2. Women's rights in Saudi Arabia
The next item is the six motions for a resolution on the rights of women in Saudi Arabia.
author. - (PL) Madam President, referring again to the October 2006 incident, while at the same time bearing in mind the lack of legal protection for women in Saudi Arabia, but above all on the basis of facts that have again been demonstrated by expressions of social condemnation of the voice of rape victims attempting to bring about a public debate on this subject, I call on the Saudi Arabian authorities to cease this type of practice forthwith.
Madam President, I would like to stress that the European Union should not remain silent in the face of the scandalous violation of the rights and personal liberties of women in third countries. A state responsible for protecting its citizens may not resort to breaches of principles of the rule of law under the pretext of standing guard over maintenance of the principle of independence of the courts, as happened in the case of the sentence passed on the woman from Qatif. I am therefore calling for a redoubling of efforts on the part of the government of Saudi Arabia in the matter of observing women's basic rights.
author. - (SV) Madam President, I have to say that it is immensely sad that abuse of and violence against women never seem to cease. This applies to both this Resolution and the next one. I want to thank all who have helped to bring this Resolution into being. It is almost inconceivable that women in Saudi Arabia are, in 2007, still deprived of all human rights.
It is apparently not enough that women have to be subjected to degrading and scandalous gang rapes. They also have to be punished by the authorities, while the perpetrators go free. I think that all of us, both women and men, must do all we can in the name of solidarity to ensure that human rights apply to women in Saudi Arabia too. We call on the Commission and the Council and of course all the Member States to raise these matters in contacts of all kinds with Saudi Arabia.
We have a multitude of international conventions and we have had pronouncements from the EU in many contexts. Sometimes it is frustrating that we talk and talk and this violence just goes on and on. Thanks to everyone who took the initiative and helped in the work on this Resolution.
author. - Madam President, recently King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was afforded a controversial state visit to the United Kingdom. Our Deputy Foreign Minister praised the shared values of the UK and Saudi Arabia. I found this sycophancy absurd, as my values of democracy, human rights and gender equality are alien to Saudi tradition.
Of course, the EU's relationship with the House of Saud is based on regional stability and on important commercial ties, in particular oil and arms trading. In fact, the relationship is so important that a three-year UK inquiry into alleged bribes paid to Saudi ministers by an arms contractor was killed by orders of Prime Minister Tony Blair on the grounds of national security.
Worryingly, Saudi Arabia's brand of fundamentalism, Wahabi Islam, is being exported globally. In London - my constituency - textbooks at a Saudi-funded school were found to contain hate-filled passages about Christians and Jews.
This case of the Qatif gang-raped woman sentenced to 200 lashings has horrified the world. Parliament's joint motion for a resolution expresses revulsion and repudiation of the Kingdom's values. Twenty years ago a British TV documentary similarly recounted a story of a Saudi princess who was publicly executed for adultery.
The EU and Saudi Arabia have shared vital foreign policy interests, such as supporting the Middle Eastern peace process, encouraging the Saudis as Sunni Muslims to contain expansionist Shia Iran and supporting the Saudi fight against al-Qa'ida, many of whose adherents, unfortunately, come from Saudi Arabia originally.
But we also need to hold the Saudis to their UN Convention obligations to remove discrimination against women, who cannot even drive a car or vote in their limited local elections. But let us not kid ourselves that we share values with this fundamentalist and medieval regime.
author. - Madam President, I will speak in a personal capacity on this matter. Saudi Arabia is governed by a ruthless dictatorship which is, to a large extent, shamefully legitimised in most of the Western world, including many EU countries, because Saudi Arabia is immensely rich in petrol dollars, some of which it uses in Western states in order to bribe them into pretending not to see, not to hear and not to understand what is going on in that country.
But even schoolchildren know that the comical rulers of Saudi Arabia, consisting mostly of the family of one man, His Most Royal Excellency godlike King Abdullah, are imposing on their people a brutal repression. One obvious example is that they treat women as slaves or as pieces of domestic furniture yet, as mentioned just now by Mr Tannock, Mr Abdullah and his six plane-loads of entourage were given a lavishly glorious state welcome in the UK and the Vatican only a few weeks ago. And not a single word about human rights managed to escape through the honourable lips of the Queen of England, or the UK Prime Minister, or the Pope. So much for hypocrisy and double standards, one might be tempted to say.
author. - (ES) Madam President, back in 2005 we had the opportunity to talk about the situation of women in Saudi Arabia, and in that context we did so in relation to the municipal elections and the fact that women were unable to vote.
As well as this discrimination in terms of political rights, however, there are many other types of discrimination that have been reported in various media, recently and continuously, which motivated this second resolution that we are debating today.
The trigger was certainly the incomprehensible sentence passed against a women, known as 'the Qatif woman', who was sentenced to 200 lashes for having been found in a car talking to a man who was not part of her family. Not only are the alleged crime, and hence the sentence, unacceptable, but they are also aggravated by the fact that the convicted woman was unable to receive adequate legal advice.
Unfortunately this is not the only case in which one can deplore clearly discriminatory sentences for crimes and the failure to defend women in the legal system. This is, unfortunately, more the norm than the exception. How can a system be considered fair, for example, when it finds the victim of a rape guilty of that atrocity?
Structural change is needed in Saudi Arabia, and the European Union needs to help those who are working both outside and within the country to achieve this. There are no relativisms here that carry weight. Human rights, which include women's rights, are and need to be universal and defended in any context.
I therefore join in the request made by Mrs Svensson, and I ask the Commission and the Council once again to take any opportunity they can to ask the Saudi authorities to make the appropriate structural and institutional changes, in order to eliminate any form of discrimination against women, including recognising all their rights, in both private and public life, and more specifically, in the political, legal and judicial spheres.
author. - (PL) Madam President, Saudi Arabia is a country in which the law is put into effect according to Wahabi principles, this being the most radical Sunni trend in Islam. Political, social and religious freedom is significantly restricted, and punishments by flogging, the amputation of hands or feet or the death penalty are meted out on a daily basis.
In a country that has been called 'a human rights desert' by Human Rights Watch, it is mainly women who fall victim to numerous forms of discrimination in private and public life. The identity of women was only formally recognised in 2001, by issuing them with identity documents containing a photograph. Before that they would prove their identity using a family identity document bearing a photograph of their husband or father. Even if they can afford a car, they are not allowed to drive it. They may study, but lectures given by men are watched by female students on video. They are deprived of the right to vote, and decisions on divorce and child care are the exclusive prerogative of men.
Women are repeatedly the victims of unjust and offensive court verdicts. The instance of the girl from Qatif concerns a 19-year-old gang-rape victim who was condemned to 200 lashes and six months in prison for being alone with a strange man at the time of her abduction.
Despite having signed it, Saudi Arabia does not observe the obligations arising from the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. The authorities must start by lifting all restrictions on women where freedom of movement is concerned and take steps towards gradually increasing the involvement of women in political decision-making on an equal footing with men. Women must have general access to employment at all levels of administration and the opportunity to carry out all public functions.
The introduction of a total ban on the use of flogging and other degrading corporal punishment must also be demanded, as this is a violation of international law and the UN Convention against Torture, to which Saudi Arabia is a signatory.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) Madam President, I should like to add my voice to those of all the other members who have spoken and in particular to point out that we are celebrating the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All, and equal opportunities, by definition, can have no borders, and we simply cannot remain indifferent to what is happening to women in Saudi Arabia and also in the rest of the Middle East as a whole.
