10. Equality between men and women in the committees' work (vote)
- Before the vote on paragraph 6
(NL) Mr President, the rapporteur has asked me to withdraw the split vote, which we applied for in respect of paragraph 6, and instead, to opt for an oral amendment which amounts to replacing 'gender perspectives' by 'equal treatment of men and women'. I am happy to grant Mrs Záborská this request.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
That concludes the vote.


Membership of Parliament: see Minutes


14. Labour force sample survey (vote)
Report: Jan Andersson
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - (SV) I just want to direct Members' attention to the fact that Amendments 1 to 3 have been withdrawn in order to facilitate an agreement with the Council at first reading. Members of the committee have been informed of this measure.
I therefore move straight to the single vote.


Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes


24. Discharge 2005: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (vote)
- Report: Herczog


Calendar of part-sessions: see Minutes


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 13.05 and resumed at 15.00)
(FR) I should just like to communicate some information I received a moment ago to the House.
For some weeks now, a new and unprecedented phenomenon has been occurring around certain large occupied towns in Western Sahara, that is to say, more than 12 000 Saharawi men, women and children are, as we speak, deserting their towns and moving into tents in the vicinity of Laayoune, Smara and Boujdour.
The movements, which are steadily increasing, appear to be a new way of protesting against the unbearable political and socioeconomic situation of the indigenous inhabitants of these territories.
I am saying this today and right now because the problem posed by the many violent interventions by the Moroccan regime could worryingly become worse this weekend. That is why I call on Parliament to be ready to react depending on how the situation unfolds.
I will take it into account. It was of course a point of order and the situation in Western Sahara and the situation in Morocco are not what we are supposed to be talking about this afternoon. I will, however, take note of what you said.


Welcome
May I extend a very warm welcome to a delegation in the visitors' gallery from the Tibetan Parliament-in-exile, led by its Speaker, Karma Chophel.
Welcome to the European Parliament!
(Applause)


