Approval of the Minutes
The Minutes of yesterday's sitting have been distributed.
Are there any comments?
Madam President, today's Minutes include an Annex indicating that the Bureaux of delegations of the joint parliamentary committees for Associated States have already been elected. However, if you read the Rules of Procedure, you will see that Rule 170(6) states that the appointment of the joint parliamentary committees is somewhat different from the interparliamentary delegations and must therefore be carried out under the same conditions as the appointment of the committees. This is how we have done it in the past. This means that elections must take place as for the committees. The fact that there are discussions between the groups of parties is another matter altogether. So, in the case of interparliamentary delegations, the Plenum decides, whereas in the case of the joint parliamentary committees for Associated States, in my opinion, Rule 170(6) applies. I would like to make that point.
There is a second point which I would also like to make. The deadline for submitting the relevant proposals was ten o'clock yesterday. However, the proposals - that is, the preliminary draft - on which we voted did not reach us until after ten o'clock and so I must call the entire vote into question. I would ask you to consider both points and give me your feedback at the next sitting.
I will make the President aware of your first point, and she will discuss it with the Presidents of the Groups at the Conference of Presidents. On your second point, the services have informed me that you were given all the documents relating to the Minutes of the previous sitting. In any case, your comments have been noted.
Madam President, I would like to ask that the results of the votes be displayed on the indicator board for at least ten seconds so that in future they can be noted down. We now have a new voting device and perhaps this can be programmed to display the results for at least ten seconds.
This has been noted. I think that many here share your concern. It is important that we find out the result of every vote.
Madam President, I have a question on Wednesday's Minutes, or, more specifically, on Annex 3 which was first distributed yesterday afternoon and which contains the proposals for nominations to the Bureaux of interparliamentary delegations. I would like to know whether the typing error, which is actually binding, has since been corrected. It meant that my colleague Sumberg from the PPE Group would have become a deputy chairperson in two of these delegations, i.e. for Japan and China. In actual fact, colleague Jarzembowski has become deputy chairperson for the Japan delegation. Has this been corrected and is this binding?
This correction has been made and everything is now as it should be.
Madam President, I wish to refer to the comments which the President, Mrs. Fontaine, made yesterday concerning the prohibition of the use of mobile telephones inside the hemicycle. There is nothing more important in our Parliament than talking and communication, but in debates and not through external means of communication such as mobile telephones with the ringing and distortion that they cause.
I ask that real measures be taken, where necessary, to impose sanctions, just as we might penalise those who do not vote. Those who distort the use of words in this hemicycle must be penalised, forbidden entry or have their mobile telephones confiscated. I request that effective measures be taken.
Applause
I shall certainly make the President aware of this, but I think that the first step is to appeal first to the courtesy and public-spiritedness of our colleagues. I am sure that, given time, everyone will find ways of treating one another with respect. In any case, I hope that we will not find ourselves having to impose disciplinary measures. We will discuss this within the Bureau to see how this problem can be dealt with.
Madam President, firstly, I would like to point out that the German interpreting service has clearly failed. However, I also have a second point: are you aware of the significance of Mr Posselt's explanation? If the error, as pointed out by Mr Posselt stands, we do not have a properly elected President and Vice-President in the delegations. This is an extremely serious matter and must therefore be treated with urgency. I would ask that this be clarified and dealt with as soon as possible by the Bureau because this means we are entering the summer recess with a completely unclear situation with regard to the delegations and this must not happen in this Parliament.
Applause
On your first point, I have been told that the German interpreting service appears to be working again, and I am very relieved that this is the case. On your second point, I think that you are right. I shall inform our President of the comments which you and others have made. As you are part of the Bureau, I know that you will also make her aware of this.
Madam President, it has become a bit of a tradition in this House for Members to stand up and say that their name was not on the attendance list for the previous day. My name does not appear on the list for yesterday for some reason or other. Perhaps it might be a better system if one could just go up to the front desk somewhere and point out to a member of staff that one's name was not on the list, rather than having to rise and inform the whole House.
We shall be attending to this. Incidentally, you have just given me the opportunity to tell our new colleagues that the procedure you have just mentioned is available to all Members. This makes the sitting somewhat easier and also means that an MEP does not have to come and point out the omission orally.
Madam President, I was very interested to hear the main findings of the second report by the Committee of Wisemen on Belgian radio this morning. But I think it is a bit of a shame that in this high temple of communication, it appears to have been easier for the report to find its way into the newspapers, even in a far and distant land such as Belgium, than onto the desks of the MEPs. My colleague Mr Staes raised this matter yesterday. I understand that he succeeded in getting hold of the report, on which I congratulate him, but to tell the truth, I had at least expected that all MEPs would receive this report yesterday.
That is right. It seems that the report has indeed been given out to all MEPs. Perhaps you should approach the distribution services. In any case, this is what I have been told, and I shall see to it that it is confirmed, and that everyone does indeed have access to this report. Besides, you know that, unfortunately, the media sometimes manages to obtain information before the official channels are able to act. This is one of the great debates in society today.
Madam President, I should like to raise a point of order, and he should not take this personally, regarding the presence of the Commissioner. The subject we are shortly to discuss is the 'non-competition clause in football' . That is on the agenda for this morning. The Commissioner for competition policy, Mr Van Miert, ought to be present for this. It has often been the case in the past that Commissioners who did not have competence in the agenda item have attended here. I would urge you as the Bureau, to discuss with the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, that when certain items appear on our agenda, the Commissioners who attend are those who actually have competence for the area concerned. Mr Kinnock is not to take this personally, for it may be that he is a great fan of football, and I know that he is a talented Commissioner, but I think this matter is too important to have to bring before the new Parliament again. It is the Commissioners with responsibility for the topic concerned that should be here when their subject is being discussed.
Applause
As you know, in his new Commission, Mr Prodi has nominated a Commissioner with special responsibility for relations with Parliament. We must be able to make Mr Prodi and his new Commissioner aware of your proposal to have Commissioners come and give detailed replies to questions which are relevant to them. Having said that, the Commission is a collective body, and Mr Kinnock certainly made use of all the necessary information in replying to us this morning, and I would like to thank him for being here.
The Minutes were approved
French Football Federation fine
The next item on the agenda is the Commission's statement on the fine imposed on the French Football Federation following its infringement of the European legislation on competition.
I should like to begin by responding to the words of Maij-Weggen. The point is well made and well taken. I know that she feels strongly about this and that she is not alone in that.
Whilst I obviously cannot commit my colleague, Mrs Loyola de Palacio, who is happily a Member of this House at the present time, to the development of her policy and approach in this House, there are several who feel that the time is right for further discussion between the Commission and Parliament on some of the procedures and conventions of this House, which obviously meets in more than one place, as well as the conventions and procedures of the College. I hope that discussion can proceed without great delay because there could be developments which would be of mutual benefit and would actually promote accountability and transparency in the service of the Union.
On the question before the House, I would like to make the following statement on behalf of the Commission. This week, the Commission issued a formal legal decision against the local organisers of last year's football World Cup tournament in France. The organisers were the CFO. That decision followed the organisation's use of discriminatory sales arrangements for tickets for matches.
