantly striving to update its safety tests, adapting them more and more to new technologies.
I must say that I am puzzled about the need to hold a debate, immediately before Christmas, on a study in which it is stated that the test on the migration limits for chemical elements in toys is non-compliant. Let us not cause a false alarm and disguise it behind the legitimate need to continually update our control systems, because that could also damage the many European businesses that operate in the toy sector and comply with all the rules in force, and it could do so at a crucial time for their production.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that improvements in legislation must always be matched by improvements in its application. While our work here in the European Parliament will continue along the lines of improving the quality of toys, my hope for the new year is that non-European countries will use our standards as a model so as to improve the quality of their products at international level.
Mr President, Commissioner, the directive adopted in 2009 was a success because it updates the legislative framework governing the safety of toys. It is a major step in the right direction, because it is showing us which way to go, but it is not sufficient.
We need to be constantly vigilant and alert to ensure that toys that are sold do not endanger the health and safety of children. All toys that are on the market have to comply with current legislation.
We must revise and improve the monitoring mechanisms for detecting dangerous toys, due to substances that are considered to be carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction (CMR substances), fragrances, or other dangerous substances, such as heteropolyanion (HPA) compounds.
The legislation to follow needs to be clearer regarding minimum age warnings and the dangers arising from inappropriate use. We need to ensure that the recommended age for toys is based on child behaviour studies.
We need to be capable of adapting our legislation to scientific advances, based on sound studies, and be more rigorous in monitoring the market and toy imports.
We need to work together, increase cooperation between Member States and rely on the customs services working together to monitor the route taken by imported toys.
Europeans are preparing to make their Christmas purchases, and we must guarantee that the products that they buy comply with all the safety requirements.
(CS) Mr President, the recommendation of the Commission's Scientific Committee regarding the limits for release of the six chemical substances is not unequivocal, and that has led to this question being put. I agree with the six experts who performed the assessment, that they could not clearly prove harm to children from these substances, because in simulating exposure, they use water and not children's spit containing lactose. We cannot leave parents of young children in doubt over the possible health risks of toys made from synthetic materials, however, and I would therefore like to ask whether the Commission intends to continue its investigation by starting experiments on mice, for example, as was the case when investigating the effects of bisphenol, which is released from baby feeding bottles made from synthetic materials and which will now be banned throughout the EU from March.
I would like to ask two more specific questions. Does the Commission agree with the proposal of the Scientific Committee, which recommends assuming exposure for a child amounting to 50% of the exposure for an adult? Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Scientific Committee recommends reducing the limit for cadmium from 0.5 micrograms per kilo of weight of the child per day to 0.36 micrograms, I would like to ask how the Commission will transfer this conclusion and also the other findings of the Committee into specific measures concerning limits for toys and also other consumer goods. Commissioner, we really would like to know what the timetable is for these measures, so that the parents of young children will know where they stand.
(EL) Mr President, while listening to the Commissioner talking so knowledgeably about polycyclic hydrocarbons, carcinogens and toxic substances, I thought for a moment that he was a chemist, not a Commissioner. Then I remembered that he is the Commissioner responsible for this issue and, therefore, the first thing he should have done was to reply to us in detail on the CE mark, the issue raised by my fellow Member, Evelyne Gebhardt, the mark which is supposed to be a safety guarantee for the toys which our children play with. Then I realised that he had not replied for a very specific reason: this Friday, it will be two years exactly since the former Commissioner signed a safety agreement with toy retailers and importers in a toy shop outside Brussels. It is eighteen months today since we had a new directive; and yet, here we are again today, like last year, as the Chair quite rightly pointed out, talking about the same subject, the safety of toys, and this year, things are even more serious, because we have a recession and, in a recession, parents who want to buy toys and are short of money will go to the section of the market that sells sub-standard toys. However, sub-standard toys cause three problems: firstly, that section of the market does not know what it is doing; secondly, it has no staff and thirdly, there are no controls, meaning that we still have no protection. As we all know and accept, children are the most valuable thing we have and, as you quite rightly said, Commissioner, they are the most vulnerable members of society. Please reply on the CE mark, which is the safety guarantee. I beg you, Commissioner, to find a practical solution, so that, next year, neither you nor we are here addressing the same question.
Mr President, the subject of toy safety is important to all families across the European Union. While it is a parent's duty to ensure the safety of the children they have responsibility for, they need to be secure in the knowledge that the toys their children are playing with are safe. In fact, I have brought some with me this evening just to remind us what some toys look like.
Therefore, this easy-osy attitude to toy safety, and the fact that we are here at 11:30 at night to again ask questions about toy safety, does not rest well with me. So what has to be done?
I would like to know from the Commission which companies directly selling or distributing toys have been successfully prosecuted for misusing the CE marking? On the subject of market surveillance, owing to the austerity measures impacting on many Member States, it is the very organisations that are there to protect consumers which are disappearing, merging with other cash-strapped organisations, and having their funding withdrawn and their powers diminished. At a local level - often the front line in the battle against unsafe toys - budget cuts will impact on the effectiveness of trading standards.
Can the Commission and Council investigate whether these cuts will breach commitments made in the General Product Safety Directive regarding effective resourcing, and what monitoring is being applied to ensure that Member States are protecting children from unsafe toys? To this end, will the Commission be bringing forward any legislation on the common European framework for market surveillance?
As in the question tonight, people have acknowledged the job of RAPEX. However, it is resource-constrained and there is more that can be done to exchange information and withdraw dangerous products from the market as quickly as possible. What support is being given to the sharing of best practice between surveillance officers in the European Union? In addition, will the Commission introduce a comprehensive EU-wide database on accident and injury, introducing this in the first instance for children and toy-related harm, so that unsafe products can be removed from the market as soon as is physically possible?
I hope that in 2011, we will see improved commitment to tackling the problem of unsafe toys on the European market once and for all.
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is an eternal truth that our future lies in our children. Therefore, it is extremely important to keep them safe from the earliest age, and to ensure that they use high quality toys that do not present a health hazard. However, determination of testing methods is only one aspect of ensuring the safety of toys. What is the most important is compliance with legislation. Comprehensive testing, as well as the application of sanctions with a serious deterrent effect in the case of any irregularities, are particularly important in the case of imported products. We often hear about health hazards in connection with cheap, poor quality toys, which primarily originate from the Far East. As a practising father, I often find that instead of being deterred by more stringent inspections, such paltry products find their way into the hands of our children in increasing numbers and varieties. We must prevent the continued influx of such toys and support the widespread use of toys made from natural materials.