Use of Community trade marks in the internal market (debate)
Τhe next item is the Commission statement on the use of Community trademarks in the internal market.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, trademarks are of real importance in modern commerce. They enable the origin of products and services to be identified, they guarantee a constant level of quality, and they convey the image of the business. Access to the Community trademark is an issue for the development of our businesses and for the fight against counterfeiting.
You are concerned at the decisions taken by certain national trademark offices. These decisions would seek to limit the use of the Community trademark by invoking a requirement under which the use of a Community trademark in only one Member State would not constitute genuine use thereof. I should like to thank those Members who have drawn the Commission's attention to this matter, which we are following very closely.
The great merit of the Community trademark is, in fact, to offer all businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises, an effective means of protecting their trademarks at European level. Until now, the rule that all genuine use of a Community trademark by the owner is sufficient, regardless of where in the Union it is used, has always been considered by its users as one of its principal advantages. This rule is consistent with the unitary character of the Community trademark. It is also consistent with the very principle of the single market. Any new restriction on the use of the Community trademark could therefore have serious consequences for the fight against counterfeiting, which will be one of the particular subjects - and I point this out to Parliament again - of the draft Single Market Act, and of the Commission's commitment to an action plan against piracy and counterfeiting.
What are these consequences? First, the introduction of a new requirement that could put a brake on the fight against trademark infringements. The Community trademark is an effective weapon in the fight against counterfeiting, as I have just said, because it provides unfailing protection across the whole of the Union and at all of its external frontiers. It is indispensable for enabling the seizure of counterfeit goods - which are currently being imported in massive amounts from third countries - under the Community customs regulations at the external frontiers of our Union.
Besides, the introduction of such a requirement could make access to the Community trademark more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises and for start-ups. These companies often operate at national level and do not begin exporting, and expanding their activities cross-border, until their business has proved itself to be successful. It could thus become more difficult for these businesses to grow, if they were no longer in a position to obtain and use a Community trademark before expanding their activities. This would also be contrary to a number of our policies that rightly seek to encourage the development of small and medium-sized enterprises which, I remind you, constitute 95% of all European businesses.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I want to confirm to you, or assure you, that my services will follow these developments in the Member States very closely. At this stage, we are confident that the national courts will not uphold these decisions, which we feel do not comply with the unitary character of the Community trademark and with the principles of the single market, as I have already said.
I am extremely pleased that despite the late hour, we have, today, the opportunity to hear the Commission statement on the use of Community trademarks in the internal market. It was my political group, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), which initiated this idea. As you well know, Commissioner, this matter is particularly important to the members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Legal Affairs.
The PPE Group has always been convinced that the internal market began with the concept of removing barriers between Member States, and we have made it our aim to fight for the removal of more of these barriers. This, too, was the idea behind establishment of the Community trademark. The advantage of the system is, among others, a guarantee to businesses of uniform protection across the Union. Geographical differences ought not to play a large role in this regard. Businesses do, after all, operate in a single European market. Therefore, it is with anxiety that we view the decisions made by some national offices for intellectual property protection.
I welcome, therefore, your declaration, Commissioner, that in the opinion of the Commission, these decisions are in contravention of the principles upon which the common market is built. My political group is going to watch further development of the situation and will support measures which are based on a Union approach and serve the interests of businesses. Finally, I would like to ask the Commissioner what options are available if the jurisdiction of Member States does not share the approach represented by the Commission. In your opinion, might it be essential, in order to clarify the situation, to revise the Council regulation on the common trademark and the directive on the harmonisation of Member States' legislation on trademarks?
Madam President, Commissioner, the Community trademark, established 16 years ago now, has enabled us to fight effectively against counterfeit goods and to offer consumers the guarantee of a quality product throughout the European Union.
Community trademark protection is the same in every country in the European Union, whether we are talking about protection of the trademark itself, of the products and services with respect to which rights are claimed, or of the owner. What is more, it is a genuine solution for the single market: it costs little and is particularly suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises, as you made clear, Commissioner.
It is therefore a real step forward, as in a single market, only a Community trademark can guarantee really widespread protection. What is more, its ease of administration and favourable cost make the Community trademark the ideal instrument for extended protection in Europe. It is equally an important tool for the markets and customs supervisory authorities.
On 14 September, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that a sign consisting of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result cannot be registered as a Community trademark. This was its response to the application of the Lego company, which had requested registration of its toy brick as a Community trademark. The Court therefore rejected its appeal, thereby demonstrating that the use of the Community trademark must be strictly controlled.
This decision by the Court sheds light on the new challenges that must be faced by Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trademark. Would it not be judicious for the European Commission to update this regulation in view of new technological developments, notably the development of the Internet and globalisation? One can never overemphasise that the primary objective of this regulation is, above all, the guarantee provided to consumers of a quality product and of complete, clear and comprehensible information throughout the European Union.
Madam President, Commissioner, I am pleased that we are able to have this important debate this evening, despite the late hour. One of the biggest advantages of the European Union is that it has provided, and continues to provide, vast opportunities for us to lower the thresholds and open up trade between the countries of Europe. This will generate the prosperity and growth that our continent so desperately needs, particularly after the economic crisis.
Europe will not become strong in the 21st century through initiatives from us politicians. We need to accept, to a greater extent, the truth that growth is created by companies and entrepreneurs. Europe can only be strengthened by entrepreneurs and by them having good opportunities to establish companies that can grow, employ people and be profitable. This particular system of the Community trademark is a very effective way of tearing down barriers to trade and generating growth. Particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which we want to be able to grow and become larger, it is crucial to be able to enjoy trademark protection throughout the European Union without inconvenience and bureaucracy.
It is therefore with great concern that I have received information that Member States, as far as I can tell, completely contrary to their obligations, are trying to introduce a requirement that a Community trademark should only be granted if it is used in several countries. It should, clearly, be sufficient for a trademark to be used in one Member State in order for that trademark to be protected throughout the EU.