As the House will recall, in 1996 and 1997 the system used by CFO favoured consumers who were able to provide an address in France. In the view of the Commission, that constituted an abuse of the organisation's dominant position in the market which is contrary to Article 82 of the Treaty. This was the first case in Community history in which Article 82 of the Treaty has been used to penalise a discriminatory practice that harms the interests of consumers without having a significant effect on the market. In reaching its decision therefore, the Commission took account of the fact that there were no previous decisions of the Commission or case-law from the Court of Justice to guide CFO in its ticketing policy. In addition it was evident that the ticketing arrangements used by CFO in 1996 and 1997 were exactly similar to those employed in previous World Cup tournaments and other similar major international contests.
As the House will recall, the Commission responded to complaints from people outside France who were finding it impossible to buy tickets by beginning an investigation. The CFO then quickly changed its policy and made efforts to make sure that tickets sold in 1998 were available without discrimination. Then 100, 000 tickets became available to everyone on a first-come-first-served basis.
The Commission judged that these factors - the unprecedented application of the law, the conventions relating to previous ticket sales for international tournaments, and the constructive action of CFO - justified a symbolic rather than a punitive fine. In addition, it is relevant to add that a more substantial fine on the organisers of the 1998 World Cup in France would have imposed an obligation on the Commission to consider action against the organisers of previous major tournaments who used exactly the same ticketing policies. This could have meant, for example, action against the organisers of the 1996 European Championship because on that occasion, supporters benefitted from a sales scheme which favoured nationals over fans from abroad.
The French organising committee is not a normal commercial profit-seeking company. It exists for the interests of football and it is important to recognise that all profits reverted to the game of football. Fining the French organising committee means taking money away from grassroots football and from the promotion of the game and putting that money into the coffers of the European Commission. I do not believe that any genuine lover of football would think that was either sensible or acceptable.
I know that football supporters in parts of the Union have strongly criticised the size of the EUR 1, 000 fine. My colleagues and I can certainly understand such reactions when those reactions are not informed by the facts. I hope, however, that in this House and elsewhere, there will be recognition of the specific factors directly relevant to this case. The important - and I think the instructive - outcome of the case is plain. All future sports tournament organisers now clearly know that any ticketing arrangements must comply fully with European Community competition rules and be non-discriminatory. Secondly, they know that the Commission will not hesitate to take action against any organiser that fails to comply with those rules. Thirdly, they know that the symbolic approach could only be followed once, and in very particular circumstances.
These realities, in the view of the Commission, mean that standards of fair treatment for sports fans have been clarified and strengthened. They will definitely enjoy protection against discrimination in the future. The organisers of the Euro-2000 Cup in Belgium and the Netherlands have, for instance, contacted the Commission and as a result, they have adapted their sales system to meet the requirements of Community law. There has been no previous occasion on which a higher percentage of tickets has been made available to the general public with absolutely equal rights for all citizens of the European Union. We intend to keep it that way.
That is the silver lining. It is a pity that first there had to be a cloud.
Madam President, I want to congratulate Commissioner Kinnock on the statement he has just made. I simply do not know how he managed to keep a straight face as he read out those comments. That statement from the Commission was quite appalling. I do not blame Commissioner Kinnock himself, but I certainly blame the action, attitude and inaction, in fact, of the outgoing Commission. This is a pathetic fine from a pathetic Commission. All we can say is that it is absolutely typical of the way they have conducted affairs over the last five years. I only hope that the President-elect Mr Prodi will take this as an example of how not to do it.
I was one of 32 Members of this Parliament who took a private legal action before the French courts last year in a last-ditch attempt to get more tickets for fans across Europe. Unfortunately, when we went to the French courts, we were told that it was too late at that stage to get the redistribution of tickets ordered, although the French courts themselves recognised that European rules had been flouted in the procedure that was followed.
I should like to point out that the costs to the individual Members of Parliament who took that legal action was, surprise, surprise, in the order of £1000 each, something rather more than the fine that has now been imposed upon the World Cup organisers.
The Commission itself, had it wished, had the power to impose a fine of something like EUR 20m - perhaps even more - if it had taken this seriously. It did not take it seriously in 1997 when it could have taken action to ensure a fair distribution. It did not take it seriously in 1998 when we had the problem and fans across Europe were denied the opportunity to see the World Cup. It is not taking it seriously now. What sort of message is this giving out to sports organisers? Commissioner Kinnock called this a symbolic fine. Well, it is certainly giving a sign that it does not take it seriously at all. We are talking about big business here. The amounts of money involved are significant. Something like £300m, I am told, was the turnover of the World Cup; the fine something like EUR 1000. This is simply not acceptable at all.
The sign that is being given is that the Commission is turning a blind eye, that it is not really worried. It is saying to large-scale organisers: 'You can carry on exploiting the fans' . It is also saying that this is the way to encourage - and it is encouraging - a black market in these tickets. It must do something to stop it. Sport is now big business. The Commission in future must show that it means business to ensure that sport, like other businesses across Europe, must observe European rules and regulations.
Madam President, I thank the Commission and Commissioner Kinnock for being available to make this statement following my request earlier in the week. While I welcome the fact they are here to make the statement, I am disappointed in its content.
I am told I do not like football: I am a Manchester City season-ticket holder. I am told that the Commissioner has similar problems with a rumoured enthusiasm for Cardiff City which may explain some of the difficulties we both face. Nevertheless, I agree that the French Football Federation put on a wonderful feast of football. The French 'rainbow team' did much to confound the xenophobics and racists who, like Mr Le Pen and our unlamented former colleague Mr Mègret, believe that to be French is to be white. Yet importantly, there clearly was a breach of competition rules on a massive scale. Commissioner Kinnock talked about 180, 000 tickets being made available to football fans across Europe. That was after 600, 000 tickets were sold on a discriminatory basis. The organising committee deliberately and provocatively ignored early on the requirement that all citizens of the European Union be treated equally, and clearly breached Article 82 of the Treaty. In doing so, they massively increased their profits, selling tickets in corporate blocks as small as one. You could not buy a ticket by telephoning and paying FF500, but for FF5, 000 you could get the same ticket and the equivalent of a school dinner - I have had corporate hospitality before.
If Commissioner Kinnock is asking me if I believe that the European Commission could actually help grassroots football better than the multinational corporations who actually rely on the profits, I would actually vote for the European Commission. It may not be a very popular move but I have seen very little evidence of the people who are making multi-millions of pounds out of football putting it back into football. They are putting it into franchising and other things.
This also endangered the security of thousands of football fans. It turned tens of thousands of French men and women into amateur ticket touts. If they bought their allocation of four tickets each for a major match and sold them on the black market, they had enough money for two of them to take a two-week holiday in Australia. It was very difficult to imagine that French men and women would not pick up tickets and sell them in that way and clearly that was happening.
