Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (debate)
The next item is the report by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement - C7-0162/2010 -.
Commissioner, I would also like to send my regards to your excellent team. Ladies and gentlemen, Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 lists the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the Union's external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.
The proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 that we are discussing today has three objectives: transferring Taiwan to the positive list, transferring other third countries or territories - Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau - to the positive list and the situation of the Northern Mariana Islands.
The situation of the Northern Mariana Islands does not pose any problems, as its inhabitants are, as you are aware, US citizens.
With regard to the requests to transfer the third countries that I listed, the Commission finds no justification for removing the visa requirement, and neither do we.
In the case of Taiwan, this Asian island has experienced commendable democratic, social and economic development. Democratic institutions have been firmly established since 1996, when the first direct presidential elections were held. The President is the Head of the Government, and is elected by the people of Taiwan via universal suffrage for a four-year term. Legislative power currently lies with the Legislative Yuan, which has 113 members.
Economically, Taiwan's income per head of population is one of the highest in the world at USD 30 100, in July 2010, unemployment stood at 5.2%, way below the European average, which was 10.1% in the same month. During the first quarter of 2010, economic growth hit 13.27%, whilst during the first half of 2010, the balance of trade surplus stood at USD 12.1 billion. Figures published by the International Monetary Fund in 2009 placed Taiwan's economy 25th in the world, with a gross national product of USD 379 billion. It should be pointed out that in 1950, Taiwan was poorer than Ghana, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Until 1960, it was more reliant on commodities exports than countries like Kenya, South Africa and Lebanon. Today, however, products manufactured in Taiwan account for more than 97% of the country's exports.
All this has meant that Taiwan's net migration rate stands at just 0.15%. For this reason, it is very unlikely that we will have to deal with any illegal immigrants from Taiwan. According to data supplied by the Commission, in 2006-2008, only 45 illegal immigrants throughout the entire European Union were found to have come from Taiwan.
As far as the security of travel documents is concerned, I would like to point out that Taiwanese electronic passports meet all the anti-counterfeiting standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
The situation of dispersed Taiwanese should be looked at closely, as even if they have passports issued by the authorities, they need prior authorisation to enter Taiwan. For this reason, it would seem logical for the European Union to maintain a similar approach regarding those people, as my report proposes.
Currently, Taiwan does not require visas from the majority of the Member States, except for Cyprus, Romania and Bulgaria. The Taiwanese authorities have nevertheless undertaken to ensure that a visa waiver is in place for nationals of those countries by 11 November, in other words, tomorrow. This is a formal commitment of which the Presidency of the Council, the European Commission and Parliament have been notified, along with the permanent representations of the countries concerned.
For this reason, Mr President, and for other reasons which I shall mention in my second speech, it is worth us granting the visa exemption to Taiwan, as the United Kingdom and Ireland did last year.
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. - Mr President, I welcome Mr Díaz de Mera's report. After decades of tension, the political climate between the present Taiwanese Government and the People's Republic of China is positive. There are direct flights between the two and an economic cooperation framework agreement is already in force.
Relations between Taiwan and the European Union are also experiencing a positive trend: trade turnover and academic and business exchanges are high. Education, democratic governance and income in Taiwan are at the level of Japan and South Korea. Based on this and other positive trends, the AFET Committee supports Mr Díaz de Mera's report in favour of lifting the visa requirement for Taiwan. As the report says, we expect that, before the measures enter into force, Taiwan will lift the visa requirement for all 27 Member States as well. It should be recalled that visa regimes - and any consular or private law regimes - do not prejudice any position on the status of territories under public international law.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the proposal to transfer Taiwan to the positive visa list was adopted by the Commission on 5 July this year. Taiwan is, as we all know, a well-developed and stable democracy. It meets all the necessary technical requirements.
The proposal is a result of a periodic review of the visa list and based on suggestions coming from Member States. The Commission assesses a variety of conditions: irregular migration, public policy, public security, reciprocity, regional coherence and the external relations of the European Union.
We need to reinforce regional coherence in south-eastern Asia. Other similar developed third countries, such as Hong Kong, Macao, Japan, South Korea and Singapore, are already visa-free. In addition, a process has unarguably been set in motion regarding relations between Taiwan and mainland China, which is also proven by the establishment of direct flights and the conclusion of an economic cooperation framework agreement between them.