(GA) Mr President, I spoke about this matter last year and, like other speakers, I am here again tonight, another year gone, and that is not good.
Nevertheless, I suppose there is nothing more disconcerting than to see your child getting injured or dying as a result of playing with a toy. We think of this in terms of swallowing something or strangulation, but there is a more covert killer and that is cancer. The evidence is there that cancer is rising amongst young children in particular. Many people feel it is as a result of being exposed to chemicals in children's toys. PAHs are particularly mentioned and therefore, it is important that we reduce CMR substances in children's toys to the minimum.
Therefore, we need to take action.
(GA) It is time for us to do it and to ensure that the toys used by our children are safe for them.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out once again, in response to the many questions asked during the debate, that the directive will apply to economic operators from July 2011 and that the obligations relating to chemical substances will apply from July 2013. During my speech, I said that the application of the new rules by all those concerned was a priority for the Commission.
As regards surveillance, it is clear that strict legislation is not only necessary, but that it must also be applied correctly or else it will never be effective. That is why I am convinced that the Member States have a fundamental role to play; indeed, a toy that enters the internal market in Rotterdam or in Constanţa, Romania, today, may wind up in Bologna, Lisbon or Helsinki tomorrow, without any border controls.
What gives consumers peace of mind, more than directives being updated every fortnight, is being able to trust in the rigorousness and proper functioning of market surveillance; in other words, in the fact that, if someone tries to sell unsafe toys, he or she will be punished and the dangerous products withdrawn from the market.
Obviously, the same argument applies to businesses; those that abide by the rules pay the price for this situation. Indeed, they appreciate the fact that they are not being exposed to unfair competition from those that more or less knowingly sell non-compliant products and toys. In short, the real challenge is to give consumers peace of mind, businesses legal certainty and a level playing field, and market surveillance authorities resources and cooperation mechanisms.
Hence, in 2011, the Commission will examine the possibility of developing a multiannual market surveillance programme for identifying the long-term measures to be taken and for making the necessary financial resources available, so as to ensure uniformly rigorous checks and consistent action by the Member States.
I would also like to inform you that, in 2011, I intend to organise an event at Rotterdam port with the Dutch authorities, possibly to coincide with the entry into force of the directive. The idea is to see how the largest port in Europe will go about complying with the new rules laid down by the new directive.
As regards the CE mark - which was one of the main topics addressed in my hearing before Parliament prior to my appointment, and which was also discussed in my hearings before the Committee on the Internal Market - I would remind you that it does not certify quality; it certifies only conformity to certain standards. Hence, it is a certificate of conformity to standards, not a certificate of quality. As I have said many times, a quality mark is something that we could only envisage in the future.
Implementing the CE mark and preventing its misuse - something which unfortunately happens in the case of many products, including non-EU ones - is already a big job. Thus, I believe that we can continue to work on this matter, to develop the CE mark - and I personally am not against discussing the introduction of a quality mark in the future perhaps, but I think it is premature to do so now.
As for databases, they will be included in the review of the Product Safety Directive. However, with regard to bisphenol, which is contained in baby feeding bottles, it is not a toy, it is not covered by the directive, but, as the honourable Member pointed out, it has already been withdrawn from the market.
I believe I have answered most of the questions put to me. I am grateful to the President and to the MEPs who put questions to the Commission.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Thousands of new toys come on the market in Europe every year, and Christmas is the time when demand for toys in the shops is at its peak. Therefore, this is a timely issue.
There are significant concerns regarding harmful chemicals found in certain toys. The Commission must address this without delay. Safety standards must be based on reliable methods of testing, and intensive research must be undertaken to ensure that no harmful substances are found in children's toys.
Although all the toys that appear on the market from 20 July 2011 onwards will have to comply with the new Toy Safety Directive, and although we in Europe have the world's strictest legislation as regards toy safety, constant care is necessary. The Commission must be vigilant and strengthen the market surveillance of imports.
Every recall of dangerous toys is a cause for concern, and an immediate examination of each case must be made. Consumers must have confidence in the CE mark which guarantees that a product is of EU standard and made from non-toxic materials.


One-minute speeches on matters of political importance (continuation)
We now continue with the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
(DE) Mr President, in times of climate change and global warming, this much is obvious: we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we must save energy. The EU is already trying to lead the way in this field, sometimes with more and sometimes with less success. At times, there are also apparent attempts to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as in the case of the so-called Ecodesign Directive.
In my constituency, there is a very successful business, called Austria Email AG, which manufactures electric boilers. This is particularly practical and useful in Austria, as the majority of our electricity comes from hydroelectric power, and is therefore very environmentally friendly.
It now appears that the Ecodesign Directive will ban these boilers in the future, and instead force people to use either gas storage heaters or gas stoves, which in my view makes no sense, as they are far less environmentally friendly than these boilers. In addition to this, 400 jobs are currently at risk in Austria.
This is not what we are trying to achieve. It is a negative development. If we are to protect the environment, then we should surely take measures that are reasonable, beneficial and, above all, appropriate. However, we should not risk jobs for the sake of a product that does not really seem expedient.
(FR) Mr President, for us, Euronews is a remarkable window on the world, and it is a channel I am very keen on, but I often wonder about the content of its advertisements.
When I switched on the television this morning I saw an advert for Macedonia. And what did I read? 'A tax-haven for businesses, average wage EUR 370, 10% income tax' etc.
If this is how Macedonia intends to present its application to join the European Union, and if I ask people in my region, 'Do you want Macedonia to join the EU?' - well I assure you it will not work. At a time when we are discussing offshoring within Europe and the fight against social dumping, can we still allow such advertisements to be the window onto social Europe? I do not think so.
I also used to wonder about an advert for Iran; at a time when public stonings took place there, we used to allow adverts for that seraphic country.
Mr President, we have all heard of the flooding in Ireland over the weekend, with considerable damage caused to many homes, to businesses, to farms, to roads and to water schemes. The restoration costs, while much too early to estimate, could be in the region of EUR 500 million. However, to put the appropriate measures in place to deal with this type of flooding and to ensure it will not happen again could cost billions.
It appears that the European Solidarity Fund may be too restrictive to deal with this situation. However, I am still hopeful that an application could be considered, but, if not, I suggest that a regional application could be favourably considered, as the north, the west and the south of the country have been affected. Many people in my European constituency, including the counties of Galway, Mayo, Clare, Leitrim and Roscommon, together with the south of Ireland, have been affected by the horrendous flooding that has taken place. I am appealing to the Commission to assist in a pragmatic and urgent manner.