In these circumstances, therefore, does the Commissioner not agree that football fans will think it is absolutely ludicrous, the EUR 1000 fine - which was about the black-market price for a ticket for England-Argentina - that ticket touts will think that this is good news and that genuine football fans will be disappointed? Can he not confirm that we could have fined the French football authorities something between FF 100m and FF 200m, which was something like 10 % of the extra profits they made? Does he not believe that the excuse that the organising federation no longer exists is actually a facile one when clearly it is the responsibility of the French Football Federation?
Does he not agree that the message to the organisers of Europe 2000, to the organisers of Europe 2004 and the possible organisers of the Mondiale 2006, whether in Germany or the United Kingdom, is that they can ignore the rules, maximise profits and in the end, all it costs them is the small change?
Should the Commission be treating football differently from any other multi-billion pound industrial operation? It seems to me that if this had been in the telecommunications sector or elsewhere, the notion that we would have come back with a symbolic fine in circumstances where people had increased their profits by £200m or £300m would have been as ludicrous as the symbolic fine appears to football fans.
Madam President, our former Belgian Socialist colleague, Mr De Coene, and I led the group of 30 MEPs who took the case to the High Court in Paris last year. The tribunal there found in our favour. They found that the European law had been broken by the CFO. They dismissed our case on a technicality, finding that we were inadmissible as litigants. But we took action because we were not convinced that the European Commission was standing up for the rights of the European citizen. As a result of our action, we were assured by Commissioner Van Miert that the Commission would prosecute this to the very end. That action, as Mr Perry has pointed out, cost us individually more than EUR 1000 each. Members of this House are sick at the fine that has been imposed by the European Commission on the CFO. I can well imagine why Commissioner Van Miert did not want to come here personally to make this statement today.
This is not the first time that the World Cup organisers have rigged the sales of tickets against the ordinary football fan. But it is the first time that they have trumpeted their tournament as the first billion-dollar World Cup. They have made millions out of discriminatory sales arrangements. If the Commission had pursued this abuse of Article 82 as rigorously as it pursues abuses in other areas of industry then this fine would have been not £600 but £6m or more.
The Commissioner tells us that the interests of consumers were harmed but that this had no serious effect on the market. I suggest to the Commissioner that it has a very serious effect on the European Union's reputation. He tells us that there was nothing to guide the CFO. What about the fine that the Commission imposed on the Italian organisers of the World Cup in 1990, a fine which was, in fact, larger than the fine that is imposed on the CFO this year? What about the exchange of correspondence between the CFO and the European Commission which started the previous July?
Unlike Mr Ford, who represents the Southwest but supports Manchester City, I do not support any football club, but I do support the right of the European citizen to be protected from discriminatory practices and the abuse of a dominant market position. I support the European Union in developing its role to protect those citizens. To me, this fine sends to the European citizen the message that Europe is on the side of big business and not on the side of the ordinary man or woman in the street.
In my view, this is a sad-and-sorry ending to a sad-and-sorry Commission. I hope that our new Commissioners, when they have been approved in September, will have rather more backbone in taking up this kind of case on behalf of the people of Europe.
Applause
Madam President, unlike the previous speakers, who were, it has to be said, all British - well, well, what a surprise! - I would like to protest against the Commission's decision, which I find quite astounding, to penalise the French Football Federation for so-called discrimination in the sale of tickets during the last football World Cup. Commissioner Kinnock pointed out, and rightly so, that this has been the accepted practice in previous World Cups.
And why is this an accepted practice, ladies and gentlemen? Well, it is quite simply that a World Cup like that is organised by a country, and paid for by the tax-payers of that country. Given these conditions, it is felt to be courteous and good practice to allocate a slightly larger quota to that country's citizens. When a company floats shares for example, increases its capital, and then sells the shares, nobody says that it is illegal if it reserves a quota for its own employees, who are a vital component of the company's lifeblood. This quota is, of course, a form of discrimination and yet, I feel it is a legitimate one. I, therefore, think that the Commission was wrong to apply Article 82 of the Treaty because there was no real abusive exploitation of power, only a quite legitimate and understandable use of a set of circumstances which were highly unusual from a financial point of view.
However, Madam President, I would like to move on, because this is, when all is said and done, a relatively minor matter which is of no great consequence to life in our country. There are other more serious matters in which the Commission has been guided by the same extremist mind set which may bring about very serious imbalances in our country's economy and also in its employment figures.
I am thinking in particular of the sanction imposed, yet again on France, for having allowed certain textile companies to reduce their national insurance contributions at a time when they were taking on new staff in an international climate which, as you know, ladies and gentlemen, is extremely tough, largely because of the international agreements negotiated by the Commission itself. So these businesses are now going to have to repay the social grants which they were given because of an extremist, narrow-minded and almost plain stupid way of seeing things. It is an absolute scandal. I think that, in future, this Parliament should set an example with a more considered vision, one which is more fair and impartial towards competition.
Applause
Madam President, first and foremost, I should like to quote a great Dutch philosopher, Michels, a famous football coach who once said that football is war. I would prefer to suggest that if football is an alternative to war then I am in complete agreement with that. I do not intend to talk about the World Cup in France here, but there are a few general points I wish to make.
I believe that football, and international fixtures in particular, are indeed a valuable alternative to war, however silly that may sound. Football should be a celebration, and international fixtures such as World Cups or European Championships really ought to belong to the people again. What we are seeing now, and what happened last year in France, is a perfect illustration of this. What ought to be a celebration for the people has, to some extent, become a completely commercialised celebration. We can see that the same thing is tending to happen with national football competitions throughout Europe. These show that football is becoming less and less accessible to ordinary people and has to some extent become a celebration of business, with people tucked away behind plate glass windows and in comfortable business lounges.
That is why I want to call on the Commissioner to take positive action for a sport that must remain accessible to ordinary people and that must be protected from commercial interests. Of course, the same applies to competitive cycling, where cyclists sometimes inject themselves with the same hormones that cattle are injected with.
On the same note, I would ask the Commissioner to actually produce a policy that is no longer concerned with imposing fines on organisations that have infringed some competition regulation or other, but is, in every sense, a policy aimed at controlling those big organisations and ensuring that European Championships and World Cups that are held in Europe really do continue to be celebrations for the people and not celebrations of business.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think that the market should be the only factor taken into consideration as regards the organisation of sporting events. During the 1998 World Cup, of the two million tickets sold, the largest share was handled directly by FIFA, which sent quotas to the 203 national football associations, with a larger share going to the 24 qualifying countries, of which the United Kingdom was one. Another share, 600, 000 tickets, was handled by the host nation, which reserved 37 % of this quota.
The idea of putting all tickets for a sporting event of this size up for sale on the European market has never been put into practice by any country, as Commissioner Neil Kinnock has just pointed out. In Euro '96, for example, the football tournament organised in the United Kingdom, 42 %, not 37 % of the tickets were reserved for the host nation.
Secondly, having control of the tickets is to have 90 % control of security. If the World Cup was a success in this area too, if we had relatively few incidents, it was largely because this control over the tickets facilitated for example, Franco-British co-operation in security matters, and efficiency in handling the arrival of groups of supporters, supervising them, and following up any problems. This allowed us to escape many outbreaks of hooliganism, which we hope never to see again on our continent.