As was said by the rapporteur and Mr Kovatchev, the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and South Korea have already granted visa-free travel to Taiwanese citizens, and Canada is currently in the process of exempting Taiwan from the visa obligation.
Any visa waiver granted to the citizens of Taiwan should, of course, be reciprocated. Taiwan has progressively eliminated visa requirements for nationals of a large majority of EU Member States, and has committed itself to granting a full visa regime for all EU citizens. Romanian, Bulgarian and Cypriot citizens will be free to travel to Taiwan without a visa as from 11 November - which is tomorrow, so you can book your tickets!
Furthermore, Taiwan will extend the allowed period for EU citizens to remain in Taiwan to 90 days on the entry into force of the EU visa waiver. The proposal also covers the deletion of the Northern Mariana Islands from the negative list, since the territory forms part of the US.
Visa freedom and visa liberalisation is a great way of bringing people together, closer to each other: students, researchers, ordinary people, the business community, researchers and others. This is a very important decision that we are about to take. Procedurally, this is codecision - as you know - but I am glad to inform you that the Council members have already expressed their very broad support for this. As I understand, and thanks to the work of the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera, and the shadow rapporteurs, there is also very strong support in this Parliament so I hope there will be a good vote tomorrow.
There was only one amendment to the Commission proposal, proposed both in the Council and in the European Parliament, aiming to exclude the 60 000 so-called Overseas Taiwanese nationals. The rapporteur and Member States in the Council were of the view that these people need prior authorisation from Taiwan to enter their own country. Therefore, it would be a logical and reasonable step for the EU to exclude this category from the visa waiver. The Commission accepts this amendment.
I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent support and cooperation on this file. I am sure that the full reciprocal visa waiver will give a boost to the very good relations between the EU and Taiwan in various sectors, such as tourism and trade, and benefit all parties.
Mr President, firstly, I, too, must take my turn in congratulating the rapporteur and all my fellow Members who worked on this report. They really did a magnificent job.
The exemption from visa requirements for Taiwan nationals is, of course, a move in the right direction. Firstly, that we have overcome the legal obstacle, in terms of the fact that not all the Member States recognise Taiwan, is a positive result. Secondly, there is the fact that, on the basis of - one aspect of - mutual recognition, citizens of the Member States of the European Union will not be subject in future to visa requirements on entering Taiwan, in other words, this is like what we do for the 27 Member States and, thirdly, any negative impact on relations between the European Union and China has been avoided.
At this point, I should like, if I may, to make a more general comment: we all recently witnessed terrorist action, with parcel bombs being sent from Greece to embassies in various cities in the European Union and from Yemen to various Member States. Of course, we all felt that our safety was being threatened everywhere in every way.
So when our fellow citizens in Europe learn that the European Union is making it easier for citizens from third countries, such as Taiwan and other countries we recently approved, to enter the European Union, they logically wonder if that is putting their safety at greater risk.
Therefore, our response to this needs to be that, whenever we take a decision like this, we have already assessed all these parameters. We know full well that we have the mechanisms to deal with any problem and to safeguard our fellow citizens. That is precisely why we have taken this decision. We have information exchange systems and the facilities to deal with any problems.
I should like to conclude, therefore, by saying that we are fortunate to have taken this decision and that, under no circumstances, have we compromised the safety of our fellow citizens throughout Europe.
I would, first of all, like to thank the rapporteur for the excellent job he has done. Taiwan can be considered a success story. I have just returned from a visit to this island which has already entered into several cooperation agreements with the European Union. The EU-27 is the largest investor in Taiwan's rapidly growing economy - this year, economic growth is projected to reach nearly nine per cent and unemployment is less than six per cent.
Waiving the visa requirement for Taiwan will strengthen economic and political relations with the Union, increase investment and allow mobility for young people and students, in particular. As we have heard, China remains the biggest threat to Taiwan, but in recent years, its relations with China have warmed, especially in the economic field. Internationally, Taiwan is not generally recognised as a country. It has not even been recognised by the EU, although citizens of 24 EU Member States are today already able to travel to this island without a visa, and in the near future, Taiwan will waive visas for Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus, too.
The Taiwanese Government has taken a series of important passport security measures, which we were able to see for ourselves whilst visiting the office that issues documents. The authorities have no problems with illegal immigration or illegal trade in human beings or goods. There is no organised crime in the cities and people are generally happy with their lives.