I should like in particular to take up a question raised by Mr Tannock concerning specifically the right to drive a car. The Committee of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars was set up in Riyadh on 27 September. On 6 November the committee commemorated the 17th anniversary of the demonstration against this ban, it has already collected a thousand signatures, and it has enormous strength. It is led by four Saudi women. I should like to call on the whole House, in particular the Presidency, to lend full support to this Saudi Arabian initiative and I should also like to remind you that, in addition to Saudi Arabia, there are at the moment even more serious situations in Iraq. I would remind you of the execution this year in Basra of 40 women for failing to respect the dress code currently being imposed in Iraq, a country where women had the vote before the women of Portugal did, and where today the most barbarous fanaticism is being introduced. We cannot remain indifferent to that situation either.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, when addressing the issue of women's rights in Saudi Arabia, there is something that we need to keep in mind. This is that in Islamic societies there is no separation of religion and state. The state is the religion and vice versa. The lack of regard for women's rights derives from Islamic law, and by comprehending and taking into account this simple fact we might move a step closer to improving the situation.
We cannot impose our values, which have gone beyond our Judaeo-Christian traditions, but we can open a dialogue calling for mutual understanding and preparing the ground for a reform, as several conceptions that do not correspond to our worldwide view are now being disproved.
Having said that, the situation of women in Saudi Arabia is dreadful, and something needs to be done urgently. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this report unanimously.
(NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the discussion we are holding here today on Saudi Arabia, particularly the dreadful situation regarding women's rights, should actually be extended to cover a large part of the Islamic world. Only a few, such as the Dutch citizen Ayaan Hirsi Ali, dare come out with it. The discrimination and subjugation of women is rooted in the holy texts of Islam itself.
Discrimination against women in Saudi Arabia and almost throughout the Islamic world has its basis and justification in the Koran. This is a fundamental truth that we must dare to acknowledge in this debate. It was demonstrated just recently in Sudan, where a 54-year-old teacher was sentenced to 15 days' imprisonment for calling a teddy bear Mohammed, until being pardoned thanks to pressure from international diplomacy. In Saudi Arabia, a 20-year-old woman fell victim to gang rape but was herself convicted. It does not get any more symbolic than that.
However, Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US, of course, and can get away with that bit more. After all, like China, Saudi Arabia is a rich country and we can venture to be rather more flexible when the noble principles we have been discussing so often this week are at stake. Europe should thus also call on Washington to throw all its weight behind improving the situation in Saudi Arabia.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission is extremely grateful for the opportunity to be able to say something today about the situation regarding women's rights in Saudi Arabia.
The case underlying your resolution gives us cause for the greatest concern. A young woman was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months' imprisonment after being gang-raped by seven men. The EU dealt with this matter immediately. The EU Troika made representation to the Saudi Arabian Government in Riadh and expressed the EU's dismay at the verdict of the court in El Katif. The verdict is not only clearly in breach of Saudi Arabia's international obligations, particularly against the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, but also turns the principle of guilt upside down by declaring the victim to be guilty.
This case brings under the spotlight a country in which discrimination against women is unfortunately part of everyday life. The European Parliament has justifiably asked the Saudi Arabian Government on several occasions to remove the limitations on women's free movement, including the driving prohibition. This request also applies to the restrictions on women's access to employment, on their legal personality and on their representation in judicial processes. I unreservedly share Parliament's concerns about the situation of women in Saudi Arabia.
At the same time Saudi Arabia is bound as a member of the UN Human Rights Council to protect and promote human rights. Saudi Arabia is a contracting party to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Admittedly it has ratified the Convention with one reservation: in the event of a conflict between the clauses of the Convention and the standards of Islamic law, the Kingdom is not obliged thereafter to comply with any clauses of the Convention conflicting with this law. The European Union has repeatedly called on Saudi Arabia to lift its reservations on this UN Convention - particularly with regard to granting equal rights for women and men in relation to the nationality of their children - and will continue to do so.
Human rights issues such as the situation of women are regularly the subject of representations by the European Union to Saudi Arabia. The European Union is reminding Saudi Arabia of its obligations according to international human rights standards, is broaching the issue of the need to treat women and men equally and to combat violence against women and is asking Saudi Arabia to protect and promote women's rights.
Two recent changes that we have observed could - I say this very cautiously - could perhaps be a sign that Saudi Arabia is, making some progress.
The Saudi Arabian National Society for Human Rights produced its first report on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia in May of this year. Violations of the rights of women, prisoners and workers are published in this report, as are court judgments. The results and recommendations of this report should be acted on and followed up without fail by the Saudi Arabian Government
Furthermore, in October King Abdullah announced a fundamental judicial reform, reinforcing the independence of judges and simplifying fact-finding according to Sharia law supervised by the Supreme Court.
For a country like Saudi Arabia, these are encouraging steps. We should therefore not only be drawing attention to human rights violations in Saudi Arabia where necessary, but also be welcoming and supporting the reforms that have recently been discreetly emerging.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at the end of the debates.


Signature of acts adopted under codecision: see Minutes


11. Amending budget No 1/2008 (


Cultural industries in Europe (debate)
The next item is the report by Guy Bono, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on cultural industries in Europe.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, the report I am presenting follows on from the request made by Mrs Trüpel - who is here today and whom I welcome - and I, at the time of the 2007 Culture report three years ago, for greater recognition of the cultural industries, which I recall are now larger than the automotive industry in the European Union, accounting for 3.1% of the active population of the European Union and generating 2.6% of GDP.
I have therefore prepared this report by consulting as much as possible with all those involved in the sector. Consequently I would like to thank all the experts and professionals from the industry, as well as web user and consumer associations and finally my colleagues in the Committee on Culture for all the discussions we have been able to hold on these crucial issues.
This report is based on the following postulate: culture and the economy have today become inseparable. The economy needs culture and culture needs the economy. In view of this, culture urgently needs to be restored to its rightful place on the Lisbon agenda. With this in mind, I make a number of proposals in this report.
The first would be to set up a task force to explore the relationship between culture, creativity and innovation in the context of Community policies.
Secondly, it is essential make more room in our Community funding for the cultural industries. In this report, at the level of the Member States I recommend private/public funding as well as the promotion of a regulatory and fiscal framework that favours cultural industries, and more specifically the application of tax credits and reduced rates of VAT to all cultural products, including online works. I also call upon the Commission to look into the possibility of setting up a programme similar to the MEDIA programme for all the cultural industries.
Thirdly, this report proposes that culture be better incorporated into the European Union's external policies because - and I want to stress this - what makes Europe so rich is its culture or rather, as I should have said, the diversity of its culture. I therefore invite the Commission and the Member States to increase the amount of aid for translation.
Finally, if you will allow me Mr President, I would like to return to the issue of intellectual property rights, which are the subject of a great number of amendments in this report. On this subject, I strongly oppose the position of some Member States whose repressive measures are dictated by industries incapable of changing their economic model in line with the needs imposed by the information society. Cutting off internet access is a disproportionate measure in view of the objectives. This is a penalty with powerful effects, which could have serious repercussions in a society where internet access is essential for social inclusion.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we need to make a distinction between mass piracy and consumers acting without a profit motive. Rather than criminalising consumers, we need to set up new economic models that strike a balance between the ability to access cultural activities and content, cultural diversity and genuine remuneration for those who hold intellectual property rights. It seems to me that this is the only way cultural Europe can truly enter the 21st century.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am happy to be here for the debate on Mr Bono's report and I should like to thank him for his contribution and the committee for its work. I am sure, as he said, that culture is important to our lives and it is more and more central to the future of the European Union.
I would like to add that it defines our Community much more than business or geography. We also need to understand that culture makes a contribution; culture creates; culture is something positive, not consuming our budgets or conflicting with our needs but bringing a lot of enrichment, including jobs and growth. This was the first time that the European Union was able to explicitly recognise last year's summit conclusions, in the study we presented some time ago, and now in the cultural agenda for the European Union at a time of globalisation.
I would like to underline just three specific ideas or items from your report, because there are many and I will not comment on all of them.
First, you ask us to establish a European vision of culture, creativity and innovation. The European agenda we have now agreed does exactly that. We are strengthening the cooperation between Member States, including the promotion of creative industries. This is one of three pillars. Part of that work will need to look at how to measure more accurately the contribution these industries make to the economy and how best to support them.