Thirdly, the more individual sales that are made, the greater the risk of a black market developing. This is the lesson learned by the Italians themselves, from organising the 1990 World Cup, and it was obviously taken on board by the French organising committee.
Fourthly and finally, it is understandable to ensure that where a popular sport is concerned, when the host nation has invested nine billion francs in the event, the citizens of the host nation support and participate positively in this event, and this is also a key factor in its success. But it is also understandable that care is taken over the security of these citizens and also that of the groups from abroad, whom the host country accommodates for the occasion.
During this World Cup, ladies and gentlemen, you saw thousands of little Zidanes and Marcel Desaillys, coming from the working-class neighbourhoods of Marseilles, Toulouse and Strasbourg to applaud the exploits of the great Zidane and the great Desailly, but also those of the great Owen, the great Beckham, and the great Di Pietro. Nobody could say that this amazing World Cup was tainted by racial or social discrimination. It was an open and welcoming popular celebration. It gave us a wonderful picture of sport, a picture of the diversity of our teams and of our nations, and a picture of fraternity across our continent. The supporters group which was most successful and most appreciated by the French people was that of the Scots. We, the citizens of France, did not go on holiday to Australia in July 1998 because the world came to France, and because we were at the Stade de France, at St-Denis, at the velodrome, in Marseilles with the people from our working-class neighbourhoods.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think that the European Union's priority in sport today is not to punish a Member Nation which has managed successfully to organise an event like this, but is rather, as Romano Prodi said yesterday, to engage in a real pan-European battle against doping, and this means refusing to allow the unique power of money to kill off the beauty and the very spirit of sport.
Applause
Madam President, I am here to speak on behalf of millions of women football fans. I welcome Commissioner Kinnock's reassurances.
I must say that I was appalled at how the ticket allocation was handled by the French authorities. I know that a large number of people in Britain were equally frustrated. The release of the tickets was really too late for most people to be able to take up those opportunities given their work commitments. What we need, I believe, is some joined-up thinking.
One of the main objectives of the EU institutions is to ensure that citizens of all EU countries are treated fairly and equally. In this instance, millions of football fans were discriminated against. And yet, this breach is taken lightly. Whatever the reasons for that particular measly fine, it will alienate a large number of fans. It is another missed opportunity to connect with the people of Europe. Football is a passion that unites all the countries. What better way for us to change our image and connect with the people of Europe than to say that we take football as seriously as we take any branch of commerce.
I should like to begin where Ms Gill left off, first of all by congratulating her on her maiden speech in this House. She will never feel such fear again or derive such satisfaction. I am sure the whole House thanks her for her contribution. Indeed, she summed up the feelings of the Commission in many ways when she said that she deeply regretted the existence of discrimination. That is the universal feeling in the Commission, which is why my colleague, Mr Van Miert, and his associates in the Commission specifically sought to do something effective about preventing for all time in the future and indeed for 1998 the use of discriminatory practices by CFO.
I should like to take up where Mr Vander Taelen left off. When he said that football is a valid alternative to war I was reminded of the maxim that the first casualty of war is truth. As I listened to some of the contributions in the course of this debate, I could not escape the feeling that sometimes the first casualty of football is truth because there were one or two contributions that were made passionately, but largely without the recognition of fact. I would like to respond on behalf of the Commission, with some repetition of fact. I regret it if I am repetitive, but if at first people do not hear, perhaps they will hear the second time.
I begin with Mr Perry. I enjoyed his recitation of sound-bites about pathetic, appalling and all the rest of it. But what is he really saying when he says that the European Commission has the power to impose a EUR 20m fine? In theory and in constitutional terms, he is right. But is he really suggesting that the European Commission should take EUR 20m or EUR 30m out of football and put it in the coffers of the European Commission? Mr Ford says 'yes' , he would rather that the European Commission have the money than the CFO. He demonstrated a surprising distance from the realities of public opinion. This man has been my friend for a considerable time. I admire everything but his taste in football clubs. But the fact remains that if that were the course of action taken, he knows what the headlines would be. So does Mr Watson, who is disturbed about the reputation of the European Union. He knows the headlines would say: 'Euros snatched from football' .
Let us be rational. Is it sensible in the circumstances to take the money in large amounts from football and deposit it in the European Commission's coffers, or is it sensible to take action that guarantees that on no future occasion will there be discriminatory sales of football or other international tournament tickets? Then Mr Perry says that he wants this action to be absolutely firm and ferocious. I can understand the sentiment. But to be consistent the same action would have to be taken against the organisers of the European Cup competition which happened to be in the United Kingdom in 1996. Football came home, it was said. Are we really suggesting in this House, or anywhere else, that we should look back to 1996 or comparable competitions and say that we are dishing out EUR 20m fines on those who organised these competitions? Come on. Let us be rational.
Let me return very briefly again to Mr Ford. He said those who make money out of football should put it back in. He knows very well that I am zealous in my support of that view. But I would suggest that we have to do rather more than attend only to international football ticket sales in order to bring about that intelligent and necessary recycling of funds.
One point I want to focus on, in what Mr Ford said, is that the Commission, he alleges, is sending out the message to organisers of Euro 2000 and maybe future World Cup competitions in the European Union that they can ignore the rules. The absolute opposite is taking place. I had already said ten minutes before Mr Ford spoke that the organisers of the Belgian and Netherlands European championship have been in touch with the Commission and not a single ticket will be sold on a discriminatory basis. They are already obeying the rules, setting the precedent, and, at all future times in the European Union, that will be the way in which affairs are conducted. The football supporters and supporters of other sports quite rightly will now know that they have the protection of the law and organisers of tournaments will know that they will be the object of real and heavy punishment if they break what are now known to be the rules.
This is the point. There was no knowledge of the rules. There is no case-law from the Court of Justice. There is no precedent of action by the European Commission. The money would have been taken out of football if there had been a heavier fine. There would have to be a further effort to levy fines against previous organisers. The fact is that CFO, who I do not paint as plaster saints, the moment that our investigation commenced, stopped the discriminatory sales. Everybody would have liked that to have occurred earlier, but it did happen. When Mr Watson says, therefore, that this is not the first time that organisers have rigged the sales, he may be right. But this is the first time that the legal competition authority has stopped the rigging, stopped the discriminatory sales and the first time that any competition authority in the world has prevented for all future time the use of discriminatory methods in the sale of tickets.
Mr Watson accepted my point when I said that this was a case where consumers were hit but the effect was not on the market as it is generally understood. I think he conceded that because he said that was my claim and the problem was that the reputation of Europe had suffered. I would put this point to him, a man for whom I have very high regard, as I do for the other participants in this debate: that reputation can only suffer if what has occurred is misrepresented. I know there is no-one in this House who will ever want to do that. I therefore appeal for attention to the facts. Whilst I fully understand and indeed, to a degree, share the passions about the way in which the big business of football so frequently now is operating in ways that contradict the interests of genuine football fans, I accept all that. I ask for fair treatment in this case as indeed in many others.