During the last year, the European Union has waived visas for five countries of the Western Balkans. On Monday this week, ministers adopted an important decision for Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is a very important message, especially for the countries knocking on the EU's door, that they have a clear European future. Freedom to travel is a fundamental human right and I firmly believe that is the only right course of action, as Taiwan does not pose a threat to the EU. I therefore call on you, ladies and gentlemen, to strongly support the visa waiver tomorrow and enable the people of Taiwan to travel freely.
Mr President, today we have a list of the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing our external borders. There is another list containing those nationals who are exempt from that requirement. These lists must, of course, be reviewed regularly and amended depending on the situation in the respective countries. Earlier in the autumn, we abolished the visa requirement for the people of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We will soon be voting on the abolition of the visa requirement for Taiwan, too - a country that has gone through a comprehensive process of democratisation. Institutional reforms, a dynamic civil society and greater respect for civil liberties and citizens' rights have resulted in increased stability, including political stability, in Taiwan. Moreover, we do not, of course, have a visa requirement for other countries in the region, so this is also an element in the establishment of greater regional consistency. Taiwan does not pose a threat to the EU in any way and the abolition of the visa requirement will benefit trade relations with the EU and will also promote closer cooperation with regard to culture and research - important areas for all of us.
For many years, politicians from Taiwan have had problems travelling to Europe, even as private individuals, because in the countries of Europe, people were afraid to get on the wrong side of China or to end up in a political conflict. Things are different now, and I hope that the agreement we are about to conclude will facilitate and improve political relations between the politicians here in the EU and in Taiwan, and will also lead to Taiwan's deeper involvement in the international community, on various levels. However, we also stand to gain from an ideological point of view.
Europe stands for openness, a welcoming spirit and inclusivity. Mutual trust involves keeping the doors between our countries open and this will be beneficial and lead to cooperation and, above all, to more pleasant relations between our countries. This is something that I welcome with all my heart ahead of this important vote that we are to hold very soon here in the European Parliament.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, Commissioner Malmström was, of course, herself a good friend of Taiwan in her MEP days. I am now the President of the Taiwanese Friendship Group in this Parliament. I am, of course, delighted on behalf of our group to welcome the fact that Taiwanese citizens will soon be able to enter the Schengen zone without needing a visa - also known in EU jargon terms as a visa liberalisation for Taiwan.
My country, the UK, and Ireland - both of which are of course outside Schengen - gave Taiwanese citizens visa-free privileges a year and a half ago. I can safely say that our experience in Britain, particularly in terms of boosting tourism and bone fide business travel since then, fully indicates that this decision was a good one.
Taiwan is a thriving, wealthy and modern democracy that shares our values of supporting human rights, peace, security and prosperity in the region. We can only benefit from facilitating closer business ties with Taiwan, whose economy is growing again and going from strength to strength, and is increasingly a springboard for European investments into China. Europe, of course, is also rapidly catching up with America as a destination of choice for Taiwanese university students and graduates wanting to do research. Again, the benefits of these exchanges are substantial in every possible sense. This is an important sign of our support and solidarity with Taiwan which, under President Ma's inspired leadership, has sought pragmatic solutions to the international isolation imposed on it by the People's Republic of China.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I should like to express my sincere and earnest thanks to the rapporteur, whose skills and rigour have been put to good use in guaranteeing Member States that granting free passage to Taiwanese nationals and abolishing visas will not cause problems for the European Union.
I am not so convinced about the latest work regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania. Now there is even talk of abolishing visas for Turkey. In those situations, I am not convinced that the Commission and Parliament have done their job well, namely: ensuring the safety of European citizens. Therefore, I applaud the report and the vote in the European Parliament - which will surely be positive - all the more.
History is not impermanent. People of a certain age remember what it was that what was once called Nationalist China represented for decades: it was a banner of freedom. The West must not forget who defended the principles of liberty when they were under threat elsewhere. Still now, in terms of human rights, I think a basic distinction must be made.
The Chinese of Taiwan are therefore also welcome in my home region of Padania. The presence of such important and skilled individuals in the region already provides ample illustration of the ability of Taiwanese people to integrate into our society. Unlike other countries, Taiwan also has the merit of not exporting socio-political messages against the principles of liberty, the protection of human rights and respect for ethnic and religious minorities to the European Union together with its goods. The citizens of Taiwan are therefore welcome in the European Union and in Padania.