The action of these Member States is a serious threat to the Community trademark system, and I hope, Commissioner, that you will deal with those Member States that are trying to introduce this new criterion and are jeopardising the chances of having effective trademark protection throughout the European Union.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, on behalf of my group and also as the Chairman of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I want to thank the Commissioner very much indeed for making it absolutely clear that the behaviour of the two trademark offices concerned - in Benelux and in Hungary - is absolutely unacceptable.
I emphasise that very strongly, because this is clearly an attack on the fundamental principles of the internal market. I am pleased that all colleagues here have spoken in support of the decisions that the Commissioner will make. I would say, from a practical point of view first of all, that it is a remarkable coincidence that both those trademark offices are operating in the country of the current Presidency and the next Presidency.
The first thing my committee intends to do - and I will make sure it happens - is that, when the Minister for the Internal Market (and indeed the Hungarian Minister, from January onwards) comes to my committee, we will make sure that we ask this question and ask them to go directly to their trademark offices and say this is not acceptable.
Why is it not acceptable? Because it is a fundamental attack on the basic principle of the internal market that there should be no discrimination of any kind on companies, wherever they operate in a single uniform unitary market. In this case, it is even worse, because this proposal - or proposed actions, if they were to be upheld - actually discriminates against small enterprises as opposed to larger enterprises. It is small enterprises that will be most affected by this because they may register a new trademark for a product across the European Union - taking advantage, by the way, of a fantastic internal market revolution and a very cost-effective way of protecting their intellectual property. It may take them more than five years to get that product into the marketplace - and what would they find? When they come to the Hungarian market, they would find that the Hungarian trademark office has given their trademark away to someone else. This is absolutely not acceptable.
I cannot understand why it is that, after all the time that we have had the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (the trademark office) in operation, we suddenly find these two trademark offices doing this. Perhaps it is because the cost of registering a European trademark has come down, because they are operating it so efficiently.
Of course, these two trademark offices, in trying to sustain these objections to allowing people to register trademarks, will be requiring the companies concerned to register in their own jurisdictions. This is naked self-interest on behalf of these organisations. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is fundamentally against the principles of the European Union and, by the way, it also undermines - as the Commissioner rightly says - a major priority for this Commission, which is innovation, getting new products into the market and making the internal market work better.
(CS) I very much welcome the fact that the Commission will, within one year, modernise the Community regulation on trademarks in such a way that it simplifies and reduces the cost of registering trademarks, in other words, protection for the trade names of companies, the names of their products and so on. This is an additional instrument for combating counterfeits.
Personally, I value the fact that the Commission has undertaken to include the proposal to create European trademark protection in the regulation, as I have been supporting this for some years. Today, it is possible to abuse certified product quality marks and safety marks with impunity. For example, in third countries, dealers attach our CE trademark to products for their national markets, which do not meet our standards at all.
There is a need to protect certified marks. We are guaranteeing product standards for consumers, and we are not only protecting businesses against unfair competition but also opening up the possibility of expanding our standards by licensing other businesses. Such protection is possible without additional costs and institutions, because it is possible just to expand the registration powers of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in Alicante to include certified marks.
Madam President, I note we are pretty unanimous in what has been said. Obviously, the development of Community trademarks is a natural extension of the development of the internal market and it offers great scope for developing trade for SMEs, helping to stop counterfeiting and piracy, etc. So it is difficult to see how anyone could object to it. In particular, all political pressure, and possibly sanctions, must be brought to bear on Member States who are not embracing it, to bring them to their senses in this regard.
On the wider front, I would say also that Community trademarks and similar initiatives help to bring the European Union closer to its citizens and make it more relevant for the development of business within the European Union.
Finally, I would just like to say I am also looking forward to the development of the Europe-wide patent, and the sooner that can happen the better.
Madam President, as Mrs Wikström said, it is quite late to be discussing this topic, but I nevertheless believe it to be an important topic, in common with everyone else who has spoken.
The Chair, Mr Harbour, reminded us to what extent the European trademark has been a proof of identity and a source of protection for businesses. It has also protected innovation.
I therefore believe, as Mr Kelly has just said, that we must go yet further, towards other forms of protection, and that is why, Mr Kelly, we and the Belgian Presidency shall act with determination to finally complete the project of the European patent.
Therefore, I say to Mr Harbour that, for all the reasons he and others have pointed out, the Commission will not allow one of the key elements of the internal market to be unravelled. Furthermore, as you also said, Mr Harbour, if we were to allow this unravelling, based on these quasi-protectionist temptations in one country or another, to happen, it would be small and medium-sized enterprises that would be the first victims.
We are therefore determined to say 'No' to these temptations, for all the reasons you have mentioned. From that point of view, I should like to thank Mrs Handzlik and her group for having demonstrated vigilance and expressed that vigilance in asking this question.
Mrs Wikström, like Mr Tarabella, reminded us what the Community trademark means for businesses, and of how it is consistent with the single market. I should like to confirm that, as Mr Tarabella wishes, within the framework of this revising objective, we are on course to modernise the current system.
Following the Lego decision, which you referred to, Mr Tarabella, it is clear that the regulation on the Community trademark must be brought up to date. We are on that course with a concern that you yourself expressed to take into account the consequences of modern means of technology and, obviously, of the Internet in this review, this update. It is in this spirit that we shall update and revise this regulation.
I should also like to thank Mrs Roithová for having mentioned competition, as I did myself; competition that would, moreover, be increased if we were again to be heading towards a fragmentation of trademarks. We must show resistance, we must be capable of cracking down on or preventing the entry of products. To this end, the action plan that I shall be presenting in a few weeks' time against counterfeiting and piracy will include this desire to train personnel from the various Member States at our external borders, and to strengthen the technical means at our disposal to combat counterfeiting and piracy.
I also believe that there must be a bilateral effort, particularly with the countries from which these counterfeit goods come, and the plan of action that I shall propose to you will therefore contain more positive measures for cooperating with certain third countries and helping them to adopt their own trademark policies and policies for combating counterfeiting.
Finally, Mrs Handzlik asked me an important question: what would happen if the national courts upheld the position taken by their national trademark offices? At the time of speaking, we are not there yet. We must first of all wait, and not prejudge the outcome of the cases before the national courts. What is more, as I told you, I am confident that these courts will themselves rectify the situation. The possibility of infringement proceedings, which was just mentioned, will be borne in mind, but only in the light of the outcome of the appeals that have been entered.
These are the answers, Madam President, to this important problem, which is one of the key constituents of the internal market, and I should like to say so at this point when, together with you and the Council, we are preparing to give a boost to the internal market, to reinforce it, to give it a more specific approach for the benefit of small and medium-sized enterprises and of our citizens.
It is certainly not at this point that we shall accept this unravelling based on the Community trademark issue.
The debate is closed.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