It was uncharacteristically unworthy of one honourable Member to say that he could understand why my colleague Mr Van Miert is not here because of the gravity of this case. If there has ever been a Commissioner in the forty-two year history of the European Union who has publicly demonstrated integrity and guts, it is Mr Van Miert. The reason he is not here this morning is because he has to attend to his work, not from any cowardice. It is infamous for anybody to even infer that is the reason for his absence.
Thank you, Mr Commissioner.
Adjournment of the session
I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.
The sitting was closed at 9.55 a.m.


Explanations of vote
in writing. - (PT) This Convention - which aims to set out the obligations of the Parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning and imposes on States the general obligation regarding notification and consultation on all major projects that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across borders - was signed by the Community and its Member States on 26 February 1991 and approved by the Community on 27 June 1997.
Parliament approved some amendments, notably one extending the definition of the 'public' in Article 1(X) of the Convention to clarify that the public that may participate in procedures under the Convention includes civil society and, in particular, non-governmental organisations, and one that opens the Convention for accession by non-ECE member countries upon approval by the meeting of the Parties, which deserves our support.
The other amendments seem less important to us. In principle, I do not believe they create any problems.
We therefore agreed with the rapporteur and voted in favour of the report.
in writing. - (EL) The brief report contains serious gaps, which play down the importance of the issue.
The legislative regulations governing the protection of the environment are a compromise between the need to protect it and the demands of big business to maximize its excessive profits come what may. Preoccupation with profit makes the competitiveness of the EU's multinationals a priority above all the others. The following are symptomatic of this:
i. the Kyoto Protocol, in which trade in pollutants is prominent;
ii. the entire legislative framework, which facilitates the use and expansion of GMOs;
iii. legislation on the monitoring of the use of chemical substances in consumer products to a permissible level. This legislation took as many as 40 years to be completed, although it naturally has many exceptions, from 1967 (Directive 67/458/ΕEC) to 2007, when the REACH Regulation entered into force;
iv. a still highly deficient legislative framework for the integrated management of radioactive waste;
v. the distorting development of biofuels, at the expense of food crops.
Multinationals are nonetheless allowed to act anti-environmentally. All they suffer are some fines, which represent a very small part of the additional profits coming from the destruction of the environment. This proves the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
We believe that these are serious omissions. What is required is a brief but very meaningful and useful reference to these issues.
in writing. - (PT) The Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and its protocols are on the list of conventions and protocols in the field of justice and home affairs contained in Annex I to the Act of Accession.
This Convention and its protocols were adopted in 1996, with the aim of establishing a common base for the criminal-law protection of the EC's financial interests, and entered into force in 2002 following ratification by the then 15 Member States.
In order to avoid wasting time and effort on the laborious negotiation, conclusion and ratification (by 27 Member States) of specific accession protocols to each Convention, the Act of Accession of Romania and Bulgaria introduced a simplified system for the accession to the conventions and protocols concluded by the Member States on the basis of Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union or Article 293 of the EC Treaty.
I therefore support this proposal for a Council Decision which simplifies the determination of the date of entry into force of this Convention in relation to Romania and Bulgaria.
I would like to speak about the package of two documents - the Commission proposal and the Council decision on the development of the Schengen information system infrastructure and its implementation and management. I voted in favour of both resolutions and consider them to be very important EU legislative documents.
It is a shame that the launch of SIS II keeps being postponed. We are so far behind schedule that it is essential to find a way out of the situation that would enable us to use the SIS 1+ network after 13 November 2008, i.e. to extend the service provided by the SISNET network and to create a fall-back solution with the s-TESTA network.
It is now clear that the human and financial resources allocated for the implementation of SIS II will have to be shared between the three projects being developed simultaneously: SIS II, SISone4all and the installation, operation and management of a communication infrastructure. This will have a negative impact on the implementation of SIS II.
This is why the decision on the financing of SIS 1+ and subsequently SISone4all will be of great importance: will it be financed by all participating parties or will SISNET, for example, receive funding from the EU budget? The correct distribution of EU and Member States' resources will be of great significance. However, in view of the project's importance as regards the security of the EU, it is obvious that SIS II is the greatest priority. We must allocate funds for EU security and the development of communications infrastructure.
in writing. - (RO) Only one year after its establishment, in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is already requested. I welcome the voting of the decision to mobilize the fund, which represents a first attempt to support our European citizens who face the challenges of globalisation.
Globalisation is a phenomenon that offers us numerous chances and opportunities, but also generates difficulties of adjustment to its consequences. Therefore, it is very important for the European Union to be capable not only of responding to such challenges, but also to approach them efficiently by fast mobilization of the necessary financial instruments. European citizens' safety and confidence in the future lie at the basis of our actions and initiatives.
I am very pleased to welcome the orientation of this fund toward the field of labour and labour safety, but I also emphasize the importance of education in this field and the need to take into consideration this area, as well, in the future fund mobilizations. At the end, I hope that in the future, in case of need, each EU Member State will benefit from the mobilization of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, whose less positive effects affect us all, including in the new Member States. This is the only way in which we will be able to build true sustainable development over the entire EU territory.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this first ever mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The Fund was set up, following a successful campaign by the PSE Group, to alleviate the effects of globalisation on European workers.
In this instance, the fund is being used to assist approximately 900 workers made redundant in the automobile sector in France.
in writing. - (PT) In March 2007, France requested the mobilisation of the EGF in respect of the redundancies of 1 345 workers of Renault SA and 1 057 workers of Peugeot SA and their suppliers.
Owing to the budgetary restrictions on this fund (EUR 500 million a year), its restrictive eligibility criteria and the number of workers affected, the amount of the Community contribution awarded was EUR 3 816 280. Thus we can see that this comes to EUR 1 902 for each of the Renault-linked workers made redundant and EUR 1 190 for each of the Peugeot-linked workers made redundant.
The European Commission estimated that between 35 000 and 50 000 workers could benefit from this fund, but EU data indicate that the number of workers made redundant as a result of 'restructuring' is far in excess of half a million. The situation is all the more serious as most of these workers were made redundant as a result of 'restructuring' regarded as 'within' the EU, and therefore not covered by the fund's eligibility criteria.
What is in fact required is an end to the policy of liberalisation and maximising profit that is the cause of relocations and "restructuring”, and measures to preserve jobs.
The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund came into being in 2006 under the considerable influence of the defeat of the constitutional referendum in France. Right from the start the impression was created that this was a compensation formula, linked more to the exaggerated problem of the 'delocalisation' of jobs to new Member States than to the problem of globalisation. As such, the Fund is a response to the fears associated with the enlargement of the European Union, essentially reinforcing them and blocking the benefits arising from the uniting of Europe in 2004 for new and old Member States.
It is no surprise that we are starting with an application from France, linked to the difficulties experienced by Peugeot and Renault suppliers, for a sum of EUR 3.8 million. The application is properly grounded and has received full support from the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets.
I hope that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund will not become a method of typical rent-seeking, in other words an easy method of obtaining EU subsidies for businesses that are experiencing difficulties, allocated on the basis of criteria that are not very precise. Too many European companies are facing the problem of restructuring, in the name of competitiveness in the global economy, for a Fund with an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million to be able to meet all needs.
in writing. - I voted in favour of this report, which gives parliamentary support to the first ever distribution of funds from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which was established with strong PSE support to alleviate the effects of globalisation on workers.
in writing. - (PT) The decision to use the new European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the response to the request from the French Government is an opportunity that we should monitor carefully to check whether this fund does actually deliver the desired results.