(HU) Thank you for the floor, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, it can be stated that the visa system is an effective means for the successful prevention of illegal entry to or illegal stay in European Union Member States. When we decide which third country's citizens should be subject to visa requirements, the situation of each country must be examined individually, taking into account illegal immigration, public order and security issues, as well as the EU's external relations, regional consistency and, naturally, the principle of reciprocity.
The assessment mechanism must work in such a way as to ensure that visa requirements are immediately reinstated for all countries which backtrack on the aforementioned criteria or which introduce visa requirements for the nationals of one or more Member States. Unfortunately, practice has shown that the consequences of the removal of visa restrictions in terms of immigration and security always have to be dealt with subsequently by the Member States themselves. In my view, this is a matter of security policy and not some kind of gift to be simply handed over to applicant countries. It is precisely for this reason that I believe that security guarantees should be requested from all countries before they are given the green light for their citizens to enter the territory of the European Union without a visa.
(HU) I, too, would like to welcome the fact that the issue of the visa waiver for Taiwan has been placed on Parliament's agenda. I believe that we are paying off our debts. Partners of the European Union of similar importance have already been granted exemption from the visa requirement and now enjoy visa-free travel. Taiwan is the European Union's fourth most important trading partner in Asia and trade in the other direction is of almost equal importance for Taiwan and the European Union. We expect that lifting visa restrictions will further strengthen these relations which are already very intense. We know that relations are close not only where the economy and trade are concerned, but also in the fields of research, technological development, education and culture, and we can expect visa freedom to strengthen these areas as well.
The condition we stated, that all 27 Member States of the European Union should enjoy visa exemption, will become a reality this year when visa requirements are lifted for Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania, and I believe this is of great importance. I, too, should like to emphasise that the changes that have occurred in Taiwan over the last 50 to 60 years are very important. Taiwan has built a democratic institutional system and has transformed itself from a poor country into an economically strong country, so there is no need to fear, as many have mentioned, that the visa waiver would mean any kind of migratory pressure. On the contrary, we should have positive expectations in this respect.
Mr President, I fully support what has been said by our rapporteurs, Mr Díaz de Mera and Mr Kovatchev. Taiwan is a developed country with high technical and administrative standards. It certainly meets the highest standards of safety and security for control and customs procedures. I would therefore like to urge our colleagues to go ahead with the proposal to grant Taiwan its long overdue visa waiver status.
Taiwan is also a member of the World Trade Organisation as a single customs territory. We should not stop here - we should encourage Taiwan's accession to other international organisations as well, such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation or the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Taiwan is a country that deserves such recognition, as it is an important partner of the European Union in the East Asian region. Ties are set to grow, to the advantage of both parties.
We need to look forward to the intensification of ties with Taiwan in the future. One of the possible developments that we should consider is the negotiation of a more comprehensive trade regime with Taiwan, especially now that it has signed the milestone Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement. If we move in this direction, the visa-free regime is an essential element in deepening relations between the EU and Taiwan.
(RO) First of all, I want to congratulate Mr Díaz de Mera for the report he has compiled. I am sure that it will probably be voted for unanimously tomorrow.
However, I would like to talk about how the Commission understands it is going to support the principle of reciprocity in the European Union's relation with third countries. Taiwan is going to enjoy a visa waiver for the whole of the European Union and lift the visa requirement as well for Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus. This is a positive move. On the other hand, the United States, which enjoys a complete visa waiver for the whole of the European Union, refuses to grant reciprocity for Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Cyprus. In addition, an entrance fee has even been introduced for all EU citizens, which is actually a hidden visa.
Based on the principle of reciprocity and solidarity among Member States, the Commission must shift from a passive stance of accepting a fait accompli to adopting an active role in this process of establishing full reciprocity regarding the visa waiver for all Member States. As long as the negotiation of visa treaties comes under the exclusive remit of the European Union and not Member States, the Commission must take every measure possible to resolve these situations.
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, it is clear that there is a consensus in the Chamber and that the report will, in fact, be adopted, probably tomorrow. The vote in favour may not be unanimous, but the report will be adopted by an overwhelming majority of votes and with the support of all the political groups. I do not want to repeat all the arguments which have been advanced by the rapporteur and the Commissioner. Taiwan does, indeed, meet all the conditions, both economic and political, for cooperation to be strengthened and for lifting of the visa requirement to be helpful in this. I think we are obliged to do this, because Taiwan has shown that a liberal democracy is possible everywhere, in every cultural setting, and that the transformation which has taken place there has been successful, and I think we should support it.