The state of play of the Euromed Free Trade Area (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the state of play of the Euromed 2010 Free Trade Area (FTA) by Vital Moreira, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade - B7-0222/2009)
Mr President, Commissioner, this question was drafted and proposed before we knew that Mrs Ashton would cease to be Trade Commissioner. We nevertheless hope that the Commission will be in a position to respond to our question.
Her remit, as previously mentioned, is the current situation of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area, initially planned for 2010.
In fact, one of the projects which came out of the Barcelona Process, launched in 1955, was the creation of a free trade area in the Mediterranean region in 2010, which was supposed to be established on a regional basis, and include a North-South network and a South-South network. Nevertheless, this objective remains very distant, and I have the following questions:
Does the Commission believe that the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean free trade area in 2010 was a realistic prospect from the very beginning? Can the Commission back up its response with sound reasons?
Secondly, Parliament is aware that a new Euro-Mediterranean road map will be adopted in the near future, possibly along with a new mechanism to facilitate trade and investment in the region.
Can the Commission provide further details about the practical aspects and implications of such a mechanism?
Thirdly, can the Commission explain the current status of the Agadir Agreement, the EU's contribution to the rewording of this agreement and, in more general terms, the South-South dimension of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean?
Fourthly, can the Commission tell us how it incorporated the recommendations contained in the sustainability impact assessment carried out by the University of Manchester, with a view to considering social cohesion and sustainable development in the negotiations, as recommended in that study?
Fifthly, can the Commission explain to Parliament what was at issue in the renegotiation of the EU-Syria Association Agreement after it was put on hold in 2004?
Sixthly, can the Commission tell us about its negotiations with Libya, the purpose of these negotiations and their current status?
Seventhly, several Mediterranean countries have expressed an interest in increasing and/or extending their trade agreements with the European Union.
Can the Commission, first and foremost, tell Parliament about this new generation of association agreements?
Can the Commission, secondly, inform Parliament whether, in the light of the new powers on trade matters granted to Parliament by the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission will take any prior resolution by Parliament into account when negotiating these new agreements?
Those are my questions, Mr President, Commissioner. Given the current relevance of the Barcelona Process and the area south of the EU, we believe that an answer to these questions is extremely pertinent and timely.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Moreira, I am answering on behalf of Commissioner Ashton.
With regard to the Euromed Free Trade Area, its creation by 2010 was a realistic objective, and within the next year we will have made considerable progress towards this, although there clearly still remains much to be done to fully realise the potential of economic integration in the Euromed area.
In particular, progress has been made in the North-South dimension. The European Union has concluded bilateral association agreements with all of our Mediterranean partners apart from Syria, and these focus essentially on trade in goods. Other bilateral negotiations are nevertheless under way to further promote trade in agricultural products, services and the freedom of establishment, and to create a binding dispute settlement mechanism. Some of these negotiations have already ended and others are set to conclude by 2010.
With regard to the fresh negotiations between the European Union and our Mediterranean partners and the role of the European Parliament, I can tell you that, again with reference to the North-South dimension, we expect to reach an agreement at the Euro-Mediterranean Trade Ministerial Conference on 9 December on a Euro-Mediterranean trade road map beyond 2010, reflecting the objective of gradually transforming the current Euromed association agreements into comprehensive, wide-ranging free trade agreements.
We are not talking about negotiating new association agreements, but instead extending and strengthening current ones in order to tackle issues such as trade facilitation, technical barriers and sanitary and phytosanitary matters, as well as public procurement, competition, intellectual property rights, trade and issues relating to sustainable development and transparency.
Bilateral negotiations will be tailored to the situation of each Southern Mediterranean partner. Morocco might be the first Mediterranean country with which we launch negotiations next year. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament will obviously have an enhanced role in matters of trade. The Commission is ready to work closely with you on the future negotiations which I have just mentioned.
The Euromed Free Trade Area also has a South-South dimension. Our Mediterranean partners are creating a network of free trade agreements among themselves, and the Agadir Agreement, in force since 2007, is also open to other Mediterranean countries. Israel and Turkey have also signed free trade agreements with the Mediterranean partners, while other agreements are still on the table.
It is too early for a full assessment of the current Agadir Agreement. Trade between the four partners has increased, although to a lesser degree than was initially expected. This may be for several reasons, such as the existence of non-tariff barriers, lack of complementarity between the different markets, lack of a regional market capable of attracting investors and last, but not least, the fact that businesses are not sufficiently aware of the opportunities that these agreements offer.
The Euromed Trade road map beyond 2010 should help solve this problem. It also contains a series of practical short-term proposals, one of which is the Euro-Mediterranean trade and investment facilitation mechanism. The creation of this mechanism will provide free, up to date, comprehensive and easily accessible information on trade, investment conditions and regulation in the Euromed region, with the aim of helping businesses, particularly SMEs, operate in Euro-Mediterranean markets.
With regard to sustainability, as with all of our free trade areas, the Commission carried out a sustainability impact assessment, which was completed in December 2007 and which is, and will be, used in both current and future negotiations.
In particular, regarding questions of trade, the Stability Pact highlighted the importance of the long transition periods which were set out in the association agreements for the elimination of industrial tariffs by Southern Mediterranean countries, and the need to lay down similar transition periods in current negotiations on agricultural projects.
It is also evident that we need to take into account the level of development of our Southern Mediterranean partners in ongoing talks on services and establishment.
In addition, in a large number of these countries, the Commission supports fiscal reform programmes which can help lessen the negative effects of the fall in tariff revenue reported in the sustainability impact assessment.
As for the agreement with Syria which I referred to earlier, in 2008, the Commission launched a review of the draft association agreement in order to determine whether, prior to its conclusion, technical amendments or updates were required. One round of talks sufficed, and we agreed with Syria the amendments necessary to take account of the accession to the European Union of Romania and Bulgaria and the tariff changes introduced in both Syria and the Union since talks were suspended in 2004. The deal was sealed in December 2008. Last month, we announced that the Union is now ready to sign. Syria has postponed the conclusion of the agreement in order to analyse its economic implications.
On the other hand, as far as negotiations with Libya are concerned, they were launched in November 2008 in Brussels to conclude a framework agreement centring on an ambitious free trade agreement regarding goods, services and freedom of establishment, as well as regulatory cooperation. Concluding this agreement with Libya will be the final piece of the puzzle. At that point, in fact, the Union will have concluded free trade agreements with all of our Mediterranean neighbours, even though Libya is not covered by the European neighbourhood policy.
The conclusion of this trade agreement will provide EU exporters with new export opportunities in Libya and a more favourable regulatory environment, in particular, in the service sectors and in the oil and natural gas markets. Naturally, negotiations with Tripoli are still at an early stage and we need more time before we can reach an agreement.
During this process, the Commission will pay particular attention to capacity-building in trade and related issues within the Libyan administration. A sustainability impact assessment is currently being finalised for Libya as well.