(GA) Mr President, I would like to express my thanks for giving me the opportunity to raise this important question about the floods that happened in my country.
(PT) The recent tragedy caused by Hurricane Ida as it passed through El Salvador between 6 and 8 November included around 200 fatalities, and at least 18 missing people, 15 000 homeless, 80 damaged schools, and the destruction of agricultural crops and essential infrastructure such as streets, electricity networks, water supply, communications and health facilities.
Given that El Salvador is one of the countries most afflicted by economic and social difficulties in Central America, it is imperative that the European Union offers a massive level of support in order to tackle the social chaos caused by this natural disaster. The El Salvadorian Government estimates that, given the country's vulnerability to such natural disasters, more than EUR 1 billion will be necessary for the country to restore what has been damaged and to implement a plan for reconstruction and risk mitigation. For this reason, it is seeking the release of extraordinary funds and the redirection of funds available from the European Union.
That is the appeal, Mr President. We request that it be communicated to the European Commission and the Council.
Mr President, serious problems concerning the 'right of ownership' continue to cause many European Union citizens who have invested in property in countries such as Spain, Bulgaria and Turkey stress, financial ruin and general heartache. This is despite the concerted efforts of many MEPs working on behalf of their constituents and despite lengthy investigations by Parliament into the issue, which, as we know, culminated in the well-received Auken report in March 2009.
I have received complaints from many constituents regarding the problems arising from property deals in all these countries. Countless people have found themselves in situations whereby complex zoning laws and urbanisation policies have meant that their properties have been seized without any compensation.
I am greatly concerned that more definitive action has not been taken by the EU to attempt to address this problem, despite the overwhelming consensus that it violates the basic rights of European Union citizens. The legality and morality of these practices is at best questionable and, at worst, unveils a corrupt approach to urban development.
(EL) Mr President, allow me to share my fellow members' concern about the disparity between the progress report on Turkey towards integration into the European Union and an article published recently in the Wall Street Journal Europe, which reported that the Prime Minister of Turkey, in a recent visit to Iran, confirmed - and endorsed Iran's views - that Iran's nuclear programme is, in his words, for peaceful and philanthropic purposes only. This disparity is also very evident from the fact that Turkey's overall behaviour - such as on 8-9 November in connection with the visit by the President of Sudan to Istanbul - is creating a serious issue. This being so, I would be very grateful if my fellow members would bear these concerns in mind.
Mr President, the European Union would like to see itself as a democratic union of 27 democratic states, but we have got to look at the reality. In Belgium only a few years ago, the state took steps to ban one of the larger political parties. In Germany, at about the same time, there were unsuccessful attempts to ban a party on the basis of incriminating statements made by state operatives. In Hungary, opposition parties are physically attacked by the state, their members arrested and tortured. In the United Kingdom, a violent militia sponsored by the governing party and the Leader of the Opposition carries out violent and, in some cases, armed attacks on opponents.
There are restrictions on non-violent freedom of speech in almost all European Union countries. Indeed, the European Union is in the forefront of trying to legislate against states of mind - various 'phobias', as they would put it.
(EL) Mr President, in light of the start of negotiations on an agreement for the readmission of illegal immigrants between the European Union and Turkey, I should like to point out that we need a commitment by Turkey that it will cooperate in stamping out illegal immigration. I would remind the House at this point that 76.5% of all arrests of illegal immigrants on the borders of the European Union are on Greece's borders. I know full well that, where third countries have cooperated - examples are Italy and Libya and Spain and Mauritania - there have been tangible results. That is why we need progress with readmission agreements; Turkey needs to cooperate with Frontex, with the Greek authorities, and with the authorities of the European Union.
Mr President, the EU's is the only international mission to monitor the implementation of the agreements of last August and September between Russia and Georgia. Mrs Ashton should now make it perfectly clear to the Russian side that they should guarantee the EU mission access to the separatist Georgian territories without any further delay.
Today, the French Mistral-type helicopter carrier arrived in St Petersburg. The plan to sell this modern warship to Russia is the equivalent of rewarding the Kremlin for its invasion of Georgia last year. In the words of the commander of the Russian navy, this type of ship would have enabled the Russian navy, in August 2008, to carry out its mission in 40 minutes instead of 26 hours. In that case President Sarkozy would have had no time to prevent Mr Putin occupying the Georgian capital.
Providing the Russian navy with the newest NATO technology means taking responsibility for encouraging Kremlin hawks to implement their military exercise plans from last September.
Mr President, as we meet here in Strasbourg, half the population of the city of Cork, in my constituency of Munster, is without water in their homes - and this is 2009!
University College Cork has had to shut down for an entire week, with many students in my Alma Mater effectively homeless. Shop owners, householders and farmers are facing bills running into hundreds of millions of euros, after the worst flooding witnessed in living memory in Cork, Tipperary, Limerick and Galway in particular.
Following the devastating floods across central Europe in 2002, the EU established a solidarity fund to assist Member States that had suffered as a result of natural disasters from such flooding. Our colleagues in the north-east of Romania were the most recent recipients of such aid. The rules state that, in certain circumstances where there are extraordinary regional disasters, this aid can be used.
I now call on President Barroso and Commissioner Samecki to look favourably on any application received from Ireland for assistance under this fund. In particular, I call on the Irish Government to contact the Commission urgently with a view to submitting an application. It is vital that the EU and Parliament extend their support to various communities in Ireland who are suffering horrendous damage.
(HU) In the northern part of Hungary, several tens of thousands of people come across the border from Slovakia to work, while several thousand people have moved and now live in the northern part of Hungary, in Rajka and other villages. Thanks to the excellent infrastructure and the Schengen Agreement, they work in Slovakia and live in Hungary. This is an excellent example of the benefits of the European Union.
According to surveys, the Slovaks living in Hungary feel at home in their newly chosen surroundings and the local authorities are now thinking about providing Slovak-language nurseries and schools, even though they are not Hungarian citizens, because bilingualism is an important value in Hungary.
The opposite process to this is taking place in Slovakia where the Hungarian ethnic community which has been living there for a thousand years is being severely discriminated against in terms of language rights, with Hungarian being made a second-class language and subordinate to the official language. This is shameful for the whole of the European Union!
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to draw Parliament's attention to the rules on company transfers contained in Directive 2001/23/EC.