Finally, there is another reason, apart from the economic ones. There is the reason to which Mr Borghezio has referred - the political reason - which I am not, now, going to explain, but we all understand, too, that it is an important reason and that on this matter, we should support our friends from Taiwan.
(DE) Mr President, Taiwan is on the positive list. In other words, the people of Taiwan are permitted to travel to the European Union without a visa. I am pleased for these people. However, politics is a question of give and take. I would have liked Taiwan, in return, to immediately grant visa-free entry to all citizens of the European Union, too. As yet, however, that has not happened. Taiwan has merely declared its intention to implement this by the end of the year. I hope that this declaration of intent will also be followed by action. For the rest, I have confidence in our rapporteur, who has raised the prospect of this, and I will vote in favour of this motion as a whole. As I said, I hope that Taiwan will also resolve the problems and thereby also allow all EU citizens to travel to Taiwan without the need for a visa.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to once again thank the rapporteur and the plenary for their support for putting Taiwan on the positive list. I can reassure Members who still had some questions that the Commission's methodology for examining countries - including Taiwan - is always very thorough, making sure that all the criteria are fulfilled there before we make such a proposal. As always, this has been done very thoroughly.
I would also like to confirm to the last speaker that the visa requirement will be lifted for the last, remaining countries tomorrow. From tomorrow, visa liberalisation will come into effect for the remaining countries, so that there is full reciprocity. I think that, after the vote tomorrow, we will be very strong and will also send a strong message. We can all rejoice and hope for even better relations between the people of Taiwan and the people of the European Union. Thank you very much for a very good debate.
Mr President, noblesse oblige, so I would like to start by saying that I am infinitely grateful for the support that all fellow Members representing their political groups have given to the report that I have had the honour to present to the House. I would also like to thank you for supporting my work.
It would not, however, be fair if I did not say that the person mainly responsible is Commissioner Malmström, whose support, energy and excellent team have made it possible to drive forward this action, which I would describe as an act of justice.
There is nothing more to be said, Mr President, except to add that I would also like to congratulate the people of Taiwan, the Taiwanese authorities and, of course, the excellent team of diplomats that Taiwan has in the world, particularly in Brussels.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 11 November 2010, at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)


10. Quality required of shellfish waters (codified version) (vote)


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 09:05)


Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation (debate)
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Commission on the protection of consumer interests in competition rules for the motor vehicle sector in the internal market, by Malcolm Harbour, Andreas Schwab, Evelyne Gebhardt, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Adam Bielan, Heide Rühle and Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (O-0044/201 - B7-0209/2010); and
the oral question to the Commission on the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation, by Sharon Bowles, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs - B7-0210/2010).
deputising for the author. - Mr President, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has put forward this question because it has followed with interest the review procedure of the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation, and some careful thinking has to be done.
As you know, block exemption regulations are very important instruments to the business community. This Regulation was adopted in 2002. At that time the Commission considered that there was an oligopolistic situation in the European car market, the six largest manufacturers in Europe having together a market share of 75%. Against this background, the Commission considers that the motor vehicle sector should not be brought within the General Vertical Block Exemption Regulation, and therefore adopted a specific regulation.
This Regulation will expire on 31 May 2010. The Commission now considers that the markets for new vehicles sales are highly competitive and that concentration levels have been declining. As a consequence of this assessment, the Commission proposes that a specific block exemption is no longer needed for the sale of new cars and commercial vehicles. It proposes to adopt a special block exemption regulation only for repair and maintenance services, as well as for the spare-parts distribution.
Parliament is concerned about this reform. As you know, the EU is currently facing an exceptional financial and economic crisis, and unemployment rates are high. The European automotive industry is a key sector of the European economy, contributing to employment, innovation and the competitiveness of the whole economy. We believe that it is necessary to establish general conditions to make this sector sustainable and enable it to remain economically efficient and green.
There is also a need to ensure that the small and medium-sized players in this market enjoy favourable conditions. We cannot forget the importance of SMEs as job providers and as suppliers of proximity. However, several motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses have expressed serious concerns about the new regulatory framework, arguing that it will lead to a further deterioration of the power balance between manufacturers and the rest of the automotive value chain.