According to what emerged from the debate held on the date it was set up, this fund aims to be an institutional reform for solidarity regarding the unforeseen and negative consequences of the globalisation process. Obviously, the free adjustment of the market will always be a better option than State or equivalent intervention. In any event, this fund exists in the context of the European Union and of the solutions that the majority of its Member States adopt for resolving social crises, so the challenge is to ensure firstly that the results of mobilising it are as expected and secondly that an intervention of this type does not send the wrong signals to the market, thereby unintentionally promoting solutions that eventually create even greater damage. Since I believe and hope that this will not be the case, I voted in favour of this report.
(DE) Mr President, I would like to thank my fellow Members for the result of the vote. This is based on the result of the report on the sustainable use of pesticides. We have voted out the top levels here. We have, however, focussed on training and information for users and salespeople alike. Only the expert and skilled handling of pesticides can ensure sustainability. The latest technology and the most up-to-date knowledge are being applied here, of course.
We support Integrated Pest Management. The Commission is calling for Integrated Pest Management to be made compulsory for agriculture as a whole by 2014. We need general standards for this. We cannot squeeze Integrated Pest Management into fixed criteria, certainly not throughout Europe.
Integrated Pest Management must always be developed flexibly. It requires the incitements of good technical practice and it needs drive - and that drive needs to be maintained. We must therefore discuss this once again here before second reading. We still have the opportunity, together with the Council and the Commission, to bring this to a good conclusion so that we in the European Union can continue to make pest management actually possible.
Mr President, I feel very disappointed that Parliament has not done more today on this pesticides package. On so many of the more radical and progressive issues, we could have gone very much further. But the one area that I want to focus on just now is the area of residents. They should be regarded as a specifically vulnerable group, an exposure group in their own right, and a small step has been taken today in order to do that, in the vote that we have just had in this Parliament.
People who live near schools where nearby fields are sprayed and people who work or live near sprayed fields have an enormously high exposure to pesticides. They are exposed, on a long-term basis, to mixtures or cocktails of pesticides that are sprayed in their locality throughout the year and, in many cases, for decades.
Until now there has not been any protection for residents as a specific exposure group. This is a major and serious public health issue, as farmers clearly cannot control pesticides once they are airborne, and studies have shown pesticides can travel in the air for miles. I wish we had gone further in terms of our ban on all aerial spraying.
There have been many reports over the decades of acute and chronic ill-health in rural areas. Our Parliament could have done much more in this vote today to protect people from cancers, from leukaemia, from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and a whole range of other diseases, and I am very disappointed indeed that we did not take up that option, which had been put forward in the Committee on the Environment. So many of those more positive measures have, sadly, been overturned by the other groups.
But I hope that people will look at the Parliament today and put pressure on their representatives so that, when we come back to a second reading, we can try and do better by the health of people. They expect us to do better. We should have done better, and I am very sorry the other groups did not support us today.
(HU) As a Member representing the Hungarian Democratic Forum (Magyar Demokrata Fórum - MDF), I will be using my vote to support both of these draft legislative texts providing for stricter regulations and greater control concerning the use of plant protection products. I believe that these provisions represent a milestone on the road towards safer and healthier food production.
Substances that pose a risk to health must be withdrawn, and the overall amount of pesticides we use must be reduced. In Hungary, for example, the amount of chemicals used is 15 times less than in the Netherlands, say, and yet while they existed the European Union's intervention stores were bursting at the seams with Hungarian maize. We therefore can and must move forward in the direction of producing fruit, vegetables and other foods using sustainable levels of plant protection. Where Member States wish to apply tougher provisions, they should continue to have the possibility of doing so. Thank you.
(CS) Commissioner, I, too, resent the fact that human health is exposed to risk, for example during aerial spraying, and that pesticide use is constantly increasing due to a growing resistance against plant protection.
There is no doubt that we need to modernise the rules on safe pesticide use in Europe. I regret however, that here in Parliament, through the Greens and left-wing Members, preference was given to populist proposals such as a ban on pesticide use either in full or at a local level. I consider that to be irresponsible. We are talking here about plant medicines and banning them would be equivalent to banning the use of drugs in human medicine. Both are of course poisonous if used improperly: hence we must devote our efforts to promoting standards and disseminating information, rather than adopting scientifically unfounded, indiscriminate and overly bureaucratic measures.
Ladies and gentlemen, by virtue of common sense I did not support the majority of your proposals in the package. As such I do not believe that the Klaß report as approved is very successful.
(PL) Mr President, I would like to say that I voted in favour of Mrs Klaß's report, and one reason why I did so was because this report makes reference to tightening up the proposals put forward by the European Commission. There is specific mention of national action plans in the context of a reduction in the frequency of application of pesticides by 25% over 5 years and by half - by 50% - over 10 years. It is very important for the European Parliament to be tougher on this matter and have a greener approach than the European Commission.
I would also like to emphasise strongly that my decision was influenced by the fact that in the report that was put to the vote there is a statement to the effect that all Member States will set up buffer zones to stop pesticides entering reservoirs and drinking water.
in writing. - (FR) As draftsman of the opinion on water quality, I saw that pesticides were implicated in the degradation of the environment, and particularly of surface and coastal waters, because they persist over time, can be transported over long distances, and constitute a diffuse form of pollution, which is difficult to locate resulting from runoffs, direct losses in the soil and the air, the washing of plants by the rain and so on. More generally, the current use of pesticides in our agriculture can have damaging consequences for our health. The Commission's legislative proposals on the use of pesticides, and procedures for authorisation and placing on the market were therefore very keenly awaited.
However, I find the targets inadequate and that is why, in Parliament's plenary, I unsuccessfully supported the position adopted by the Committee on the Environment asking for an EU target of a 25% reduction in the frequency of application of pesticides within 5 years and a 50% reduction within 10 years, and buffer zones of 10 metres between fields and water courses. I am particularly sorry that this is a first reading and that the text is likely to be watered down even more.
in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Klaß on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides because it pursues the objective of reducing the use of plant protection products and contributes to high safety standards for humans, animals and the environment.
However, I consider it essential for the possibility of aerial spraying to be maintained in situations where there is no viable alternative or where terrestrial application involves a greater hazard, although in Natura 2000 areas, in addition to the possibility of pesticides being banned, it should also be possible to restrict their use or minimise the risks involved, which presupposes a specific risk assessment.
When the 6th Environment Action Programme was adopted it was recognised that the impact of plant protection products on human health and the environment must be reduced, underlining the need to achieve a more sustainable use of pesticides and outlining a two-track approach with full implementation and appropriate revision of the relevant legal framework and developing a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.
Now, the rapporteur considers the title of the Commission proposal to be misleading. The aim of the proposal is to regulate a particular class of pesticides, namely pesticides in the form of plant protection products. Accordingly, the term 'pesticides' should be replaced by 'plant protection products' throughout the text of the Directive.