I am saying this because Eutelia S.p.A., an Italian company operating in the field of telecommunications and information technology, counts among its clients some very important businesses, but not just businesses: for example, it also provides services for the Bank of Italy, the Italian Chamber of Deputies and the Italian Senate. Furthermore, it is involved with the Schengen project, so it manages some very confidential data.
In May 2009, Eutelia all but divested itself of its IT branch, transferring it to its subsidiary, Agile, which basically has a fund of only EUR 96 000 to pay its 2 000 employees. Subsequently, in October 2009, 1 192 people received redundancy notices. These people are still employed, despite having received redundancy notices. Moreover, the ridiculous thing is that the rule that I referred to just now imposes specific requirements of entrepreneurship on those who acquire parts of undertakings ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I vehemently reject the measures being taken by the Federal Republic of Germany to deport Roma and other minorities to Kosovo. Soon, around 2 500 people are to be deported per year. These measures particularly affect 10 000 Roma, but also Egyptians and Ashkali.
Many of these people have lived in Germany for over a decade, having found shelter there from displacement, persecution and violence. People are also beginning to be deported from Austria, Belgium, Hungary and France. I oppose these deportations because the situation of minorities in Kosovo, especially the Roma, is unbearable. The unemployment rate in this group stands at almost 100% and in Kosovo there is no way of providing these people with decent accommodation. Their prospects involve either life in a camp or lead-polluted Mitrovica. Finally, I would also like to appeal to the responsibility that Germany has, as a result of its history, to the victims of the Second World War, including the Roma and Sinti who were persecuted and systematically murdered. A certain level of responsibility that must also be taken in this case ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(PT) I would just like to alert you to the dangers presented by a disease that is threatening coniferous trees in forests within the European Union, namely pine wood nematode, which originated in America. It has been detected in the Sétubal region of Portugal, and has already spread to other areas of Portugal and Spain. The only effective method of combating the disease is to cut down or burn the trees.
It is worth pointing out that forest covers 38% of Portuguese territory and is home to 400 000 landowners. It provides 14% of the industrial GDP, 9% of industrial jobs and 12% of exports. Ultimately, the forests of the European Union are at risk, hence this intervention, which is necessary to establish an emergency plan for preventing this disease, thus far confined to the Iberian Peninsula, from spreading throughout the European Union.
An emergency plan should also have sufficient funds behind it to get rid of this problem, which is damaging many businesses, forcing them to close, and harming many workers by robbing them of their livelihood. The whole European Union has a responsibility to do something about this.
(SL) First of all, I would like to protest in the strongest terms possible against what my fellow Member from Austria said previously about the protection of minorities in Slovenia. Slovenia does have high minority protection standards and we just wish that Slovenian minorities living in our neighbouring countries had similar rights.
Let me now move to another issue. In this age of information technology, information spreads between people very quickly. The more alarming a piece of news is, the faster it spreads, and so the accuracy of information takes second place. What is particularly interesting in this context are news stories which have an effect on people's health and diet.
Over the past few weeks in Slovenia, we had a totally inaccurate piece of news being spread by e-mail about Codex Alimentarius. What we, Members of the European Parliament, can do in cases like this is address questions to the European Commission and then wait a few weeks for an expert answer. However, we need to be able to take immediate action, because the damage is done in a very short space of time.
For this reason, I propose that the European Commission consider establishing an online information portal where any citizen wishing to contact the Commission directly can receive an answer within three days at the most.
(RO) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of the Stockholm Programme will definitely have a beneficial impact on Europe's citizens in the new area of freedom, security and justice.
As far as illegal migration and cross-border crime are concerned, the forecasts for the coming years indicate that the influx of migrants is set to rise, including at the European Union's eastern border. I am referring in particular to the Republic of Moldova. In the wake of the political changes that have taken place there, this country has clearly expressed the desire to become integrated into the European Union, but is currently in a vulnerable economic position. It also has a reduced capacity to manage issues such as migration and crime at its borders. With a view to strengthening its own external borders and creating a security zone, the European Union must grant the Republic of Moldova considerable economic aid in order to increase its capacity to take action.
The European Union must urgently propose an Association Agreement, setting out clear timescales for this country's future accession to the EU. This will make integration much simpler, while the success of this cooperation will also be able to provide a model for other states neighbouring the EU.
(GA) Mr President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words about the unusual flooding that happened in Ireland at the weekend.
Colleagues have spoken about the unprecedented flooding that took place in Ireland at the weekend. I myself visited some of those places in my own constituency - towns like Clonmel, Killarney, Bandon and, of course, Cork City, which is without water for at least another week. University College Cork is also closed as a result of unprecedented flooding - perhaps as a result of the climate change which we speak about so often here in Parliament.
Two things need to happen. First, the Irish Government needs to ensure that it and the local authorities implement the EU Floods Directive. That is of paramount importance and must be done. Second, the Irish Government should apply to the European Union for funding under the European Union solidarity fund so that emergency aid can be given to those in most need, as was done in previous times for countries like Germany, France, the Czech Republic and Austria.
Mr President, two Azerbaijani youth activists and bloggers, Emin Abdullayev and Adnan Hajizade, have been sentenced to two and a half years and two years respectively, in an unfair trial. The charges against them were fabricated and they have been imprisoned solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression and association.
The Azerbaijani authorities must release the prisoners of conscience, Adnan Hajizade and Emin Abdullayev, immediately and unconditionally. The Council, the Commission and the Member States of the European Union must raise the issue of democracy and human rights with the Azerbaijani Government. It must be reminded that democratisation is one of the goals of the Eastern Partnership, and Azerbaijan is part of that initiative. Azerbaijan has to live up to its obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and partner of the European Union.
(EL) Mr President, the imperialist policy of support for Israel by the USA and NATO and the upgrading of relations and of the issues in general contained in the EU-Israel Association Agreement are strengthening the aggression and intransigence of Israel towards the Palestinian people. According to statistics, this year has been the bloodiest for the Palestinian people. A total of 1 443 Palestinians were murdered during the Israeli army's 'Molten Lead' military operation alone, 9 600 Palestinians are being illegally held without trial in Israeli prisons, the wall of shame is 450 kilometres long, with plans to extend it to 750 kilometres, and houses and infrastructure are being demolished on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. We express our solidarity with the Palestinian people and call for an immediate, just and viable solution to the Palestinian question: the creation of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 territories, with its capital in East Jerusalem, which will have sovereignty over its territory and borders and will make provision for the return of refugees and the return of all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
(HU) I would like to draw your attention to the topic which Cornelia Ernst spoke about earlier. I am talking about the start, following the negotiation and signing of readmission agreements, of the process of resettling those who were displaced or forced to flee during the Yugoslav war. This process has started both on a voluntary basis and under coercion, involving, in particular, the minorities living in Kosovo, primarily the Roma, who are ending up in a very difficult situation as a result of this process.