Therefore, Commissioner Almunia, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs would like to ask you, firstly: which results of market analysis led the Commission to conclude that the primary market is currently competitive and the after-sales market is still problematic?
Secondly, how does the Commission evaluate the balance of power between car manufacturers and car dealers under the current Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation, and under the proposed legislative framework? Are there players with a simple or collective dominant position?
Thirdly, how does the Commission intend to monitor the evolution of market power in the primary and after-sales markets? Which measure does the Commission envisage, should it appear that the competitive conditions, in particular in the primary market, have significantly worsened?
Fourthly, what is the expected impact of the new legislative framework on consumers, in particular as regards prices and conditions offered?
Fifthly, which comments received from stakeholders, namely during the consultation, does the Commission intend to incorporate in the final legislative framework?
Finally, does the Commission agree to consider proposing harmonising legislation in the area of distribution, for instance by amending the Commercial Agency Directive, in order to ensure that all dealers benefit from the same high level of contractual protection in every EU Member State?
author. - Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I am very pleased to be here this evening to present our aspect of the question, and I particularly want to thank our colleagues on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, who of course have leadership on competition issues, for working closely with us, because clearly this is an element of competition policy which also has fundamental interests for consumers, and we have been ensuring from our side that some of those consumer elements are very well represented.
First of all, I think that the elements of the Commission's proposal relating to the sales, service and repair market are very much aligned with the consumer interests which we have raised in our committee - not specifically on issues related to DG Competition, but for example particularly in the areas related to information on service and repair where we worked, in this instance, with the Environment Committee on the provisions concerning technical information linked to environmental standards for motor vehicles. I think that those elements, which have been reinforced in the new proposal, are extremely welcome as regards sustaining competition between independent repairers and market access for spare parts with equivalent quality markings: the opening up of that market is very welcome.
I think the one reservation which we would draw to your attention, which is contained in the resolution on which we will vote tomorrow, concerns the issues about the availability of information. We are not convinced - you may wish to convince us, but we are not convinced - that the guidelines you published are necessarily sufficiently strong or enforceable to ensure that this technical information is available, particularly because it will be possible for car manufacturers to make that information available in an electronic format, which, without appropriate software and searching capability, may not be so valuable to the service repairer as we would expect it to be.
Having said that, I now want to turn to the issue of sales, which we just heard eloquently addressed by the Vice-Chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. I think on sales we are much less convinced that the Commission has really taken on board the concerns of consumers. The Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee held a very important hearing where we heard from both dealers and consumer representatives about their very real concerns that the safeguards which have been put in place to ensure competition in the sales market, which were put there clearly in 2002 - many of them, I have to say, in response to concerns raised by this Parliament - have simply been swept away by what seems to us to be rather excessive zeal on your part to simplify issues and make life rather easier for you, as an administration, to deal with it.
There may be problems with that, but I would suggest to you - and I would like you to look at the evidence which was placed before us in our hearing - that dealers and consumers do have serious concerns about bringing automotive distribution straight away into the general block exemption. There were clear safeguards built in back in 2002 - not that long ago in the cycle of car distribution - to redress the balance of power between independent dealers and manufacturers. I think the dealers would say that this has actually worked rather well over that time. Indeed, if you look at what has happened in the marketplace, they would feel that that was the case.
Perhaps I might also remind you, Commissioner, because I think you were not around at the time, that there was a lot of lobbying by the car manufacturers that these provisions were excessive, but the dealers were in favour of them. What do we have now? We have the dealers saying to us: these provisions are too weak and the manufacturers saying: we like them very much.
I think you need to look at this. I am not saying that we should stop this process - I think it is the right thing to do now, given that we are now only a few days away from implementing these - but what we are saying to you in the resolution tomorrow is: please look at the up-to-date data, look at the information. I would also say that, within the Commission, Commissioner Barnier is about to produce a report about competition in the retail supply chain. The automotive sector should be part of that, and you need to look at that because we need some consistent policy from the Commission.
Secondly, the papers which I have seen from your services say: do you think this is a preparation for the new generation of green cars, electric vehicles, and low-emission vehicles? There is nothing in your analysis whatsoever that has picked up any of that.
We now have Mr Tajani's paper. Can I ask you, within the next year, to look at Mr Tajani's paper, look at Mr Barnier's paper and assure us that this is the right thing to do? I think that if you do that you will restore some credibility here, because I think that we remain unconvinced on that side about what you are planning to do.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the current Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation expires on 1 June this year, and we need to adopt a new regulation before that date. The College of Commissioners has placed this issue on the agenda of our meeting of 26 May.