Second, you ask us to look at the external dimension. This is one of the three priorities of the agenda and we are very active now in encouraging our partners, our Member States, to ratify the UNESCO Convention - because not all Member States and also other countries in the world have done so - and also in ensuring its implementation. And we are increasingly including cultural elements both in our development cooperation and in our bilateral relations with emerging economies.
Third, I agree with you that full attention has to be paid to implementing Article 151 fully in EU policies. I have established really good contacts and cooperation with my colleagues, including Commissioner McCreevy on the internal market, on the various aspects of copyright protection. I am confident that, with the help of all of you, we will achieve the objectives laid down in this Treaty article.
You also mention the mobility of artists and cultural workers, which is very high on our agenda, especially this year. Member States have already constituted a working group on this topic and the Commission is implementing the pilot action on the mobility of artists proposed by this Parliament last year.
The Commission will support all these efforts, in particular with a study to better understand the links between culture, creativity and innovation, as well as another study on how to have an environment conducive to the development of creative and cultural industries, including support for small and medium-sized enterprises and risk-taking.
The results of these initiatives will feed into a Green Paper on cultural and creative industries, which the Commission plans to publish in 2009.
I am looking forward to the debate.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, new technologies are gaining ever greater weight in Europe's cultural industry. Particular attention must therefore be given to protecting intellectual property.
The task of the European Union, and of the Member States, should be to provide the necessary resources to ensure that intellectual property rights are respected and protected. Combating piracy is particularly important in this regard. All those involved should be aware of their rights and obligations regarding a common solution to this task.
In its report, our committee has argued in favour of awareness-raising and education campaigns, particularly with regard to consumers. Preparatory and education measures explaining the value of intellectual property should start among young people in schools. In this context I should like to emphasise once again the committee's opinion that criminalising consumers who are not seeking to make a profit is not the right solution to combating digital piracy.
We have repeatedly emphasised that free information structures such as the World Wide Web are of great significance to the European creative sector and that we have to strike a balance between the openness of the Internet and the protection of intellectual property. In this context, Mr President, allow me one final comment on the revised version of Amendment 22a tabled by 40 Members. My group - the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats - has clearly stated that it is prepared to support the first part of the amendment, and to emphatically reject the second part of this amendment.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, at a time when traditional economic sectors and industries are suffering from a significant downturn, and the pressures of globalisation are putting European businesses at a significant competitive disadvantage, the sector of cultural industries is one of the few to offer considerable possibilities for multi-faceted economic, regional, social and cultural development. At this stage, over and above Article 157 of the Treaty and the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, Europe must aim at an appropriate balance to help businesses, agencies, production and services in this sector to be fully competitive. At the same time, Europe must not put its distinct cross-cultural nature at risk or endanger diversity.
For this reason, Commissioner, during the coming year, which is the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, as you have said yourself, I think that it is the right time for the EU to turn actively towards the cultural industries. We must get away from the perception that they are a luxury, but make specific policies to boost investment in this sector.
Madam President, we fully support Mr Bono's report, which I think will also be seriously examined by Commissioner Figeľ, so that he can discuss and continue his creative work.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, we often encounter cases where the role and significance of culture are neglected. Business gets noticed, but culture is seen as something incidental, a sort of add-on. Not only is the cultural significance of culture underrated, but also its economic and social significance.
Thanks to this report, we are presented with a different image of culture. Let us please just look at the numbers. The European Union has at its disposal 1% of the GDP of all Member States, while the culture industry alone provides 2.6% of GDP and over 3% of employment, so this is a very important problem. These data are incomplete, though. We know that they do not include the role and significance of crafts, handicrafts and artistic work, and they also fail to include numerous areas that are influenced by culture. I therefore consider this report to be a very important one, and we should continue this work and get involved, and support Commissioner Figel', because he has adopted a very good course - one which offers everyone an opportunity.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the rigid debate between the concept of culture as purely an end in itself on the one hand and the total 'marketisation' of culture on the other is forced open by the Bono report. We are emphasising the significance of the creative industries as part of the Lisbon Strategy for economic growth without at the same time subjecting cultural policy to purely economic constraints.
The creative and cultural industries are seen as independent economic sectors, and they have been the driving force for jobs in Europe in recent years. In Germany, for example, they are creating more jobs than the car industry, and the European Union and the Member States must orient their policy accordingly. There is a great deal still to do in this regard.
I should also like to emphasise once again - in the face of all the complicated arguments surrounding copyright - that the appropriate political rules still have to be found for the products of intellectual property in the digital world, to ensure open access to the Internet for private end-users on the one hand and create new income opportunities for artists who produce creative content on the other.
Mr President, Mr Bono's report is an excellent document which we support. I shall be brief and restrict my remarks to the question of copyright. In the pre-digital world purchases of books and records could be regarded as a reflection of normal consumer trends. Photocopiers and cassette recorders dealt a blow to authors' remuneration and yet purchase continued to be the rule.
With the digital world comes a paradigm shift. The Internet means that the sharing and free circulation of ideas, information and works have cast off their old physical restraints. In this world payment is a thing of the past. The free circulation of works is culture's natural habitat. We combat piracy for profit, but we are completely opposed to criminalising consumers. We still need some constraints and blocks in the digital world because we have not yet discovered another way of providing authors with suitable remuneration; but those days are numbered.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, Europe has a rich and diverse cultural heritage and one which enriches our lives, not just aesthetically but economically. The sector contributes 2.6% of the EU's GDP, as has been said. It shows higher growth than the economy in general and over five million people are employed in it.
These are three very clear reasons why the Commission should keep its hands well away, unless we want to see culture go the same way as fishing and agriculture. However, the trading deficit in motion pictures alone between the EU and the United States grows year on year as European audiences choose American, rather than European, products. That deficit, according to the latest figures, was GBP 7.2 billion in one year alone.
Free from the restraint placed on them by reliance on state funding, the six major US motion picture companies turned over USD 42.6 billion in 2006, whilst, according to a report by the European Audiovisual Observatory, the overall situation of the European film industry is deteriorating. That is because subsidies and legislation do not inspire artists - they breed bureaucrats and parasites.
(SV) The possibilities for culture have changed radically with the emergence and spread of the Internet. In my opinion, these developments have been almost exclusively positive. Culture has been vitalised, democratised and disseminated widely. Despite this, much of the European debate currently focuses on problems which the Internet is claimed to create for those engaging in cultural activities. That is unfortunate.
That is not to say that there are no challenges to culture. Copyright infringements and illegal file sharing are examples of such challenges. Large parts of this report also focus on these problems. Many proposals are currently circulating in Europe on how we are to deal with these issues. Unfortunately, in many cases little attention is devoted to our fundamental freedoms and rights as citizens. For example, perhaps the most controversial of these proposals right now seeks to ban those who have committed copyright infringement from accessing the Internet.
I should like to take this opportunity of urging my colleagues to support the amendment which I have tabled to this report. Briefly, my proposal emphasises the positive role which the Internet has played in culture and democracy, but it also rejects the idea of banning individual citizens from access to the Internet. Copyright infringements and file sharing must be combated by sanctions which are proportionate and which respect fundamental rights and freedoms. Forbidding individuals to access the Internet is in my opinion a gross violation of freedom of expression and information and is anything but proportionate. The Internet is more than just a copying machine or a channel for the illegal dissemination of films or music. It is an arena for free speech, information and communication.
For my younger brother, the Internet is as natural as watching television or chatting in the school playground at break time. And are we going to impose similar restrictions when a copyright is infringed in other ways? It was not so long ago that I was at university and there, unfortunately, many students illegally copied their course literature, but to punish them by forbidding them to read books or write articles would clearly be unreasonable. Someone who has shoplifted food is not forbidden to buy milk and someone who has stolen a bicycle is not forbidden to use the street. So let us not do anything so silly as regards other offences just because they have been committed on the Internet. Thank you.