Mr President, we support the strategically important Euromed partnership and the consolidation of political, economic and cultural cooperation and peace, security and stability in the area in general. We call on the ministers to adopt a road map for implementing the Euromed Free Trade Area at the forthcoming conference. The bilateral approach must be accompanied by a regional approach. Similarly, over and above the North-South dimension, I consider the South-South economic regional integration to which both the Chairman of the Committee on International Trade, Mr Moreira, and Commissioner Tajani referred, to be especially important. I would particularly emphasise the need to incorporate social and environmental privileges and plant health standards which need to accompany the opening of the markets. We must also address certain serious matters relating to imports of agricultural products into the European Union. I personally am in favour of strengthening the Barcelona Process: union for the Mediterranean and of the programmes announced within its framework in strategic sectors, such as cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises and exploitation of renewable energy sources. Finally, I should like to place particular emphasis on the development of sea corridors and on the proposal submitted by Greece last summer about setting up a transport observatory in the eastern Mediterranean based in Greece.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mr Moreira for his speech.
On 9 December, the Euro-Mediterranean trade ministers will meet to debate the revival of our economic and trade cooperation. Firstly, I would like us all to be clear about something: if the aim of the free trade area was indeed to benefit all of the partners, from the North and from the South, setting 2010 as the date on which it will be introduced was neither realistic nor even desirable, given that there are still huge disparities in development terms between the north and the south sides of the Mediterranean.
Moreover, some people are still advocating the fact that, to make progress with the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership - which I would remind you is made up of three pillars: politics, economics, and society and culture - we simply need to brush aside the political difficulties in order to make headway with the economic and trade aspect. As you will have gathered, I do not believe in this magical and pernicious view that trade alone can help us progress towards harmonious integration, peace and stability.
I believe in it even less since the facts speak for themselves. For example, the Union for the Mediterranean, in brushing aside the political conflicts, was supposed to revive stagnant Euro-Mediterranean cooperation with so-called concrete and visible projects. Today, it is the Union for the Mediterranean that is stagnating, and the political disputes that have gone unmentioned have come back to haunt it.
I am among those who are fiercely attached to the spirit of the Barcelona Process, who believe that progress is not measured solely by trade statistics, which are, incidentally, still too unfavourable to our partners from the South, to their populations. Trade for trade's sake - no, I definitely do not believe in it.
On the other hand, trade that is focused on development and aimed at reducing the gap between rich and poor, at ensuring that prosperity really is shared and that regional integration exists - yes, I can conceive of that. However, the negotiations still need to be steered in this direction.
That is why, at this next meeting, I ask that we all be ambitious, that we not just discuss technical matters to do with the removal of barriers to trade, as though that were the aim. It is unacceptable to go on thinking that way.
Regional integration, particularly in terms of the South-South network, the solutions to be adopted for the economic crisis - which is having a severe impact with its associated job losses - human, social and environmental considerations, and the human rights issue must sustain the discussions and become our main concerns once again.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the time of day, I hope you will permit me to begin with a quotation from 'A Thousand and One Nights', since we are discussing the Arab world.
In these fables, we read: 'Nor gain nor honour comes to him who idly stays at home. Oft have I seen a stagnant pool corrupt with standing still: if water run, 'tis sweet, but else grows quickly putrefied'.
This gives a feel of the heritage of the great Arab tradition, which invites us to rouse ourselves from a certain inertia and to relaunch the Euro-Mediterranean integration process in the best way possible, taking two factors into account.
The first factor is time. Today, 50% of the southern Mediterranean population is under 18, and in less than 30 years, we will have a free trade area that will be made up of nearly a billion consumers and citizens. Therefore, we do not have much time.
The second factor is the nature of the trade agreements that we wish to offer these countries. As liberal democrats, we want to see trade agreements without bureaucratic structures or centralism, and we want them to remove control of resources and wealth from some oligarchic structures currently holding sway in the partner countries.
Mr President, after 15 years of negotiating the trade aspect of the Barcelona Process, we have very serious doubts about whether the negotiation of a Euromed-type free trade agreement is the right solution to the social, political and economic problems in the region.
The impact assessment, as has been said, above all revealed that there were some potentially very serious negative impacts, whether social, environmental or in terms of regional integration.
In this context, Mr President, Commissioner, we believe that the proposal being made by the Commission - the road map for 2010 and beyond - is too one-sided, with its bilateral free trade agreement aspect, to be along the right lines.
We support the draft resolution that is being debated today, not least because it asks all these questions relating to social impacts, environmental impacts and impacts on regional integration, and above all because, in paragraph 10, it calls for the aims of the trade agreements to be revisited, particularly in view of these social and environmental issues, and then above all because, by revisiting these agreements, we could perhaps think about reintegrating the trade aspect into the overall Barcelona Process.
Mr President, my group considers that it is impossible to separate the part of the Euromed project that is concerned with trade, immigration or funding from the political part. Our group is therefore against the European Union giving Israel and the Kingdom of Morocco this elevated status, because they are both turbulent areas that are incompatible with a union for peace based on international law.
We think that the European Union and the European Commission should be much more exacting with regard to the values that can lead us towards a project for shared peace and security.
For example, a Saharan leader is currently on hunger strike on the Spanish island of Lanzarote because the Kingdom of Morocco will not allow her to enter the occupied territories. This is an important point, which will require the European institutions to adopt a firm stance in relation to the Kingdom of Morocco.
I believe that the Union for the Mediterranean is not only about trade, but also about defending international law and human rights.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, the UK Independence Party opposes the Euromed agreement, and this is why: the Euromed agreement will offer significant trade concessions, and even subsidies, to non-Member States. This is bound to be at the direct or indirect cost of the British taxpayer. Moreover, when the Commissioner's representative spoke on Euromed to the Committee on International Trade, of which I am honoured to be a member amongst other people here, he said - and I quote here directly - 'there is no question of implementing all the EU regulations'. He went on to say the application of the EU regulations will be intelligent and selective.
By contrast, we in the UK put up with, and indeed our economy suffers from, all the EU regulations being applied and, moreover, being applied to us in a way which is both unintelligent and universal.
We are not even permitted to have the kind of light bulbs that we would like. But it is not just light bulbs. After Lisbon, we in the UK will be ruled to a greater or lesser extent by the three amigos: the President of the Commission, the newly appointed President of the Council - who must surely be Tintin's grandfather - and, more crucially, the High Representative, Mrs Cathy Ashton, who, in her mature 30s, was one of four paid officials of the far left CND.
This is a serious matter, and these are the people we are stuck with, but the Euromed countries will not have to put up with the three amigos at all.
There is also the matter of human rights. In this instance, I have to ask what is going on here. Syria and Libya, of all countries, have been offered trade concessions and even subsidies to be paid for by us, but where are the safeguards on human rights? Nowhere to be seen for these two countries, both of which have a long and frankly despicable record. As someone who was a teenager in the 1960s, I have to say that the proposers of this part of the resolution must have been smoking something, so we are opposed to this resolution in all its parts.
(DE) Mr President, free trade can be a good thing, where it does not simply stop at free trade. Agreements like this one are about much more than that, and they need to be. They must not just be about setting up a free trade area, but they must also be about lasting effects. They must be about bringing about development. They must be about providing security. They must be about creating prosperity for all. That is much more important than ensuring that pure liberalisation takes place, that markets are opened up and that a few people benefit at the end of the process. If we want to make trade freer, the aim of all these efforts - both here and in our neighbouring countries to the south - must be to combat unemployment. These efforts must aim to create more opportunities, in particular for women, young people and the rural population. If that is our aim, then we are on the right track. If our aim is just to liberalise, open up, and enable a few people to make profits, we are on the wrong track.