The proposal that is now being discussed within our services and, in a few days, with our cabinets - preparing the collegial discussions - is the result of an in-depth analysis of the sector. The public consultation process started in June 2006. Three and a half years later, in December last year, the Commission published the draft block exemption and guidelines. Throughout this process, stakeholders, the European Parliament and the Member States have all been closely involved, and a lot of arguments have been taken into consideration. A number of debates, workshops and initiatives have also taken place, including here in Parliament. The latest took place on 12 April this year at the ECON Committee. What are the main conclusions of this long consultation process?
First, we learned something positive: that consumers in Europe enjoy vigorous competition in the car sales market. In our annual car price reports we have been reporting on 80 car models from around 25 manufacturers - and prices are not the only factor which tells us that competition is healthy. There is also more choice than there was 10 years ago, with more brands available for each type of car. In these circumstances it would be difficult to suggest that any carmaker would be able to exercise a dominant position, be it individually or collectively.
The current regimes contain sector-specific rules that made sense at that time (in 2002) when a wave of consolidation was expected in the vehicle sector. This consolidation period did not materialise, and instead what we have today is a very competitive market. By allowing more flexibility for the distribution of vehicles, the proposed changes will restore manufacturers' incentives to reduce the cost of selling cars. Allow me to recall that distribution costs make up, on average, 30% of the price of a new car. By reducing those costs, manufacturers will improve their competitive position, with resulting benefits for consumers.
I am perfectly aware that there are some concerns about proposed changes relating to multi-brand sales and contractual protection for dealers, and both of you have mentioned these concerns. Let me stress that multi-branding exists - and will continue to exist - where market reality calls for it. This is the case in countries with very large dealers that have the capacity to distribute several brands - for example in the UK - and it is also the case in sparsely-populated areas, where it makes economic sense for the dealers to sell different brands from the same site.
This was the reality before the current block exemption was adopted in 2002, and it remains the reality eight years later, but then, as now, single branding was the most common distribution model. What we have observed is that carmakers have increasingly resorted to other forms of distribution, including manufacturer-owned outlets.
The evolution of distribution in Germany, for instance, is symptomatic of this trend, with 67% of cars sold through dealer networks, as opposed to 90% before the Regulation came into effect in 2002. Nonetheless, we have responded to concerns expressed during the consultations, including the consultations that took place here in the Parliament, and a number of safeguards have been introduced with regard to multi-brand dealerships.
Let me also underline that we propose a transitional phase, during which the current regulation will be in force until the end of 2013 for the car distribution market, to allow sufficient time for dealers who invested in multi-branding to amortise their investments.
Concerning the reason why we are proposing to do away with clauses granting contractual protection to dealers, it is simply because competition law is not the appropriate instrument to address eventual imbalances between contractual parties. These issues, as was discussed when we were preparing Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, belong to the sphere of commercial law.
In a competitive market such as the car market, competition law should not interfere with the balance of powers between the different contracting parties. To do so would be intrusive. We have to be proportionate when we interfere in how markets work.
In the process of consultation we also learned some other, maybe less positive things: unlike car prices, the cost of the average repair job has actually risen over the past years. Repair and maintenance is very important for consumers: not only for reasons of safety and reliability, but also because repair bills account for 40% of the total cost of owning a car. Unfortunately, the ability of independent garages to compete with authorised repairers is still impaired by a number of restrictions, including limited access to spare parts and to technical information. Therefore, our reform intends to allow independent garages better access to spare parts and technical information and to prevent them from being shut out of the market by other, newer practices. This will result in better-quality repair services and lower prices.
To conclude, I strongly believe the new framework will be more favourable to consumers. Our main priority is to increase competition in the after-sales market - in repairs and servicing - where it is most lacking. Although vehicle manufacturers may be in a strong commercial position vis-à-vis dealers, they compete fiercely with each other, and today there is no need to deviate, to preserve competition on these kind of agreements, from the Block Exemption Regulation for Vertical Agreements, which was adopted recently by the Commission and will also come into force at the end of this month. Indeed, the Commission, and in particular my services, DG Competition, will monitor the sector very carefully, and there should be no doubt about the Commission's determination to enforce competition rules and take necessary steps if any serious breaches or shortcomings are identified.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have now heard a great deal. With this oral question and resolution we wanted to give car dealers and the small and medium-sized enterprises a voice, because the Commission has not paid sufficient attention to this voice in recent years. During the hearing, concerns and anxieties were expressed above all on the part of car dealers on account of unequal treatment in relation to manufacturers. Legal uncertainty was brought up, as was a reduction in competition as a result of problems experienced by small car dealers. However, we have not received a response.