(ES) Thank you, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Bono, on this report on cultural industries, which covers a wide range of questions that he has sought to answer.
I would like to comment briefly on one aspect that I consider to be a priority: in the information, communication and digital technology society new forms of production and distribution are constantly emerging that mean new opportunities for producers, creators, artists and consumers. In this new context it is essential to find new, balanced formulas that combine respect for the rights of creators with citizens' access to these cultural assets.
In addition, cultural industries and creators, including SMEs, due to their dual cultural and economic roles, contribute both to promoting cultural diversity and to creating new jobs and possibilities for economic development and, given that they are part of one of the most dynamic sectors our economy, aid for the creative sector should be seen as an investment. Therefore, promoting lifelong learning that fosters creative talent and the phenomenon of synergies between businesses in the sector and schools should be a priority in European policies.
(PL) Madam President, may I offer my congratulations on this important report on culture. The statement that, if he had to start all over again, he would start with culture, is attributed to Jean Monet. The written history of Europe goes back two and a half thousand years, and how rich and various is its content. Culture is a significant component of the development of our civilisation. Action favouring the industry that is linked to culture should be supported. It would be a good thing if funds could be found for the development of a network of modern libraries in Poland, with thought for people who cannot afford to buy books. There are still districts in Warsaw where there are no proper academic reading rooms. There is no working inter-library exchange system. Young people have to go into the city centre to access scientific works. The library system in the United States might serve as a model. Funds are needed for the development of local libraries that would provide access to the necessary materials, thus enabling people to educate themselves.
I do not fully agree with Recital T of the report. National identity and language are at the root of creativity. Modern European culture only began when Dante and Petrarch began writing in Italian. The reason for the development of European civilisation has always been the spread of human individuality, its spiritual progress and the fact that peoples have made use of this to enrich the content of their own collective life.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, culture is a particularly strong and economic factor for us all, and we have seen that it generates multi-billion amounts in Europe, that millions of employees have a part in it and that many small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, are active in this field and are becoming very creatively and passionately active in the population.
It is important to me that these cultural driving forces have optimum access to the new digital and audiovisual formats. It is important to be able to introduce oneself to the relevant audience, and to devise new products in lifelong learning, in particular, as it is precisely these new and innovative means that are developing and promoting creative talents appropriately.
Madam President, I would very much like to thank Mr Bono for this report, which highlights the important role of the creative and cultural industries and, particularly, the increasing part they play in our economy.
As most of you know, I represent London, which is, of course, one of the creative hubs of Europe. Because of that, I am very aware indeed of the benefits that creative industries can bring to a locality. London is diverse in culture and thriving in its creativity and, as the cultural industries represent a significant sector of London's economy, I very much welcome the recommendations to support their sustainability and growth.
But, having said that, there is one matter of great concern, which has already been alluded to in discussions on another report this evening. That is that, while there are a huge number of employees within the industry who are women, there are not very many women in higher positions in the creative industries, and I very much hope that we will be able to address this in future deliberations.
(PL) Madam President, the draft resolution draws attention to the link between a flourishing cultural industry and the cross-frontier mobility of artists; it urges the Commission to issue a Green Paper on the internal market for creators of products and services, which will provide an opportunity to compare achievements in this sphere. The report emphasises the role of culture in Community politics, and also the role of cultural education in the development of personality and a sense of identity.
Creativity, and involvement in the creation of added value, are what determine the important economic role of the cultural industry. Its actual contribution to economic development, especially in the music and publishing sector, is many times in excess of expenditure on the development of culture. I congratulate the rapporteur.
(CS) Cultural industries are key providers of value-added services, which are the basis of a dynamic, knowledge-based economy. They are an important source of job creation in creative areas that contribute significantly to a more competitive European Union. The calls to support cultural and creative industries through better qualification, education and training systems, in particular by seeking to provide students at all levels of education in cultural and artistic disciplines with professional training, reflect this situation.
I support the calls to the Member States to include entrepreneurship studies in national secondary and higher education programmes, particularly in the fields of humanities, arts and culture. Further progress is also needed in the area of the mutual recognition of diplomas in art studies. I, too, would ask the Commission to take greater account of the special nature of the cultural sector in all policies relating to the internal market, competition, trade, business, and research and development.
(DE) Madam President, I should just like to rule out any misunderstandings once and for all. This report is not about barring anyone in any way from access to the Internet. The Committee on Culture and Education has unanimously rejected this.
It is about achieving a balanced relationship between open access to the Internet and the protection of intellectual property, and here we do indeed still have a large number of tasks to resolve and instruments to find that take account of both objectives. I should therefore like to specifically ask for this approach to be followed in the votes, too.
Madam President, I appreciate this report, but I would like to make some remarks.
The topic of the cultural industries is closely connected to the topic of the economic value of culture. Culture is now referred to in terms of means towards economic growth, and many studies now emphasise the economic impact of cultural activities. In this context, I recall the study The Economy of Culture in Europe made in 2006 by a private consultant, KEA European Affairs, that presents some impressive numbers for the cultural sector; however, these numbers are debatable since MP3 players, mobile phones and publicity are also considered by this study as 'culture'.
Therefore, we feel that focusing on such economic aspects may lead to confusion, and important things such as creativity or artistic potential may be put in second place if they do not turn out to be sufficiently profitable.
I am in favour of a cultural policy that supports cultural diversity, artistic creativity and the development of the artistic potential of individuals and communities: these are all guidelines that I think we should keep in mind for future action.
Member of the Commission. - (SK) I have listened to the debate with interest. Of course, the report itself is very interesting and as the Chairwoman of the Committee, Mrs Batzeli, said, in many ways it also represents a stimulus for the Commission, for the Member States and for the world of culture and creative industries.
I think that the main theme or main goal is to get an overall picture, to make these stimuli a centre of attention and to create an environment that is favourable to creativity, innovation, culture itself and the status of culture in our society and our relations.
Allow me to say just a few words. We cannot exist without the economy but it is culture that lends meaning to our relations and our identities, and that defines the values that unite us in the Community. That is my answer to those who worry about everything being seen nowadays in economic terms and expressed in monetary values. Culture is about more than money but it is important to see it as a creative asset, as something that creates jobs and helps to develop the economy. The absence of culture in most cases results in the deterioration not only of the economy but also of politics and society. The absence of culture therefore has many consequences.
That is why I am pleased to see broad support for creativity and innovation in the proposals concerning the European Commission's proposal for 2009. The formal proposal itself is already in this Parliament and I hope that the legislative procedure will soon lead to its adoption and to preparations for the European Year of Creativity and Innovation.
In conclusion, I would just like to say a few words about fighting piracy. I believe, like many of you here today, that we must achieve a balance between accessing culture and its accessibility, communication and cultural opportunities on the one hand, and protecting intellectual property rights on the other hand. We must combat the abuse of intellectual property rights since this is often the reason why smaller and weaker enterprises collapse. That is the position of the European Commission. One way of dealing with this problem is through education: raising awareness of the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and not abusing freedoms. The other method is to invite and organise all stakeholders or those who have responsibilities in this area, to get them to cooperate and contribute to the efforts to protect intellectual property rights while developing access to electronic networks in modern communications. This is, after all, what we proposed for the first time in our recent proposal to reform the electronic communications networks and services (Telecoms Package) and it is also the European Commission's attitude to the fight against piracy. Of course, a lot has to be done by the Member States themselves.
That is all I wanted to say, thank you. I look forward to further cooperation.
rapporteur. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I think we should not forget what we are trying to achieve. Despite what some subjective studies would have us believe, it is not the 13% of Europeans downloading cultural content illegally who are threatening our culture, but it seems to me that it is the concentration of our culture in the hands of a few large groups that is damaging our diversity and therefore the richness of our cultural heritage.