The Directive aims to reduce the risks associated with the use of plant protection products and on the environment and human health. However, measures designed with this in mind must be proportionate and it must not be forgotten that it should primarily be a matter for the Member States to help reduce the risks involved in the use of plant protection products by means of national action plans. This is the only way in which the differing conditions and situations at local level can be taken into account.
in writing. - (FR) I systematically voted against the whole plant protection package to signal my opposition to a dossier that was not yet ready for the plenary session. Confronting 700 MEPs with 300 - 400 amendments, to be voted on in 3 or 4 instalments, is simply unworthy of a legislator. We might just as well organise a lottery. That the legislator wants to combat pesticide abuse seems laudable. However, organising a system that is so bureaucratic as to be inefficient stems from poor legislation. Anyway, if we want to feed a constantly increasing population the Earth cannot do without plant protection products.
Today, the European Parliament refused to accede to calls by environmental fundamentalists for unworkable rules on the sustainable use of pesticides. The main bone of contention was the proposal by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to ban the use of pesticides within 10 metres of water bodies. This would have disastrous consequences for administrators of public spaces and recreational areas such as golf courses in countries such as the Netherlands where much of their surface is covered by water.
The outcome of the vote is a compromise between environmental protection and workable rules for authorities and entrepreneurs. We have a collective responsibility for precluding risks, and it is indeed true that in the use of pesticides, 'the fewer the better', but the rules must be realistic and workable. If alternatives are available, they must be used, but it is wishful thinking to ban all uses of pesticides by law and think that this will be without consequences for our economy and society.
in writing. - I voted for this report as amended, which developed a reasonable compromise between preserving public safety by restricting the use of pesticides, and protecting the ability of land based industries to enhance crop production. The precautionary principle at the heart of the approach is one I strongly support.
This lunchtime, the European Parliament has overall delivered a message that responds to the concerns of citizens in favour of agriculture being less dependent on pesticides, sustainable and taking account of the health of farmers and other users.
One step forward is the health protection section, which was totally absent from the 1991 regulation and is now clearly affirmed through recognition of the substitution principle (as for REACH, aimed at encouraging the use of less or non-chemical alternatives), the priority given to the protection of the most vulnerable populations and the prohibition in principle on aerial spraying.
It was essential to plug a legal loophole regarding the phase of use by professionals and private individuals. This will be achieved with the framework directive, which takes account of new habits and fashions in gardening: pesticides have even got into our homes and gardens!
One major regret, though, is the rejection in the Klaß report of the new approach by the Commission - known as Integrated Pest Management - which consists of allowing the use of all available agricultural techniques while giving priority to environmentally-friendly ones. I am sticking to my guns: integrated production is common sense applied to the agriculture of the 21st century.
in writing. - (DE) The proposed Directive establishing a framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides is important, since alarming quantities of certain pesticides are still being found despite the existing framework regulations on soil, air and water. Evidence beyond the existing regulations also gives cause for concern in arable crops and requires a political initiative. National action plans with concrete objectives for reducing the risks and dependencies associated with pesticides are crucial here. It is extremely regrettable that in plenary we have not followed up the amendment with the objective of reducing alarming toxic and highly toxic substances by 50% by 2013 and reducing the use of pesticides by 20% in the next 10 years. This would have been an important political signal even in the given situation.
The key to the sustainable use of plant protection products is rational risk limitation. We should achieve this aim by putting into effect the principles of the Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides.
Each country will be obliged to draw up its own plan following the guidelines defined in the Directive. Each country should do so taking due account of local determinants and respecting any differences.
The principal difference between us is the level of agricultural development. The countries that are among the new EU Member States often have enormous deficits to make up, especially as regards the quality and health of the foodstuffs produced. A reduction in the use of pesticides in these countries compared with their current level of use will backfire on us consumers.
We also differ in our landscapes. In Poland, vast stretches of woodland may only be protected against pests by treatment applied from the air. It is our duty to the natural environment to protect the forests, while Parliament's task is to define the principles for the safe use of products that protect the natural environment.
The Directive has much to say about the education of farmers being the most important way of implementing the sustainable use of pesticides. It is parliament's task to Support education and create the conditions whereby it will reach every farmer.
The Directive's guidelines should encourage both the Member States and farmers, rather than put them off.
in writing. - (DE) I am voting against the report because there is no longer a clear line between the various amendments, which I consider important. Pest management serves people and plant health and is not a warning sign for policy that has no scientific basis.
(DE) Mr President, I believe we should be striving towards public health and consumer protection and I should like to offer my full support for these positions too. There is simply no sense in us introducing impractical solutions and creating situations in which food production is no longer possible with approved funds. For this reason I am convinced that the Breyer report cannot endure in this form and that we should amend it in this regard. I have voted against it and am of the opinion and am glad that a much more sensible and practical solution has been found in the Klaß report and therefore in the action plans, for which I was the rapporteur in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. For this reason I hope that we are also able to improve the Breyer report considerably at second reading, because we must improve it.
(SV) A mixed message is being sent today. I think the most bizarre part today was Mr Heaton-Harris's attack, which claimed that voluntary groups are trying to influence Parliament. The big thing that has happened is that Parliament's position has been weakened as a result of extensive lobbying by lobbyists in the pay of industry, which puts its interest in selling more pesticides ahead of protecting public health and consumers. Fortunately they have not been entirely successful. We still have the pesticide passport, which gives consumers a reasonable opportunity to see what they are swallowing by asking their dealers. This protection is important and we must fight for it when we negotiate with the Council. However, Parliament did not protect residents as the Environment Committee wanted. They have worse protection and receive worse information than the committee wanted. This must be rectified in other readings. In my view we cannot continue authorising the most dangerous chemicals at the present level. Parliament has now avoided general reduction targets for all pesticides, which is unfortunate.
However, I would like to say that we in the Green Group have now got through a report which can essentially be used for good negotiations with the Council, but there the name becomes a little silly. Just like calling the constitution a reform treaty, it is remarkable that Parliament is dubbing pesticides plant protection products. If all plant protection products were concerned, we could just as easily include fences in the legislation because they offer protection against roe deer. This shows how absurd plant protection products is as a name.
in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Breyer on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market as it will help to ensure high safety standards for humans, animals and the environment by establishing strict but simplified procedures, and by rationalising resources.
The adopted report abides by the principle of subsidiarity, so that Member States can take account of specific national conditions, especially plant health and climate conditions, and appropriate risk-reduction measures can be adopted.
in writing. - (PT) This proposal should be in line with the reasons behind the 6th Environment Action Programme with the aim of applying current knowledge of prospective and retrospective strategies for assessing the risks and dangers to humans and the environment and to create coherency with other policies.
Thus, also in line with the Thematic Strategy for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, the Regulation must guarantee a high level of protection for human health and the environment, giving precedence to the precautionary principle, but the measures must be proportionate and take account of the principle of subsidiarity.
Links to other policies should be brought out more clearly. For instance, the regulation should not run counter to the aims and quality standards of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and its daughter directives. This must be ensured by regular checks.