(PL) Mr President, the fundamental objective of the Mediterranean Association Agreements is principally for the European Union to enter into closer cooperation, chiefly in the area of trade, with Mediterranean states, and also to restructure the economies of these states. In this way, the EU can help the Arab world transform itself into a region of prosperity, and that will create the conditions for closer cooperation and the opportunity to achieve stability in the region.
We must make every effort to accelerate the process which was begun in Barcelona, paying particular attention to questions concerning democracy, maintenance of the rule of law, values, human dignity and economic and social development. Strengthening intercultural dialogue will also play an important role in this context.
In my opinion, liberalising the trade of agricultural products in the Euro-Mediterranean area can contribute to beneficial trade exchange, on condition that the EU concentrates mainly on the export of cereals, meat and milk, and on the import of fruit and vegetables from Mediterranean states. Realisation of such an exceptionally ambitious plan of action as the Euro-Mediterranean partnership will require great effort and many compromises from the states which participate in the process.
Mr President, a few weeks ago, I was at the meeting of the Delegation for relations with Canada. They were discussing a free trade agreement which the European Union was conducting with Canada. Prior to that, we here in Parliament were discussing a free trade agreement with South Korea. Tonight we are discussing a free trade agreement in the Euromed.
Could the Commission answer how many free trade agreements we are negotiating or have negotiated up to now? Secondly, where is the net benefit to the European Union countries? Thirdly, where are the opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs from a job creation and economic point of view?
Finally, I am not necessarily agreeing with the points made by the Earl of Dartmouth, but I would like to hear his core question answered, leaving aside the personalities.
Mr President, this debate has been about the liberalisation of trade, and I stand before this House tonight as a European who believes in the cooperation of nations, but not as one who believes in the federalism of the current project.
For the United Kingdom, Lisbon will decrease our powers to control trade and exercise trade with whomsoever we will. Furthermore, the diminution of our democracy, both in the United Kingdom and in Europe, is apparent with the events of last week where we had the appointment of a President and the anointing of a High Representative of Foreign Affairs who has never held elected office, but who will speak for the people of Europe on foreign affairs. Surely this is not a situation that the Commission can stand over, and it would be interesting to hear its views.
(PT) Mr President, when considering the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean free trade area, we should remember to bear two things in mind.
One is a general point which applies to countries in the southern and eastern Mediterranean, as well as most developing countries with which the European Union wishes to establish similar agreements, particularly the countries bound by the common agricultural policy.
The words of the Dominican Lacordaire are apt here: 'Between the weak and the strong, between the rich and the poor, between the lord and the slave, it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free.' We simply cannot ignore the obvious and important socio-economic parallels at play here, nor the vast differences in the stage of development in production systems between countries north and south of the Mediterranean.
The liberalisation of trade, particularly in vulnerable sectors such as agriculture and fishing, has certainly been an exacerbating factor in the current economic and social crisis, due to the pressure which it has placed on weaker production systems, employment and social rights, due to the increase in dependency, which is especially severe when it comes to food, compromising the free development and sovereignty of every country.
As already mentioned, we can still remember the situation in Palestine and the Western Sahara, and it is one that we should not ignore in this debate.
(DE) Mr President, I think I can say my piece in even less than a minute. I, too, have a question for the Commissioner. We are agreed that free trade agreements and trade agreements should not be limited to trade, but also have other objectives that ultimately benefit us all. To what extent does this process mean that both we and our partners will enjoy more democracy, more human rights and a more equitable distribution of wealth? Is there already some of this to be seen, or will it take some time yet? If so, how long will it take?
(FR) Mr President, I had not anticipated having to respond to Mrs Dodds but I would just like to tell her that she should read the Treaty of Lisbon because, if there is one committee that will be strengthened by the Treaty of Lisbon, it is the Committee on International Trade. Therefore I can say that, when that time comes, the European Parliament will have slightly more influence in the months or years ahead.
Mr Moreira put some very precise questions to the commissioner. I heard Mr Tajani answer: Libya and Syria. There was one issue that was, all the same, disposed of very quickly, and that was the whole human rights issue, on which there has been no precise response. I very much want there to be progress in the negotiations with Libya and Syria but, at the same time, precise answers must be given to the EU's questions, enquiries and requests regarding human rights.
My second point is that I feel it is impossible to talk about the Euro-Mediterranean area without raising the Israel-Palestine issue, when we see products being imported today from the occupied territories. I would therefore also like to know where the Commission stands on this issue.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to stress that Commissioner Ashton's absence is not due to the post that she will take up from 1 December, but to other institutional commitments relating to her current post.
I will attempt to answer your questions, where possible. Any answers that I am unable to provide will be supplied to all Members in writing, as I will forward your questions to Commissioner Ashton and her staff.
I would emphasise that the European Commission's commitment to human rights has always been at the heart of its every action. With regard to my department too, namely transport, we have always made every effort in all of our initiatives in Africa to give priority to ensuring political stability and respect for human rights and the rules. This commitment is part of the European Commission's political project. Furthermore, the free trade agreements always contain cooperation clauses.
I would therefore reassure all Members that the Commission never underestimates the importance of respect for human rights and its obligation to remind countries with which negotiations are under way of this issue. Situations are continuously monitored, and if this is the case for countries which have requested membership of the European Union, there is all the more reason for it to be continued for the negotiating countries.
As for Syria, the association agreement broadly follows the pattern of the other Euro-Mediterranean agreements insofar as it requires regular political, economic and social dialogue and cooperation in many sectors. It lays down the progressive creation of a free trade area over a maximum of 12 years and, at the same time, it contains more wide-ranging and substantive provisions in a vast number of sectors, such as trade-related provisions not covered in other Euro-Mediterranean association agreements. I am thinking of the abolition of the global tariff on agricultural products, the provisions concerning technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, trade facilitation, the right of establishment and services, public procurement and, lastly, the trade dispute settlement mechanism.
With regard to Libya, following a difficult period of relations with the international community, this country has taken steps to normalise political and economic relations with its foreign partners.
Even during a trip to Libya as Commissioner for Transport, I noticed the desire to reverse a trend which had always existed in the past. I would say that Libya always agrees to the objectives and the general content of the draft legal texts on trade in goods, services and the right of establishment, trade rules, including rules concerning public procurement, and regulatory cooperation in a range of sectors of the Community acquis. Libya has also agreed to uphold other clauses, but I repeat that the Commission will, in any case, continue to be vigilant.
I hope to have been as thorough as possible in answering your questions.
On the other hand, as for the exact number of free trade agreements being negotiated by the Commission, we will provide clearer and more complete answers in writing via Commissioner Ashton's staff.
I have received five motions for resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 25 November 2009.