I will only give you one example, that of records. Today, 95% of what is distributed comes from the four big record companies. I believe it is important to ensure that consumers have genuine choice and it is necessary to guarantee pluralism of content in a very concentrated market where those chiefly responsible for innovation and creativity are small, not big. You were talking about SMEs, Commissioner, recommending a study which I think is a really interesting idea.
The permission for a merger between Sony and BMG granted by the Commission totally contradicts the European policy to support SMEs in the music industry, which create more jobs than the large companies and represent 99% of the market players and 80% of innovation in this sector. It seems, therefore, that there is an urgent need to support diversity in the cultural sector, which is a genuine driver of growth and a means of development for individuals.
In conclusion, I will say that it is the diversity of culture that makes it rich and not the other way around.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 10 April 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - Culture and creativity play a central role in promoting European citizenship. Both these items, culture and creativity, must be taken into consideration in future policies of the EU.
An analysis of the economy of culture in Europe was sponsored by the Commission and important data has emerged. It transpires that culture taken in a general sense makes a substantial contribution to the economy indeed much more than originally estimated.
Five years ago it was assessed that the cultural sectors contributed 2.6% of the EU GDP. In 2004 3.1% of the EU active population was working in this sector. The relationship between cultural activities and the economy in Malta and Gozo can be assessed by a recent 2007 study made by the National Statistics Office involving a total of 5086 participants enrolled in 34 dance schools.
These dance schools employed 109 persons and generated a financial surplus of nearly 400 000 Euro. Total income surpassed 1 million euros.
This is only one example proving the importance of cultural activities for the economy.
in writing. - My region, the West Midlands, is leading the way in developing creative industries, with more than one in ten now employed in the sector. The region is one of the most multicultural regions in the UK and is proving that its competitive advantage in cultural diversity is becoming a source of creativity and innovation.
However, the EU must make a stronger commitment to supporting cultural industries by stimulating job creation in this area to counter the relocation of the EU's traditional industries to emerging economies.
What is needed is joined-up action and greater financial assistance for business start-ups and SMEs in cultural industries through the Seventh Framework Programme, the Structural Funds and the EU Social Fund. This will further harness the skills and talent of Europe's entrepreneurs and workers, to ensure that the necessary skills are available to further develop the sector. The EU must support creativity for more innovation and entrepreneurship.
In the European Year for Intercultural Dialogue, we should also recognise the importance of cultural industries in creating awareness and understanding of other cultures, and, therefore, their importance for social cohesion. Similarly, Europe has a great deal to gain economically from its cultural diversity.
in writing. - (FI) I wish to thank the rapporteur for producing a report that deals so comprehensively with the multi-faceted nature of cultural industries and the main problem areas associated with them. When pondering the status of cultural industries in European society, there are two basic principles that need to be remembered.
Firstly, we need to understand how important culture is for people's quality of life. Cultural products enhance wellbeing. The Community recognises that Europeans have basic rights to education, which include people's right to culture. We are therefore talking about fundamental civil rights.
Secondly, we need to understand how important culture is for those who produce it. For many the work is not just a passion - it is a livelihood. Receiving appropriate payment for one's work is a basic right. It is up to the legislators to ensure that such people can work in an environment which is not detrimental to their rights. There is no cultural output without its creators, and if they are not paid for the work they do, the result is a limit to cultural growth.
Legislation on cultural industries, such as the protection of intellectual property rights and neighbouring rights, therefore always has to strike the right balance between culture's two social dimensions. It requires special sensitivity on the part of the legislator. It has to be recognised that cultural industries are a very special sector and therefore require a very special legal status.
The main challenge for cultural industries is obviously information technology. They clearly benefit from developments in technology and the information market, but at the same time they need protection when new systems are being used.
We also need the Commission to deliver prompt measures to clarify the relationship between intellectual property and culture and the economy. The main challenge is how we can guarantee fair and genuine remuneration for every right holder and each individual cultural industry for the work done, at the same time ensuring that consumers have choice and easy access to cultural products.
in writing. - As the production of material goods is increasingly mechanised and outsourced, more people in Europe engage their talents in producing cultural goods.
The KEA study commissioned by the European Commission significantly underestimates the contribution of cultural industries to our economy and society. While only 3.1% of the EU's active population may be directly generating monetary value in the cultural area, their impact is noticeable almost in every aspect of our lives.
Pop culture carries cultural and social messages. Musicians and actors were instrumental in releasing the green economy wave. Music and film are powerful promoters of better understanding between people and of European values. Cultural industries predominantly created the demand for new technologies, for digital platforms.
Therefore, it is vital that the European cultural industries remain viable. First of all, we must ensure that creative people are able to sustain themselves by their creativity. This means that we must enable the creators to distribute their work as widely as possible, without any fear of abuse from the middlemen or the consumers.
I continue to see this as the leading motive of this report, for which I thank the rapporteur and my colleagues who contributed their thoughts.


Documents received: see Minutes


1. Guinea (vote)


Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes


Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system - Investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector - The liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of an accident - Port State control (recast) - Ship inspection and survey organisations (Directive recast) - Ship inspection and survey organisations (Regulation recast) (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (05719/3/2008 - C6-0225/2008 - for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (Rapporteur: Dirk Sterckx),
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (05721/5/2008 - C6-0226/2008 - for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC (Rapporteur: Jaromír Kohlíček),
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (06389/2/2008 - C6-0227/2008 - for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents (Rapporteur: Paolo Costa),
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (05722/3/2008 - C6-0224/2008 - for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control (recast) (Rapporteur: Dominique Vlasto),
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (05724/2/2008 - C6-0222/2008 - for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast) (Rapporteur: Luis de Grandes Pascual), and
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (05726/2/2008 - C6-0223/2008 - for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (recast) (Rapporteur: Luis de Grandes Pascual).
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, the question we must ask ourselves is whether, nine years after the accident involving the Erika and almost six years after the one involving the Prestige, we are prepared if anything like this should happen again. This is the real question before us.
Is everything in order? Do we have a sufficient number of experts who are independent enough to take decisions? Can they work quickly enough? Have we finished all the preparations enabling them to call on other specialists or on relief workers to resolve the matter? Is the crew properly treated in such a case? Is compensation paid out? Do we know enough about the ships travelling along our coasts? These are the questions we asked after the Erika and also after the Prestige. At that time, the Commission lost no time in presenting proposals in this regard, and we also put a few things down on paper - which we now need to refine.
We have had a first reading, to which the Council responded in the form of a common position - a particularly disappointing one. However, to my great satisfaction I must say that, since then, we have held informal talks with the Council - first with the Slovenian Presidency and now, particularly, with the French - that have produced very good results.
As regards the competent authority, we are almost there. We have a good text down on paper that I would at all events advocate to my fellow Members. There is an authority that is involved in planning, is permanent in nature, has the necessary expertise and can take independent decisions to improve the accommodation of ships. We have also made progress in the field of vessel monitoring, not only by means of ordinary radar, but also by satellite. We have more detailed information on the cargo and know who is responsible for providing this information. Monitoring also applies to fishing vessels, so that the safety of small vessels can also be increased. We have worked out the measures to be taken in the presence of ice.
We have made progress, therefore, but we are still not completely finished. What remains to be resolved? The tendency to regard crews as criminals, compensation in the event of financial losses for ports, and compulsory notification for bunker fuel. After all, small quantities of this highly polluting fuel can sometimes do very great damage to the environment - as was the case, for example, with the Tricolor accident off the Belgian/French coast, where 180 tonnes of fuel, although a very small amount, caused fairly considerable damage.
President-in-Office, I should like to express my appreciation for the work that we - Parliament and the Council - have managed to do together in connection with my report, and I wish to encourage Parliament and the Council to continue in that vein.