I think that it is extremely important for us to take into account the recommendations of international organisations when it comes to implementing these readmission agreements. We know that Kosovo has nothing in terms of social and economic infrastructure to be able to look after these people. The situation developing there is really deplorable. I believe that the European Parliament must speak out on this.
(DE) Mr President, last Thursday, news of the unimaginably gruesome killings which took place in Peru was made public. According to agency reports, over a period of years, a gang had beheaded its victims and removed the fat from their bodies, selling it at EUR 10 000 per litre to European cosmetic companies. Are these reports true?
In any event, these were inconceivably grisly killings. Having received these gruesome reports, it now falls to us to find out whether the reports in circulation are actually true. The fact remains that we Europeans definitely need to get to the bottom of the matter, in order to rule out the possibility that, as alleged in the reports, European pharmaceutical or cosmetics companies are in some way linked to these unspeakably gruesome murders.
We have now finished the one-minute speeches.
There were significantly more speeches than usual - over 40 - because of the time we had available. When possible, we will give more opportunities for speaking than is provided for in the Rules of Procedure, which allow 30 such speeches at most.


Composition of interparliamentary delegations: see Minutes


23. Fundamental Rights Agency - activities under Title VI TEU (vote)
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - (HU) Before the vote, which should be very straightforward, I have to correct a regrettable error. I wish to ask my fellow Members to please be advised that the new wording of paragraph 2a of the recital appears mistakenly on the voting list. I withdrew those of my proposals that concerned extending the Agency's remit to include the second pillar. On the other hand, the proposal which I retained and which appears on the voting list, replacing the proposed text of paragraph 3a of the recital, now has a new number, paragraph 3.
I am asking my fellow Members to please cast their votes accordingly. If you deem it justified, Mr President, I shall read the short wording of the proposal to be voted on. With your permission and for the sake of simplicity, I will read it in French.
(FR) 'The Agency's remit enables it to provide protection for human rights not only in the field of terrorism and organised crime but also in other fields, such as trafficking in persons, offences against children, illicit drug and arms trafficking and corruption and fraud, where measures can also weaken the effectiveness of the protection of human rights'.
Thank you, Mr President, and may I also apologise, of course, to the House.
- Before the final vote:
Mr President, I shall repeat a question to Vice-President Frattini that my honourable colleague has already asked: do you intend to accept all the amendments that the House has just adopted, or would you like more time to present some final compromise proposals?
I believe a little more time will be needed to consult with the Council, as the rapporteur said.
Mr President, I naturally accept Mr Frattini's reply, and the process will remain the same.
(Parliament decided to postpone the vote and the matter is therefore considered referred back to the competent committee for further examination)


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session suspended on Wednesday, 27 June 2007.


34. Reporting and documentation requirements in the case of merger and divisions (
Before the vote on the amended resolution:
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes the adoption of the Weber report endorsed in the compromise text on simplified reporting and documentation requirements in the case of mergers and divisions of public limited liability companies. Even though the Commission had gone even further in its original proposal, this will maintain a very significant part of the savings potential of the original Commission proposal, which amounts to EUR 172 million per year.
The agenda on administrative burden reduction is advancing, and this will contribute to the potential for growth and help Europe on the way to recovery.


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes


Risk to close down the company QIMONDA in Germany and Portugal and the loss of thousands of jobs in Europe (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the risk to close down the company QIMONDA in Germany and Portugal and the loss of thousands of jobs in Europe.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, companies and workers are both beginning to feel the effects of the financial and economic crisis. Although circumstances vary between individual Member States, the employment situation in Europe is generally deteriorating. In 2009, overall employment may go down by 1.6%, which represents the loss of 3.5 million jobs. The level of unemployment in the EU could be around 10% in 2010. Day after day, companies are announcing restructuring measures or are relocating, often with the loss of many jobs. The situation in the company Qimonda, which has announced the closure of plants in Germany and Portugal, is, unfortunately, not unique.
The Commission is aware of the negative effects which restructuring can have on workers, their families and the economic and social structure of a given region. However, I would like to emphasise that the Commission does not have the power to overturn or postpone the decisions of individual companies and that companies are not obliged to inform the Commission of their decisions. I have to say that neither Qimonda management nor employee representatives have approached the Commission.
The Commission would like to raise several points in connection with this situation. It is essential, above all, to anticipate and manage restructuring better through intensive dialogue with representatives of employees and the other parties involved. I think that the recently passed directive or amended directive on company councils constitutes one of the EU's major contributions in this matter. It is all the more important in this context that the companies affected are careful to abide by their obligations arising from EU directives relating to informing employees and consulting with them. The Commission also invites companies to introduce measures aimed at maintaining maximum levels of workers in employment through flexible work arrangements and the use of temporary layoffs for economic reasons.
Most Member States have introduced targeted measures in an effort to support employment and limit the effects of the crisis on ordinary citizens. These measures apply to four major areas: maintaining workers in employment, rapidly integrating workers back into employment, assisting the most vulnerable groups through income support, extending the period for paying unemployment benefits or increasing the family contributions and strengthening social protection and investments in social and health infrastructure.
The Commission has strengthened financial instruments at a European level with the aim of helping the Member States to overcome the crisis and its social consequences. The European Social Fund, which provides assistance to 9 million workers every year, has been simplified so that advance payments can be released for projects amounting to EUR 1.8 billion. I hope that the European Parliament and the Council will come to a rapid agreement over this matter. The Commission also supports those Member States which would like to reprogram the European Social Fund. Member States can also request intervention from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to assist workers who have been laid off. In the European Economic Recovery Plan, the Commission has proposed extending the eligibility criteria in order to respond better to the current economic crisis. I hope that here, too, Parliament will reach an early compromise with the Council. The Commission is prepared to work together with the German or Portuguese authorities to assess all requests for support from European funds. The Commission also supports social dialogue at a European level, as the social partners have a decisive role to play in managing the crisis. The European social partners are also due to submit a joint contribution on how to overcome the crisis at the tripartite meeting on 19 March.