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


Future of European standardisation (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Edvard Kožušník, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the future of European standardisation.
The report that we are dealing with today is submitted as a precursor to a standardisation package which the Commission is currently working on. This should provide a legislative revision of the existing legal framework of European standardisation, which we will use to define the development of standardisation in the coming decades. It is therefore in the interest of Parliament to use this report to convey to the Commission and relevant specialists our concept of the future development of European standardisation.
The form of the system of European standardisation is key to fully exploiting the potential of the internal market, improving the competitiveness of the European economy and fulfilling the Europe 2020 strategy. We have therefore given our full attention to this subject in the Committee on the Internal Market. We have conducted intensive discussions with all stakeholders, both at international and European level and at the level of organisations in the individual Member States. When seeking the best form of European standardisation, we did our best by representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as consumer representatives, disabled people, environmentalists and other organisations representing community interests.
During discussions on the future form of European standardisation, we concluded that the design review should be based on the strengths of the existing system, which provides a stable base on which to build. We cannot undertake any radical changes that could weaken the key merits of the current system. In order to achieve an effectively functioning system of European standardisation, it is necessary for national standardisation organisations that play a less active role in the existing standardisation process to move closer to stronger national organisations. Strong national standardisation organisations, which can communicate with each other effectively, but also with other interested parties, are the basis for the stability of the European standardisation system.
In future, we must also focus more on the greater involvement of stakeholders in the standardisation process itself. The aim is to make sure that the standards that emerge are the result of a broad consensus, and are therefore ultimately more representative. Another subject that was addressed in this long discussion was easier access to standards. In particular, I would mention the process of establishing standards. This should correspond to the nature of their beneficiaries and users. In order that the standards can be enforced more easily, they need to be more comprehensible and easier to use.
With the increasing liberalisation of services, it is necessary to think more about standardisation in the area of services. We consider this area to be crucial for achieving greater cross-border competition in services. The establishment of European standards in services is a way to dismantle barriers in services in the internal market and to do so sensitively. Dismantling these barriers and increasing competition are a way to improve the transparency and quality of European services and to encourage competition, which goes hand in hand with innovation. It is innovation and new technologies which are the engine of economic growth in the post-crisis period. For European standardisation, the challenge is to achieve close cooperation between the creators of standards, innovators, academics and researchers. Without the intensive involvement of all these four groups in the process of establishing standards, Europe will find it difficult to standardise its knowledge in the low carbon economy, electric cars, nanotechnology and ICT. The ability to convert the findings of research and development into the process of establishing standards will ultimately determine whether the European system of standardisation will continue to play a key role in a globalised world.
At this point, I would like to thank all my colleagues on the committee, but also my colleagues on the partner ITRE committee, who were actively involved in the drafting of this report. I would particularly point out that we managed to obtain a joint agreement on the final form of this report across all the political groups.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I wish to express my satisfaction with the work that has been undertaken by the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs, with whom we have been able to strike a good balance between the various political positions. This report sends a political message, loud and clear, to the European Commission and contains important guidelines in view of its imminent review.
We have determined that the current system works well and does not require radical changes. The improvements that we have proposed do not prejudice the current principles on which the system is based, or rather, the principle of national delegation and its private and voluntary nature. That notwithstanding, it is important for the public interest to play a more active role and contribute to the creation of new standards. I feel that the function of small and medium-sized enterprises is important and relevant within the process of standardisation.
This report is only the beginning: we will continue to work in the coming months to ensure that European standardisation meets the economic and social needs of Europe.
(LT) I would like to congratulate my colleague on the preparation of this important report. Standardisation is particularly important for building a common internal market, ensuring the business competitiveness of both the European Union and individual Member States and removing trade obstacles. I support the Commission's initiative to prepare a Standardisation Package, which will hopefully be sufficiently comprehensive and will facilitate the removal of existing deficiencies which currently prevent us from ensuring product safety and which create different levels of consumer protection in different Member States. The laying down of uniform standards at European level is especially important in the field of rapidly developing technologies and innovations. In order to ensure not just that the European Union is competitive, but also that our people's health is properly protected and that safe products access the market, it is necessary for uniform standards to be valid and applicable in all Member States.
(SK) The European system of normalisation is a part of an international system that sets out unified, generally applied regulations and norms used by the production sector worldwide.
As societal progress increases knowledge, changes technologies, organisation and the way of life, normalisation as a specific field of defining generally used regulations must also be an active undertaking open to progress. If the European Union wishes to have a truly sophisticated, innovative economy, it cannot avoid substantially increased activity in the field of the development of new norms which will facilitate the introduction of new scientific and technological inventions to the market. From this point of view, I believe it is time the mechanisms of European standardisation and normalisation, currently based mostly on national traditions and national workplaces, were brought up to date. Today, however, these mechanisms must be simpler and more effective.
(HU) Ladies and gentlemen, as Jobbik representatives, we are often called EU sceptics, and we actually agree with this. We are EU sceptics, but this does not mean that we do not support cooperation between EU Member States. It is clear that we are against the principle of the United States of Europe and we support the Europe of nations, but standardisation is typically a subject that we can agree on, that we can support. However, it is always said that we are always protesting and saying no, no, no to everything. Well, standardisation is a topic that we, too, would like to facilitate and support. I would also like to ask all Member States to support standardisation, and my fellow Members to support this report by Mr Kožušník. This is where we can agree for the time being.
(RO) The adoption of European standards can make a vital contribution to facilitating access for SMEs to the single market and consolidating their position in it. With this in mind, SMEs need simple, standardised loan products, which will facilitate their rapid use, based on a minimum number of documents and a simplified financial analysis. The European standardisation system must encourage and support innovation and also establish a common basis for a more comprehensive approach to standardisation. I also feel that it would be useful to apply the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality on a regular basis at European level. This would help consolidate the basic principle of 'think small first' as part of public policies for SMEs. In this context, I would also like to mention that an ordinance was issued recently in Romania on implementing measures supporting the uniform enforcement of EU legislation, which harmonises the conditions for marketing products.
(CS) This report will further encourage the Commission to pursue carefully the harmonisation of standards in the internal market. During the progressive liberalisation of global trade, it provides a way for us to protect European citizens from low quality and unsafe products, particularly from the Asian countries. I thank my colleagues from the Commission for their support for my draft, which gives the green light to the establishment of standards for safe children's shoes. It is high time to act, because today's generation of children has orthopaedic defects due to cheap, but physically harmful Chinese shoes.
It is very striking that we have European quality legislation for safe toys, where a child comes into contact with a toy only for a short time, but we do not have adequate standards for shoes and slippers that children have on their feet all day. I hope that the Commission reacts to this call, which is not the first, and takes appropriate action. I think that it is a shame that the industrial lobby from Germany and France has won and that, in the international standards committees, the European Union will not speak with one voice, but in twenty seven languages.
(FI) Mr President, congratulations on an excellent report. It is a good basis for further work. Transparency and democracy are most important in the standardsetting process, as is improved participation on the part of the weaker societal stakeholders, consumers and environmental organisations. Standardisation must not be allowed simply to become a battlefield for big business.
I am pleased that the report takes account of the principle of appropriate representation, according to which all stakeholder positions must be incorporated in an appropriate manner. It is also important that societal stakeholders are more strongly represented. In my opinion, this could be done by giving them the right to vote on technical committees. It is also important to develop a second production line. I hope that the Commission will pay serious attention to that.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for his comprehensive report, which has received general approval. I would also like to thank the honourable Members who have stayed here so late to help the President with his duties and also to put forward some very constructive contributions and ideas in the debate.
This report is a valuable contribution to the debate launched by the European Commission some time ago. It draws attention to the future of the standardisation system in Europe: a central element in the implementation of the internal market, in increasing the competitiveness of European business, and an important tool in fostering innovation.
Over the next decade, European standardisation will have to adapt to new energy, environmental and societal challenges, as you have already mentioned. These include the emergence of new economic powers, the development of technologies, climate change, carbon management and renewable energies. These are some of the new factors we have to face.
We share the rapporteur's view that we can build on the existing system. It forms a solid basis for further development. There is, nevertheless, room for improvement. The report presents a number of proposals with a view to improving the system within its current boundaries. The Commission welcomes the emphasis placed on the importance of the principle of national delegation. At the same time, the report draws attention to a negative consequence of this principle: existing deficits in participation by societal stakeholders representing health and safety, consumer and environmental interests in the standard-setting process. The participation of societal stakeholders is extremely important as it lends the system a significant element of legitimacy and accountability and improves the quality of the consensus. The Commission will explore practical ways of ensuring effective membership of European standardisation organisations for organisations representing societal stakeholders, and of helping to achieve more balanced participation by stakeholders in the standard-setting process.
The Commission shares the view that, with respect to the central role of the national delegation principle for CENELEC, national standards bodies are key players in the European standardisation model. All national standards bodies must therefore be able to provide a robust platform of consensus-building. The report notes significant differences among them in terms of resources, technical expertise and stakeholder engagement in the standardisation process. There is room for improvement here in the Member States.
Though the problem of access to standards should not be limited to the price of standards, the Commission welcomes the call on national standards bodies to reduce costs through special rates, by offering bundles of standards at a reduced price, and by investigating additional ways of improving access, especially for SMEs.
European standardisation has a huge potential to support legislation in public policies. We appreciate that the report recognises this potential and stresses the need to move into new domains of standards development such as services. As pointed out in the report, the new European model must contribute to European innovation and sustainable development.
Finally, I would like to thank everyone who has been involved in this very useful and inspiring report.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 21 October 2010, at 12:00.