This brings me to the two texts on which we have no common position. As rapporteur for one of the texts, I would urge the Council to adopt a decision on the two missing texts, too. I know that the President-in-Office is working hard on this, but the two issues of the financial responsibility of shipowners and the task of flag states are regarded by Parliament as an essential component in order to reinforce maritime safety. The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea ('HNS' Convention), for example, must be ratified by all Member States if a proper system for the accommodation of ships is to be developed for the various Member States and for the Union.
Parliament urges the President-in-Office to do everything possible to ensure that the Council adopts a decision on these two texts, too. If it does not, we shall have a very serious problem; the likelihood is that Parliament will regard everything we have achieved, however much I value it, as unsatisfactory. I would ask the President-in-Office to keep up the good work, therefore. Parliament - this rapporteur, in any case - is behind him. Let us continue to work to achieve the best possible result for maritime safety.
I do not see Mr Kohlíček in his seat. We will move on to the other rapporteurs, and if he arrives in time we will give him the floor.
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we were in this Chamber in April 2007 for the first reading. Now it is September 2008, and I do not think that the time has passed in vain. There have been many developments, many advances have been made, and I remain confident that we will be able to go the last mile that we still have to travel for the completion of a major task, that of giving all European citizens, and non-Europeans too, in fact all those who sail on Europe's seas, safety conditions that are certainly better than the existing ones.
I would like to call to mind not only the Erika or the Prestige, as mentioned by Mr Sterckx, but - and this is the task that I have set myself for my report on the sector - I would also like to say that we must avoid tragedies such as that of the Princess of the Stars, with 800 deaths in the Philippines, as well as the 'mere' 4 deaths recorded in the collision between a container ship and a hydrofoil on the Strait of Messina or again the 'mere' 2 deaths a few days ago among those on La Besogne, which hit a bateau mouche in Paris. To sum up, there are risks on all waters, and we need to take action on all waters.
The direction is very simple, though: it seems to me that we cannot put ourselves in the position of regretting not having taken the decisions required in the face of accidents that recur. I would like to make the point again - these decisions relate not only to the protection of the environment, shores and seas, such as Erika and Prestige, but also to the protection of human lives such as in the serious accidents that have, through luck, up until now taken place on seas far from us - recently - as well as those incidents that seem smaller. I gave just two examples: one on the Strait of Messina and the other on the River Seine a few days ago.
My report also contains a strategy, which I believe we should all adopt: making the best use of all European competences in terms of environmental protection and consumer protection. In this case, that means protection of lives, of individuals, and protection of safety and security to improve on the current situation.
We need to be careful, however: we need to use the competences that the Treaty allows without any absolute transfer of further sovereignty, and without taking away any area from the Member States that, as we believe, and as we want to believe, fully share this objective.
From this viewpoint, then, I think that we ought to continue to work in the area to which my report relates to find mechanisms whose scope can be extended in ways that nobody can reject, and to find gradual methods of implementation over a reasonable period that will allow everyone to adapt over time, without demanding that things should happen overnight. On the limitation of liability, we need to find a way to combine certainty on the part of the shipowner regarding the liability it is assuming and the amount of damages that it might incur, with certainty on the part of potential victims that they will receive compensation. We therefore need to come up with some solutions that take up the option of moving around the upper or lower limits - which are currently fixed - that we want to or will be able to impose. We need to ensure that better information is given to those who travel on our vessels and we need to make it possible for action to be taken immediately when accidents happen, including through advance payments in limited, appropriate cases, which can be verified.
I believe that on these issues we can find an agreement very easily; we can find a way to respond to those points that still remain and close the dossier. The fundamental point remains, however: we must not permit ourselves to tackle just one point, but we need to close the issue and to be able to say to European citizens that we are working on all fronts and in all sectors.
I will not repeat the issue relating to the two - let us say - reports that are missing, the two provisions that are missing. I would like to tell the French Presidency that it has made an enormous effort and I am sure it will continue to do so. Personally speaking, and as regards Parliament, I can assure you that in any case we will work every day, at all times, from now until 31 December this year, to ensure that the dossier can be closed under this presidency and that it can be closed in the best way possible for all those who are watching us. I am convinced that in the end we will all be able to feel proud of having made progress on maritime security in Europe, with nobody feeling - how shall I put it? - that they are losing any responsibility that they want to exercise directly.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, to begin, may I just remind you all here that maritime safety must remain a priority on the European political agenda. We cannot wait for another major accident to happen at sea to make us realise that maritime safety is a priority for us as political leaders, and also for the population, which will no longer put up with seeing its coasts polluted, not to mention the fact that these accidents constitute an environmental catastrophe and cause financial disasters.
The first reading in Parliament was in April 2007. It has taken the Council more than a year to advise us of its Common Positions and this has only been on five of the seven texts in the package. I must admit that I find this quite difficult to accept.
It can, of course, happen that some issues raise major problems and it can be difficult to reach agreement. At least we agree on the package of legislation, which is indeed complicated, but I see few valid reasons to prevent agreement on technical yet concrete texts that actually form a very coherent whole. As I recall, a year ago we were all very happy - even pleased with ourselves. Clearly, along with my fellow Members, I would like to know why it has taken the Council so long to look at this dossier, and I would also like the Council to tell us what prevented it from reaching agreement on two important proposals, namely shipowners' civil liability and flag state obligations, particularly because the flag state text is the natural complement to my report on port state control. In view of this, it is quite easy to see how the interaction of one text with the other texts fully justifies this 'package' approach and the need for agreement on all of them.
I may sound a bit harsh, but I want to know what is going on. However, I applaud the genuine efforts made by the French Presidency of the EU, which has tried to resolve the blockage and revive discussions on the two proposals currently missing: those of the Savary and Fernandez reports. It has not been a lack of progress on each of our texts or individual difficulties with each proposal that have prevented us from reaching agreement with the Council, but the fact that two proposals are not in the package at the moment, which obviously presents a problem for all the rapporteurs.
Personally, I believe we will soon come to an agreement on each of the proposals, because we will have to, even if the conciliation procedure is used. Anyway, I know that the French Presidency is working on it and I hope it will succeed.
I am not particularly concerned for my report on port state control because I know that at the end of our informal trialogue many problems were resolved. Apart from various differences in formulation, three major differences with the Council remain, for which my preference was to reinstate Parliament's First Reading position.
The first point was the application of the Directive to anchorages, which is a key issue for maritime safety. We must include anchorages in this text. I believe we are sending the message of a firm and consistent policy. Ships that are not up to standard must not be able to escape inspection, regardless of their shipping route and where they are calling in European waters.
The second point concerns the application of permanent bans. Once again, I believe this is a measure that should be kept as a deterrent for bad behaviour. This measure should, in fact, be used only rarely because there should be few vessels that meet its conditions of application, but it must exist for vessels that are not up to standard so that these vessels are not likely to present new problems and leave a feeling of impunity.
The third point concerns the flexibility measures for the application of the inspection system. At First Reading we chose flexibility mechanisms based on specific circumstances; for example, inspections missed because bad weather prevents inspections from being carried out, or where safety conditions are not met. The possibility was included of postponing the inspection of a vessel from one Community port to the next.
The Council wants more.
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr President, Mr Bussereau, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are returning once again to the debate that we brought to a close at first reading a year and a half ago.
We are doing so with more reasons than we had then to be pleased with the results achieved, which were the fruit of the cooperation and consensus that exists in this House on such a sensitive issue for the public as safety on our seas.
However, I regret that our pleasure is not complete or as we had hoped, as despite the fact that we have all learned lessons from the past, with the tragic examples of the Erika and Prestige disasters, which are still very recent in our eyes, and despite the need to act now and not wait for the consensus that always follows disasters, the attitude of the Council has unfortunately prevented us from being able to bring the matter to a close today with the adoption of the eight proposals that make up 'the third package' on maritime safety.