It is important for the Commission that action is taken on a unified basis, because in that way it will be possible to combat the short-term effects of the crisis and to work towards future economic renewal. The Commission had this aim in mind when it introduced the European initiative to support employment within the framework of the European Economic Recovery Plan. On 4 March, the Commission also received a contribution designated for the meeting of the European Council on 19 and 20 March, which concentrates, among other things, on the requirement and the methods for supporting workers affected by the crisis and vulnerable persons on the labour market.
The Commission also welcomes the initiative of the Czech Presidency to organise a summit devoted to employment and social affairs in May 2009. The aim of this meeting will be to assess the situation and set out concrete measures. It should lead to the adoption of a common approach for reducing the social impact of the crisis, reaching a new consensus with the social partners and other participants over the question of modernising social policies and setting out concrete measures for speeding up economic recovery and overcoming the crisis through resolving structural shortcomings on the labour market.
The possible closure of Qimonda puts nearly 2 000 jobs at risk in the north of Portugal, which has, in a few years, gone from being one of the most industrialised regions of Europe to being one of the continent's poorest regions.
It must be understood that the industrial fabric of the north of Portugal was based on traditional sectors, in which textiles were of great importance. This case has arisen precisely at a time when this industrial fabric was at a decisive stage in its conversion, undergoing restructuring processes that are always arduous and costly. If this closure becomes a reality, it will have an enormous impact not just on the region, but on the country as well.
I know that whether or not Qimonda continues to operate depends, above all, on market forces and the will of the shareholders. Nonetheless, it will also not be difficult to recognise that, as Qimonda is considered one of Portugal's main exporters and as it is also an essential part of the conversion of the economic fabric of the region, we cannot accept that only market forces should decide its future on their own. This circumstance explains why the authorities in Portugal and Germany have been tackling the issue at the highest level, specifically and very recently through the President of the Portuguese Republic and Chancellor Merkel. It is also because of this, Mr Špidla, that if the Portuguese Government has not yet invited you to visit the region, which is facing a real social emergency, I myself am inviting you, Commissioner, as I want you to see for yourself the seriousness of the situation, support the efforts that are being made and mobilise all the instruments that the Commission has at its disposal to prevent the lack of confidence throughout the region from spreading even further.
Qimonda is a paradigm case in the current context of global financial and economic crisis. It is a company that uses cutting-edge technology, employs highly qualified workers and promotes research. Qimonda meets the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. The Portuguese Government has been doing everything to find a solution that makes this company viable, but the solution is also dependent on the involvement of the German Federal Government and the state governments of Bavaria and Saxony. The Portuguese Government has already decided to make EUR 100 million available for this purpose. As I said, it has been doing and will continue to do everything it can, as was, in fact, recognised by Qimonda's German workers during the recent official visit by the President of the Portuguese Republic.
The European Commission and the Member States have been taking steps - and rightly so - to save many banks and to support certain industries such as, for example, the automotive industry. Why not also support Qimonda? Leaving Qimonda to its fate will have extremely serious consequences. Not only will thousands of workers in Germany and Portugal lose their jobs, but invaluable European intellectual property and a lot of Community funds that were invested in Qimonda will also be lost. Keeping Qimonda going in Germany and in Portugal is of such strategic importance for Europe that European Union support is well justified.
Commissioner, we must be consistent and, if we are to be consistent, we will do everything to save Qimonda. Qimonda is not just any company!
Mr President, the German Qimonda corporation, one of the largest memory chip manufacturers, has declared bankruptcy. During the last year, it received EUR 325 million in subsidies, which proved to be inadequate.
In 2007, Qimonda employed 13 500 people. In December last year, they took a 10 to 15% cut in their salaries, based on reassurances that the underpayment would be made up to them by April this year. Instead, 500 workers lost their jobs overnight. They have not received salaries or compensation for leave not taken or the severance pay owed them. Another 500 will lose their jobs in the coming month, with a further 1 500 workers threatened further down the line.
There are many more such enterprises in our countries, including those in Krośno or Stalowa Wola in Poland. What we expect from the Commission is a coherent programme for the protection of jobs during the crisis.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the bankruptcy of the company Qimonda is due to the massive fall in prices for outmoded DRAM chips. In actual fact, Qimonda is months ahead of the competition when it comes to research into energy-saving chips, and it is specifically in this regard - in this potential for innovation - that investment should be made. We hope that the Commission will focus on that.
Nonetheless, that could mean that not all the jobs are retained. The Commissioner was right. This is where the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund comes in. In Qimonda, however, what we have is highly qualified workers who, through really well-chosen and specifically tailored re-training, could find new jobs in new sunrise industries. Those workers who have made the switch to the solar power industry have shown that. The Qimonda case shows that it is also up to the Commission to ensure that re-training takes place for jobs with a future rather than just taking a scatter-gun approach. Only targeted investment, environmental restructuring of the economy and then a corresponding re-training of the workforce give people hope and real prospects for the future.
Mr President, Commissioner, you will surely not be surprised to hear that I am not happy with the answer you have given us, especially as we made great efforts several weeks ago to make contact with a very wide range of representatives of the Commission, in particular, Commissioner Verheugen, and demanded clear answers. There was very much an opportunity today to provide a much more precise answer and to say how the Commission itself intends to assume its responsibility.
For me, there are two aspects that I would like to introduce to this debate. First of all, Qimonda is capable of ensuring a crucial technological advance for the European Union in terms of semiconductor technology and nanotechnology. Secondly, Qimonda has no competitors in Europe but does have some in Asia, where they are assisted by 70% subsidies - that makes the crucial difference. Thirdly, the closing down of production at Qimonda will mean the loss of the cooperative core of a network of around 40 000 jobs in a region like Saxony alone.
What do workers, their families and the people of the affected regions expect from the Union? First and foremost, they expect a clear and immediate undertaking that the Commission wants to retain the current sites of the European semiconductor technology and nanotechnology industry, that this head start for the future is not to be allowed to be thrown away and that the statements made about future research spending, in particular, in relation to the Eighth Research Framework Programme, are true.
We also expect that the Commission, the Federal German Government and the Regional Government of Saxony will support the necessary solution to prevent the closing down of production. There is not much time left, just a few days. Top management figures are already drifting away. The alternatives to a solution would be that highly advanced research technology moves to Asia or is sold for peanuts. That cannot, I would contend, be in the interests of the European Union.
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Qimonda's difficult situation has been made worse by the emergence of the financial and economic crisis. The Portuguese Government has been doing everything that it considers appropriate and useful to help resolve the situation. We wish that the Bavarian Government also knew how to respond to this situation with a great sense of responsibility. Saving the plants in Munich will have a decisive impact on those in Vila do Conde and Dresden.