Interinstitutional Agreement on the Transparency Register (signing)
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear colleagues, let us take our seats for the official signing of a very important agreement between the European Parliament and the European Commission: the 'lobbyists register'. We voted on the Casini report at the last plenary session in Strasbourg and now we will have the official signing. We voted on 11 May 2011.
For the official signing, I should like to welcome Minister Győri and Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the European Commission, and our colleagues Diana Wallis, Vice-President of the European Parliament, who was in the negotiator's team, Vice-President Isabelle Durant, Vice-President Rainer Wieland and Carlo Casini, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and also the rapporteur.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to read out the Council's political statement on the transparency register.
'The Council considers transparency as a principle of paramount importance for the European Union. The treaties provide that, in order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union's institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible and that decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizens.
'In line with these provisions, the Council remains committed to giving the fullest possible effect to the principle of transparency. It also recognises that citizens expect that those who act on their behalf at the EU level respect the highest possible standards.
'The Council therefore welcomes and supports the initiative undertaken by the European Parliament and the Commission to establish a joint "Transparency Register”.
'The Council considers that transparency should guide relations with interest representatives and that the Register provides a useful basis on which to build and interact with them in an open, inclusive and consistent fashion.
'The Council has received the invitation of the European Parliament and the Commission to join the Register. The Council is ready to consider having a role in the Register and looks forward to discuss the possible modalities with the two other institutions.'
It would be the best solution if all the European institutions were to have the same register for outside interests. Now I would like to invite my colleagues and the Vice-President of the Commission to join me in front of the podium for the signing of the document.


2. The challenge of EU Development Cooperation Policy for the new Member States (


25. Non-proliferation and the future of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (


13. Discharge 2005: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (vote)
- Report: Herczog


14. Common system of value added tax (


Composition of Parliament: see Minutes