This does not prevent me from recognising and expressing thanks for the will of the French Presidency, as it has taken the baton from the Portuguese and Slovenian presidencies, and has set the right pace in the Council, with the sound intention of reaching an agreement on a package of proposals that should be treated as a whole, as we all agree, because there are overlaps between them, and all those in the maritime transport chain are involved.
There is therefore no room for discussing, as unfortunately many, or at least some governments think, whether any of these proposals are unnecessary or inappropriate. Each and every one of them is essential.
Based on this, I call on the Council not to let slip away a precious opportunity for us to conclude this matter in conciliation, which some of us will come to with our homework almost done, as the informal trialogues that have been held so far, and the complete consensus that exists with all the shadow rapporteurs, have produced very satisfactory results and could provide a good basis for the final agreement.
Having said this, ladies and gentlemen, there is still an issue that concerns me greatly, which I would like to mention, as it concerns an essential aspect of the package, in our opinion. I am referring to the independence of the organisations and authorities created specifically for the purpose of adopting the best possible decisions in the shortest possible time.
In this respect, I am specifically talking about the independent authority to be created to make what is always a difficult decision: to accommodate a vessel in distress in a place of refuge.
Ladies and gentlemen, there would be no point in creating an authority that is independent from the influences of political power if it is not provided with the necessary resources and decision-making capacities, but what is even more serious is to invest it with powers if, when the moment of truth comes, it is only left with one option: compulsory accommodation of the vessel, even if it does not have insurance or guarantees.
That being the case, the entire burden will fall on the Member State concerned, which will end up being the victim of the ecological and social damage that may be caused by accommodating a vessel in a place of refuge, as well as having to cover that damage.
So I say yes to creating this authority, but it should be given powers, and a vessel in distress should be accommodated only if the prior assessment of the situation leads to the conclusion that this is the best decision, and the risks are contained.
I must tell you that I am not alone in this battle, as the European association that represents all of our ports has also protested greatly about this.
Having said this, I thank Mr Sterckx for his persistence in this difficult undertaking, in which he has had to fight a battle.
I particularly welcome the progress made with the ship monitoring tools, which are essential for reducing risk situations.
As far as the differences are concerned, there will be time in conciliation, and we will make every effort to reach compromises; I have no doubt that we will reach them.
Finally I will move on to my report. Having been examined by the Council, what was previously only a proposal for a directive has been split into two legal instruments, a proposal for a regulation and a proposal for a directive, and the members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism felt that this was the right thing to do. Our view of the common position is therefore positive, as it largely accepts the line advocated by Parliament: being able to strengthen the monitoring mechanisms for recognised organisations through the creation of an assessment committee of an independent nature with permanent powers and which acts autonomously; achieving a more flexible, fair penalty system, which is ultimately more effective, as it punishes those who do not act as they should, but does so based on the seriousness of the violation committed and the economic capacity of the organisation; finally, having managed to make progress on the very thorny issue of the recognition of class certificates, setting out the conditions under which the recognised organisations will have to recognise each other, without putting maritime safety at risk, and using the most demanding rules as a reference point.
In any event, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that there is a solid basis for a final agreement, and that together we will find a sound solution for all the people of Europe.
rapporteur. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in all sectors of transport there has long been careful investigation of the causes of serious transport accidents. Individual Member States view such investigations and the determination of technical causes as an essential component of accident reduction. The only exception up to now has been maritime transport. There are of course some framework regulations, but maritime transport and shipping are far more complex than other types of transport when it comes to establishing which state is to be responsible for investigating the causes of accidents. A ship owner need not be the operator of the ship and the two of them may come from different states. The seafarers may be multiethnic and multinational. Passengers may also be of different nationalities. The same goes for the cargo and for the client commissioning the voyage. A ship sails from a port in the territorial waters of one state to another, on the way passing through the territorial waters of other states or international waters. As if this were not complex enough, some states have subordinated the investigative bodies we are calling for to different state organisations. They are therefore not even organisationally independent.
The investigation of accidents in the field of maritime transport has been discussed with shadow rapporteurs and with the Presidency. The Committee on Transport and Tourism decided that it is desirable to retain the basic outlines of the draft directive. This involves standardised investigations in accordance with a common methodology, whereby deadlines for determining which state is going to conduct an investigation and for the submission of a final report must be laid down. It is of course open to discussion as to what classes of accidents are to be compulsorily investigated in accordance with the methodology adopted and as to how precisely the organisational independence of the investigative body is to be defined. During discussion of the materials, we reached agreement that the conclusions of a technical investigation may be used for further, for example criminal, investigations. The details of a technical investigation must, however, remain confidential. It was also clarified in committee that it is not possible to ignore the provisions requiring fair treatment of seafarers on ships which have been involved in maritime accidents, unless this is prevented by the inclusion of such provisions in other regulations. There is also agreement that the independent investigative body must comprise experts from several countries and that individual states may reach mutual agreement on representation in the investigation of maritime accidents.
I should like to emphasise that one of the main aims of the maritime package under consideration is to strengthen the responsibility of the flag state. It is therefore appropriate that the proposed wording relating to the rapid notification of technical shortcomings identified should remain part of the directive, as should specification of the ships to which the directive relates. I do not think it would be a good idea, following the experiences with tanker accidents on the Spanish coast, for it still to be possible for several technical investigative bodies to be able to work in parallel. If the European Commission does not feel itself to be sufficiently competent to decide on the conduct of investigations, then the only option is for such decisions to be taken in the European Council. I certainly consider the launch of several parallel technical investigations to be a poor solution. The still incomplete investigation into the accident involving the tanker Prestige shows where such a buck-passing dispersal of responsibility for an investigation leads. It is right that the whole maritime package should be discussed at the same time, thus avoiding differences in the definitions of individual concepts in the various component directives and thus enhancing the clarity of the resultant materials.
I believe that, even with the directive on maritime disasters, we can reach a sensible compromise which will be practicable and will make a contribution to a reduction in the likelihood of occurrence of further maritime disasters and perhaps to a thorough re-examination, including of the technical aspects.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow you will vote on the third maritime safety package. As you know, the maritime economy provides jobs for approximately 3 million people, making it a key sector for the European Union.
There were seven legislative proposals in the package sent through by the Commission in early 2006. They aimed to introduce measures for preventing accidents at sea and to establish measures to be taken following accidents - that is, to analyse the causes and compensate any victims. The priority of the package is ensuring the safety and quality of shipping, while respecting the environment, as well as improving the competitiveness of the European maritime sector.
The Council, Parliament and the Commission all support the objective of promoting maritime safety. At the Copenhagen European Council in 2002, the Council welcomed efforts to improve maritime safety and recalled the European Union's determination to 'take all necessary measures to avoid a repetition of similar catastrophes' to the Erika accident. The Council can also have no qualms about accepting many of the demands expressed by Parliament in its resolution of 27 April 2004. However, there are still some differences over the third maritime package, and these will require further consultation between the parties.
Since the package was presented by the Commission, through the work of several presidencies - most recently the Slovenian Presidency - the Council has adopted six Common Positions on the following proposals: investigation of accidents, classification societies, port state control, traffic monitoring, and the Athens Convention, all while taking account of European Parliament opinions such as those adopted in April last year.
Since the start of its term of office, the French Presidency has been making a major effort to reach agreement in Parliament at Second Reading on these six texts, for which the Common Positions were communicated by the Council in June 2008. During informal contacts with the rapporteurs during the summer months by the President of Coreper, real progress was made on each dossier, the purpose of which was to reach rapid agreement on these texts. In a recent letter, Mr Costa, you described this as 'substantial progress'.