Each Member State should retain the option of going beyond the Community standard in its fundamental standard of protection or of making decisions in product licensing in order to implement established objectives of national pesticide action plans, health programmes or environmental protection measures, based on specific national conditions.
in writing. - I voted for this report and am pleased that it combines the sustainable use of pesticides with effective health and environmental protection.
in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, despite voting in favour of the Breyer report as a whole, I considered it expedient to support a few amendments designed to modify the original draft. It is essential that we break up the monopoly of large multinationals in the field of data sharing and access, and open up the sector to increased and fairer competition. On the other hand, this sector is affected by geographical and environmental differences, which must be given due consideration.
What we need is greater flexibility in terms of mutual recognition and comparative evaluation of substances. Currently in fact, small and medium-sized enterprises, which mainly produce co-formulants, are denied room for manoeuvre precisely because of the excessive power of the major industrial groups - and not just in data management and exchange either. European legislation must absolutely take into account and support their requests to prevent their slow but inexorable disappearance from the market.
in writing. - (FR) Historically used to protect plants against various parasites, pesticides have transformed agriculture considerably. Nevertheless, today we are seeing that the massive use of these pesticides in agricultural and non-agricultural environments has a damaging effect on the environment (pollution of water, air, soil, etc.) and also on health (development of some cancers, fertility problems).
In view of this, the EU has decided to modify its legislation with a view to encouraging a reduction in the use of pesticides. Within the framework particularly of the Breyer report concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and the sustainable use of pesticides, I voted in favour of setting up strict criteria for all toxic substances (neurotoxic, bioaccumulative, carcinogenic, etc.) Similarly, out of consistency with France's National Pesticide Plan and REACH, I also supported a 50% reduction by 2013 in the use of extremely worrying pesticides and the replacement of the most dangerous substances with safer substitutes (including non-chemical products). Finally, in conformity with the spirit of the national debate in France on the environment, I voted in favour of a tax on pesticides to encourage our farmers to reduce their use of treatment products.
in writing. - (DE) Yesterday I was not able to make use of my speaking time. The vote in the Committee on Climate Change on the Hassi report, which forms the basis for the European Parliament's position for the UN Climate Change Conference, was taking place at the same time. The European Union's new policy on the use of pesticides is an important step towards better health and environmental protection. Of particular importance in the result of today's vote is Parliament's clear position against the three-zone model proposed by the Commission. The proposed system is misleading and would grossly contradict the aim of the sustainable use of pesticides.
in writing. - (DE) I am voting against the report because it has not been drawn up according to strictly scientific criteria and because I regard the zone model - in whatever version - as meaningless. Only single authorisation makes sense in a common economic area. I am hoping for a considerable improvement at second reading.
in writing. - There is no doubt that, despite current legislation to reduce pesticides, excessive amounts of pesticides exist in our air, water and food supply, affecting our health and the environment.
Today however, while my colleagues and I voted clearly for a reduction in pesticides in our day-to-day lives, it is important that we acknowledge the practical reality of the needs of farmers and fruitgrowers, particularly in this climate of rising food prices. We cannot legislate in the abstract! I have voted for a practical and balanced approach and voted against extreme amendments that would reduce our food supply, making farming ridiculously burdensome and impractical. Let us not forget that farmers are environmentalists by nature! Instead of a pesticide ban, the Member States will look at training and information campaigns and Best Practice and Integrated Pest Management which will benefit us as citizens, consumers and farmers.
I have voted in favour of realistic targets for Member States while acknowledging the diverse nature of 27 Member States. With regard to use, risk has to be the central factor, taking hazard and exposure into consideration.
in writing. - (FR) As regards the reports on the placing of plant protection products on the market and the sustainable use of pesticides, I followed the very responsible line of my political group.
Products classified CMR1, which are scientifically proven to harm human and animal health, should no longer be authorised.
The obligation to inform all neighbours before spraying would only cause mass hysteria, leaving aside the fact that it would bring with it an enormous amount of counterproductive bureaucracy, which becomes obsolete anyway with the removal of CMR1 products from the market.
I am of the opinion that the principle of subsidiarity should be used regarding buffer zones not to be treated, to prevent additional constraints being applied to agricultural production.
I am against the creation of a special tax on authorised products because this will lead to a completely unnecessary increase in the cost of agricultural production.
I am of course against the ban on spreading plant protection products by helicopter. It is unacceptable to ban this method which is the only viable method in certain regions where, for instance, vines are grown on hillsides.
I am delighted that my amendments relating to the unacceptable effects of plant protection products that could, among other things, have a negative impact on the behaviour of certain species such as bees and that could even lead to the extinction of these species, have been taken into consideration.
in writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the Klaß and Breyer reports on the use of pesticides because they signal progress towards better consideration of the impact on the environment and health of the use of plant protection products. In particular I welcome the adoption of the socialist proposal to prohibit the use of pesticides in residential or sensitive areas. I am also delighted by the adoption of our proposals on the systematic promotion of non-chemical techniques. However, I am sorry that the European right has opposed the introduction of targets for reducing the use of these products. There are many examples demonstrating that reduction is possible, and a gradual reduction strategy could have been introduced without endangering the industry and jobs. Once again, the right has given preference to profits... However, small steps count, and these reports are a step in the right direction towards the sustainable agriculture of tomorrow and a healthier environment for our children.


3. Qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection (


Statement by the President (Zimbabwe)
Ladies and gentlemen, I make this statement on Zimbabwe at the unanimous request of the chairmen of the groups. This is a very serious matter. Over recent weeks, there has been a further escalation in the political situation in that country, with violent acts committed by the forces under government control. On 11 March, a meeting in a suburb of the capital, Harare, was broken up by armed police and, in the course of this, Gift Tandare, a member of the opposition, was shot dead, while numerous demonstrators were injured. Forty leading opposition politicians, among them Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara - the leaders of the principal opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) - were arrested and mistreated while in police custody. On 18 March, an opposition member of the country's parliament, Nelson Chamisa, was beaten up, and ended up in hospital with serious injuries. He had been on his way to meetings of the committees of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. This assault earned condemnation from the Bureau of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, and in this they were supported by the Assembly's African members. The Bureau called on the Zimbabwean Government to put a stop to the violence in the country and to respect human rights and the rule of law.
Ladies and gentlemen, we firmly condemn each and every act of violence and oppression committed by President Mugabe's Government. The Council and the Commission should work together with all the international, regional and national forces concerned to put in place a solution, in the shape of a transition from the present regime to a real democracy.
(Applause)
Mr President, I wanted to tell the House that one hour ago Morgan Tsvangirai was again arrested by the police and security forces in Harare. He and his staff were about to have a news conference to discuss the events which you described in your speech.
I would therefore like this House to condemn that re-arrest of Morgan Tsvangirai and to say that the brutality against the opposition has to stop. The Southern African Development Community has to react at its meeting in Tanzania this week.
(Applause)


Resumption of the session
Ogłaszam wznowienie sesji Parlamentu Europejskiego przerwanej w czwartek 13 października 2011 r.