The Portuguese Minister for the Economy and Innovation, Manuel Pinho, has himself confirmed how very important it is to ensure the viability of this company. Qimonda is extremely important to Portugal and, because it could be competitive on a global level, it is just as important to Europe.
Mr President, Portugal will continue to work towards a solution that guarantees the company's viability. We hope that the German Government - both at Federal and State level - will really strive to find a solution to this problem.
As for me, I would like to underline once again the strategic importance of keeping this type of industry in European territory. I hope that no national or state government will make the mistake of allowing this company to close plants and destroy jobs in the Union's territory.
Ladies and gentlemen, we understand the need to aid the large groups of the automotive industry with their restructuring, but the Union's funds and the energies of the European Commission cannot be used up on this aid.
Commissioner, to avoid any possible failures in communication, we are appealing to Mr Špidla, to whom we are linked by ties of work and political solidarity, and to the President of the Commission, who will never forget that he is our fellow countryman as well as that of a significant proportion of Qimonda's workers, for the Commission to pledge to support Qimonda.
Before finishing, we must stress that President Cavaco Silva of Portugal recently stated in Germany that there was new hope with regard to Qimonda. Reference must also be made, as my fellow Members have already done, to the importance of the specific economic sector in which Qimonda operates. Let us keep in mind, therefore, that the Portuguese Government is showing its readiness to support Qimonda by whatever means necessary, taking into account the economic size of the country.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us help save Qimonda. Time is short!
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this important debate that we are having it is essential that it be understood what is at stake, namely: the future of the strategic nanotechnology industry, together with research and development in a sector that is fundamental to the future of the information society, the central core and research centre of which is in Qimonda's complex in Germany, with its semiconductor factory in Portugal. The European Union cannot continue to allow its industries to be destroyed, particularly in a strategic area, and become dependent on the United States and the countries of Asia, which support their industries. It is regrettable that Mr Špidla has demonstrated in this House serious insensitivity to the issue of Qimonda as a productive company.
There are many jobs involved in this process: almost 2 000 at Vila do Conde, 5 000 in Germany, more than 5 000 worldwide, as well as thousands of jobs that would be indirectly affected in supplier companies and in the research and development centres of Qimonda's other partners. There is an enormous amount of research threatened by the risk of closure of Qimonda in Germany and the knock-on effects that such a situation would have in Portugal. It is out of the question that the European Union should not commit itself to this issue, at least on the same terms as it did with the banking sector. It must be kept in mind that Vila do Conde is in the north of Portugal where unemployment has grown most, whether because companies in the textiles and clothing industry have closed down or because multinationals which manufactured footwear and cabling, amongst other things, have relocated. It is now an area at high social risk if steps are not taken to slow the growth of unemployment and to guarantee production.
It is therefore essential for every necessary effort to be made in every possible way. In the short term, this includes state aid, Community financial support and credit guarantees to maintain an industry of strategic importance to the European Union's economy. In the medium term, it includes developing this industrial area and creating more jobs with rights. It would be good if the European Commission and the governments of our countries understood this. As for us, we will continue this fight.
Mr President, I commend the priority given to this debate. Losses of companies like Qimonda, due to their large size and importance as an economic anchor to regional and even national economies, have to be treated seriously by policy makers.
The demise or offshoring of these companies is often a function of globalising forces. Globalisation - normally a positive force that increases global welfare - can, unfortunately, wreak huge havoc on regional economies when large companies move location. This has happened in my own area in Ireland South, where Dell has announced layoffs of 1 900 of its staff at its factory in Limerick. Likewise, in Waterford, where Waterford Wedgwood may be closing in the not too distant future, and again, between that and downstream jobs, another thousand jobs may be lost.
This has to be treated seriously by policy makers. Therefore, I welcome Commissioner Špidla's resolution to do his utmost to deploy monies available in the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Social Fund. The EUR 500 million from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund could provide huge benefits by giving a second chance to laid-off workers to upskill, retrain and become the entrepreneurs to drive us out of this recession.
The ball is firmly in national governments' courts to apply for this funding. It might be worthwhile in this context to push for 75% co-financing to make their applications easier and, therefore, deliver recovery on the ground to the affected workers rapidly and effectively.
(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, we have been talking about the Lisbon Strategy for years and these are perhaps not the most appropriate times to be discussing it. Nonetheless, without doubt we need a strategy: a strategy that responds to the difficulties and challenges posed by the present crisis. That is also what we expect from the Commission. It is essential that the Commission not shy away from this subject but instead find the capacity to develop joint actions with the government of Portugal and the governments of Germany and the German Länder. It is essential to keep in mind that this is an industry, as has already been said, that is important to Europe because of its quality and value, because of the research that it undertakes and because of the environmental quality that is associated with it. It is essential that the Commission not shy away. I second the invite issued by my colleague, Mr Peneda, for Mr Špidla and the Commission to visit Portugal.
It is essential that the Commission keep in mind that at the moment, Europeans are looking to Europe and expect responses from the European authorities: they need to feel like the European authorities are close by. The European public does not understand a Europe that washes its hands of problems. Instead, the people want a Europe that is bold enough to roll up its sleeves and get its hands dirty helping them to overcome their difficulties.
Ladies and gentlemen, the case we are debating is significant and forms part of the overall economic situation. You will also be well aware that the strategy which the Commission is developing is a definite policy for industry because the Commission firmly believes that industry must always make up a substantial part of our economy and that it is the torch-bearer of high technology. It is clear that the crisis in which we find ourselves has structural elements and therefore the Commission, in its strategies and basic documents, is formulating, on the one hand, the future green economy or 'green jobs', while also pressing very hard for innovation and modernisation. It is also clear, as I stated at the beginning, that it is up to companies to take business decisions and that the Commission will not interfere in such affairs.
The other thing of course is that if a certain amount of restructuring takes place, certain decisions with social and community-wide consequences, there are instruments and European policies, which we, of course, always have a duty to mobilise and we are mobilising them. As for the call made twice for me to familiarise myself with the situation on the ground, I am, of course, ready to do that because, at the end of the day, it is one of our normal and fundamental duties to make decisions on the basis of what is possible. There has been mention of possibilities within the framework of European funds and mention of approaches discussed between the Portuguese Government and the German Government. In any event, I can state loud and clear that the Commission always makes active use of all available options, that it is doing so in this case, and that it will undoubtedly do so in future cases.
That concludes this item.


5. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean Agreement Area (


Gender mainstreaming in the work of committees and delegations (short presentation)
The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Záborská, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on gender mainstreaming in the work of its committee and delegations.
Written statements (Rule 142)
In recent years women's dignity and calling have taken on a new dimension. This is particularly noticeable within the framework of Community horizontal policies defined in the Lisbon Strategy, demographic challenges and efforts to achieve a work-life balance, as well as moves to combat violence against women and people trafficking.
The report on gender mainstreaming in the work of committees and delegations is one of the regular reports of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality which I have had the honour to present to Parliament on two occasions during the legislative period. Although some people welcome the growing presence of women in the European Parliament, the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality deplores the fact that women are still insufficiently represented in the senior functional bodies of the Parliament. At the general directorate level the representation of women is still insufficient. We support the creation of networks of officials in secretariats, committees and delegations specially trained in this issue, with the aim of regularly exchanging tried and tested procedures.
The report calls on the general secretariat to continue implementing an integrated work-life strategy and to facilitate the career progress of women officials. The report emphasises that gender mainstreaming is a positive development both for women and for men and that the requirement for gender equality must make itself felt through a practical approach which does not pit women and men against each other.
The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality stresses the need for committees and delegations to have suitable instruments at their disposal for ensuring maximum awareness of gender mainstreaming. We need indicators, data and statistics grouped according to gender, and we also need budgetary resources to be allocated from a gender equality perspective.
We call on political groups to take account of gender balance when nominating persons to senior roles. The gender mainstreaming report is the result of cooperation between parliamentary committees and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality.
As Chairman of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality and rapporteur I would like to thank you sincerely for this work. I would especially like to thank my fellow Members on the various committees who were responsible for this work. The work has been unanimously adopted in committee and I value that highly. The committee has created a new methodological model which makes it possible to evaluate the work of every parliamentary committee. The model is described in detail in the explanatory statement. The evaluation would certainly have greater evidential value if all of the committees and delegations of the European Parliament had responded.
Within the framework of the discussions a number of amendment proposals were adopted, increasing the significance of the report. I value the fact that the report was created through pluralistic parliamentary discussions and has stressed the importance of this topic. In the context of the European elections I would like to stress the importance of voters of both genders making an effort to ensure that women are represented at the European Parliament in the greatest possible numbers.
Women are in the majority, this evening, in Parliament, in the Chamber. I should just like to point that out.
The item is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday 22 April 2009.
Written statements (Rule 142)
We welcome the fact that some progress has been made with regard to achieving a balanced representation among the administrator and assistant positions at committee secretariat level. We hope that similar measures will be adopted too in relation to senior posts within the political groups and especially at political function level in Parliament. We cannot but fail to note, however, that these changes are only a minor aspect of what is required by gender mainstreaming.
The application of gender mainstreaming would mean that every piece of legislation is accompanied by a preliminary gender-specific impact study. Similarly, awareness of gender issues and a minimum level of expertise would be required in every committee. The reality shows us that during the 2004-2009 parliamentary term, not a single piece of legislation submitted by a committee was rejected for not including this impact study, even though its inclusion would be mandatory since the Treaty of Amsterdam. Unfortunately, we must acknowledge that minor positive results have been achieved and that the objective of gender equality is still far off.
I would like to congratulate Mrs Záborská on her report, which highlights the fact that, although some of the European Parliament's committees have adopted a strategy for promoting gender equality, there are also still obvious deficiencies when it comes to the consistent application of this principle. This report also makes a number of forward-looking recommendations. One such proposal, for instance, is the initiative for officials working in the European Parliament to attend equal opportunity training, since appropriate knowledge is indispensable when putting this principle into practice.
Gender equality is one of the basic principles of Community law. However, the European Parliament can only retain its credibility in the eyes of the public if it insists on the introduction and total implementation of measures promoting gender equality within this institution too, especially with regard to its committees and delegations.
With this aim in mind, we must devise a strategy which sets out concrete objectives for actively promoting equal opportunities and in relation to gender mainstreaming. The regrettable fact is that practically no progress has been made since the report drafted by Mrs Záborská on the same topic in 2007. We hope that this latest position statement will yield more results.
Women represent 52% of the European population. The task of women who are active in politics is to convince female voters in particular that the participation of women in European politics is important for future generations and for the proper functioning of democratic systems.
I firmly believe that the representation of women in politics should not be based on the introduction of mandatory quotas, which would establish minimum numbers of female candidates, but on the ability of female politicians to seek, adopt and promote the kind of issues that will help women to solve their actual problems.
As a member of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality I have spoken in the European Parliament many times about the suggestions I receive in meetings with women. In particular I regard the inclusion of child-rearing in the calculation of pensions and the provision of more crèches and nursery schools as key to achieving a work-life balance. I firmly believe that a politician who acts on the basis of her personal experience of motherhood and family life will best understand women's problems.
The report by Mrs Záborská on gender mainstreaming in the work of committees and delegations testifies to the fact that the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality is working exceptionally actively in the European Parliament. It has adopted many reports and opinions which deserve more attention from the other committees in Parliament. For this reason too the numbers of women MEPs should increase a one third to a half.
Nowadays, there is an ever-increasing number of women becoming involved in politics and making major decisions in companies. In 2006, 32.6% of managers in the EU were women. The percentage of women in the European Parliament rose from 16.3% in 1979, when the first European elections took place, to 31% in 2009.
However, it still seems necessary to adopt and apply a gender mainstreaming strategy incorporating specific targets in all Community policies which come under the remit of parliamentary committees and delegations.
I support the need for the parliamentary committees and delegations to have at their disposal appropriate means for gaining a sound understanding of gender mainstreaming, including indicators, data and statistics broken down by gender, and for budgetary resources to be allocated with a view to ensuring gender equality.
All these options must encourage the continual exchange of good practice, with the aim of implementing the integrated strategy for combining family life and work life and facilitating the career development of female employees.
As a social-democrat, I believe that this is an excellent initiative for transferring to national parliaments the positive model offered by the EP on gender equality (11% of the members of the Romanian parliament are women).


4. Financing the common agricultural policy (vote)
- Report: Jorgo Chatzimarkakis
- Before the final vote:
(DE) Madam President, in this House, neither the lift system nor the bell is working. That is the reason why many of us did not manage to get here on time, so perhaps we could ask the relevant services to get the bell to actually ring, please.
The vote was scheduled for 11.00 and we have tried to start on time.


1. Administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (recast) (