Furthermore, as you know, in accordance with the commitments I made last April, the Presidency has energetically and enthusiastically revived discussions in the Council on the last two texts on civil liability and flag state obligations. This revival was very necessary for maritime safety and, Commissioner, also came in response to constant requests from your Commission. You know this item was put on the agenda by the Presidency at the informal meeting in La Rochelle, to which I had invited the European Parliament representatives Mr Costa and Mr Savary, who were kind enough to attend. You know we are currently continuing with the technical aspects of the work so the Transport Council can look at it at its next meeting, planned for 9 October.
Let me be frank with you: in view of the momentum this has triggered, I would have hoped we might avoid going to conciliation. Nevertheless, here we are. We must now make sure we do not lose the momentum, and above all we must not give the impression that all this progress and effort has been in vain, because this would send a poor message to the public. For this reason, in parallel with the work going on in the Council on the last two texts, the Presidency is still happy to maintain informal contact with each of the rapporteurs on the first six texts in order to reach agreement on the content.
I particularly wanted to share this analysis with you, and I will tell the Council about it at its meeting on 9 October, when we will be looking at the last two texts. The Council will decide what its position is regarding conciliation on the first six texts.
Mr President, I really hope that Parliament, the Council and the Commission can find a way forward for close cooperation on these dossiers. I think we have very nearly reached a final agreement, something we are all longing for.
Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you in particular to my colleague. After so many years of being an MEP, I am pleased to be here in the Chamber. Mr President, Mr Bussereau, ladies and gentlemen, how could I not share the concerns and aims that have emerged from the outset of the debate on this maritime package?
Our concern and the concern of Parliament, which represents the peoples of Europe, is to provide guarantees or to seek to provide guarantees to European citizens that tragic events such as those we have unfortunately had to witness a few kilometres from the coasts of Europe do not recur. There have been accidents such as the more recent one, although it was less serious, in the port of Tarragona, that confirm that our undertaking is right, that confirm that we need to give answers to citizens. Of course, it is impossible to prevent accidents from happening, but we must certainly do all we can to prevent them, through legislation, and through political action.
How can we do this? Firstly, we can do so by making life more difficult for unscrupulous operators, with more rigorous, systematic checks in all EU ports and also with more effective provisions regarding the taking in of a vessel in danger to a place of refuge, and finally through more rigorous control of the organisations authorised to inspect vessels and issue security certificates on behalf of the Member States.
In brief, we need to improve the way in which we tackle the consequences of accidents, obtaining fair compensation for passengers or their families or for the maritime community, and learning more thorough lessons from the investigations that take place after accidents. This is one of the important issues - understanding what happened in order to prevent it happening again. It is these various aspects that you will have to deal with, once the Council has decided on five of the seven proposals in the third maritime safety package.
As we know, the Transport Council last April was not able to consider the proposals relating to the obligations of flag States or the civil liability of shipowners. We should not underestimate the difficulties expressed by the Member States, which also emerged during the course of the informal Council meeting in La Rochelle - concern about a transfer of competences to the European Union for subjects covered by international conventions and the fear of an increase in the administrative burden of checks.
We sought during the Council meeting in La Rochelle - at which Mr Costa was present - and by 'we' I mean the Commission and the President, as well as the French Presidency, which I thank for the work it has done in coordination with the Commission to try to get the whole package adopted speedily, without abandoning two legislative texts that we all consider to be very important, as Mr Bussereau stressed.
I really must warmly thank the French Presidency for the action it has taken, its attempt to mediate, and its wish to involve Parliament in what is a very delicate and also very difficult legislative decision. Certainly, I cannot say that I am satisfied with the situation as it is today. There are two issues that are at risk of being put to one side, and they are of extraordinary importance.
The Commission wants the whole package to be adopted, and we will work and persist in attempts to reach an agreement. Europe cannot permit itself to fail to give concrete answers to its citizens; we must have an aim that is simple but binding: that all vessels flying flags of Member States are fully compliant. Our concern must be to guarantee, in addition, that the victims of maritime accidents receive adequate, uniform compensation throughout the European Union.
In La Rochelle, we tried to set out on a path that will lead to an agreement between Parliament and the Council. We are working with the French Presidency, seeking to put forward texts that will receive a positive verdict from the Council and at the same time a positive verdict from Parliament. Yesterday, I met the Federal Republic of Germany's transport minister, and urged that Germany should also play its part; what I am trying to do with all the Member States, in the meetings that I have, is to try to take a step forward by supporting the mediation activity that the French Presidency, together with the European Commission, is attempting.
I understand perfectly that meanwhile Parliament wants to insert into the texts at second reading amendments designed to incorporate the substance of the two proposals that have remained pending. I back these amendments. As for the dossiers that are being officially examined, I know that significant progress has been made in bringing the viewpoints of Parliament and the Council closer together and even though it has not been possible to translate this progress into compromise amendments, I am convinced that the rest of the procedure will be considerably facilitated by this progress. Naturally, I will be able to talk about these issues and the amendments envisaged after having heard what you have to say.
I believe, however, that it is still possible for us to reach an agreement; it would be wrong to say that negotiations are easy, because they will be complex, but I believe that there is still room to attain an objective perhaps even before conciliation; certainly we cannot give up until we have made every effort to achieve the objective of the adoption of all the texts that make up the maritime safety package.
Representatives of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, you can count on the active commitment of the European Commission, all the managers and officials in the Cabinet and the Directorate-General that I have the honour of leading and my staff, in order to seek to achieve the objective of a specific answer for all the citizens of the European Union.
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I am pleased to note the common ground - there is actually a great deal - that has emerged in the debate so far. Our French Council representative, our friend, has said he is of the opinion that we shall still be able to reach agreement by the end of the year. Yes indeed, let us reach that agreement! I should also like to thank the Vice-Presidents for the support of the Commission during the discussions between the rapporteurs and the French Council Presidency.
President-in-Office, we wish to acknowledge that you and your colleagues have already made great progress in the individual discussions on the six dossiers. We are very much on the right track but - and I also say this to you to support your reluctant colleagues in the Council - there is either one package or no package. I therefore hope that you will make progress in the two dossiers that are still unresolved at the next Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council meeting on 9 November. These are not unimportant dossiers. I do not wish to delve into the details of the civil liability of shipowners, but I do consider it particularly important in the case of the flag States.
It is evident, however, that, despite all their professions to have maritime safety and the safety of seafarers, of passengers and of coastal waters in mind at all times, Member States are shying away from ratifying and implementing very specific obligations or even just the IMO resolutions on maritime protection. If we want these flag State obligations to become established, if we - Parliament and the Commission - want to be able to put pressure on the Member States - in court if necessary - to fulfil their obligations under the IMO Convention on maritime protection and the protection of coastal populations, the Member States recoil. Although there are good people who fulfil their flag State obligations, there are some who are very reluctant to comply with the inspection by Parliament and the Commission to ensure they are fulfilling their flag State obligations. This is unacceptable.
We had the disasters of the Prestige and the Erika, and my fellow Members have also pointed out the disasters of recent times. We are beholden to people and to the natural environment to ensure that flag States, in particular, fulfil their obligations.
It is bizarre. In Mrs Vlasto's sound report, we talk about port State control, which, in theory, is our way of checking the safety of third-country ships anchoring at our shores. We therefore inspect ships from third countries, but the Member States fear being subjected to the obligation to be checked to ensure they as flag States are fulfilling their duties with regard to ships' safety. This is unacceptable.
In this respect, I should like to encourage the President-in-Office effectively to win the majority over on 9 October. I say 'majority', President-in-Office, because it could be, if I am not completely wrong, that majority decisions are possible in the transport dossier. You may perhaps have to break through the esprit de corps in the Council - if an individual is reluctant, the others will not push him - because this concerns the safety of the natural environment and people and we shall have to reach a majority decision if need be.
I appeal to you to carry on. We are proud of you - you have fought well in the Council to date. Please pass on the following message to the Council: we are behind you, and we are ready and willing to achieve good results together with the French Presidency. However, some do need to budge - including the German Government. Let us all fight together on this!