I appeal to you - at one minute to 12 - to utilise the 21 days up to 26 May to incorporate the resolution to be adopted tomorrow by Parliament into your Regulation in order to meet car dealers half way without jeopardising the direction the Commission wishes to take. Please take Parliament and the concerns of the car dealers seriously and incorporate their concerns and those of the small and medium-sized enterprises into the Regulation.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (SV) Mr President, I should like to highlight four issues in this debate. Firstly, there is an unfortunate tendency to put small and large companies in the automobile industry up against each other. To a certain extent they have different interests, but what we primarily need to focus on is creating a system of regulations that enables them to work effectively together.
Secondly, it is a very positive sign that competition on the new-car market has improved over the last year. This is a good example of the fact that no market is impossible and that, in the long term, it is possible to achieve a great deal by means of measures to strengthen competition. Hopefully, we shall in future see an equally positive development on the after-sales market.
Thirdly, it is important for the Commission to very actively follow developments with regard to competition on the new-car market. This should be continually monitored. All interested parties should receive definitive information as early as possible regarding the rules that will apply from June 2013.
Fourthly, we ought to intensify our discussions on how we are going to go about switching to green, more environmentally friendly cars. It is an absolutely essential process. On one hand, competition rules will need to be flexible in relation to the subsidies needed to enable electric cars and other environmentally friendly alternatives to get established on the market and, on the other hand, the rules must ensure that environmentally friendly cars are not placed at a disadvantage in the retail sector or on the after-sales market.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the purchase and maintenance of a car is considered to be one of the most important costs for households. The very aim of competition policy is to ensure consumers' freedom of choice and access to products at lower and more affordable prices.
As a Member of this House, and consequently a representative of EU citizens who are also consumers in the car market, I am deeply concerned about the review of the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation and its impact on consumers. The Commission - and I listened very carefully and attentively to the arguments from the Commissioner - argues that this sector's specific regulation is no longer needed for the sales market, since there is evidence that the competition objectives have been achieved and a proper level of competition has been reached.
In principle I would not be against the removal of the specific sector block exemption if there were no risk for consumers. We should use the three-year transitional period to assess the impact of the decision to exclude sales from the motor vehicle block exemption regulation. There is an undeniable phenomenon of predominance of large car manufacturers. I would like to hear the views of the Commission on the ways to ensure that they will not take advantage of their market share, and limit the choice that consumers should have on their market.
I would also like to express my support for the proposal to maintain the specific block exemption for repair and maintenance, which proved to be less competitive than the sales market. My concern regarding the after-market is particularly related to those cases where consumers are unnecessarily tied to a specific operator for repairing their car. This can either be because independent repairers do not have proper access to the necessary technical information or because car manufacturers interpret warranty terms in an abusive way.
This is an unacceptable limitation of the choice consumers ought to have, and I expect the Commission to bring solutions to change this type of situation. I therefore invite the Commission to bring some clarification concerning the measures it intends to take in order to avoid this situation, which is detrimental to consumers.
Mr President, Mr Almunia, 80% of the components of every new car are manufactured by independent producers. On the other hand, the producers of the cars themselves have an enormous commercial advantage over the producers of components and independent service stations.
We must do everything, today, so that the European motor market does not start to resemble an oligopoly again. Our citizens must be guaranteed the right to choose both car parts and independent service stations. Guarantees of access to technical information are needed. We must take action to counter the abuse of guarantees by producers. Authorised service stations, too, must have the right to buy parts from independent producers, as well as the tools and equipment used in their workshops. Without a clearly defined guarantee in the new regulation, the right of choice for European clients, which is fundamental for the market, will continue to be a fiction.
(DE) Mr President, in the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, it is, of course, also important to protect small and medium-sized enterprises. Commissioner, competition is not an end in itself.
If we look at the situation of small dealerships and small workshops, we need to increase their economic ability to act, otherwise one day we will only have large dealerships and large workshop chains. This includes, firstly, genuine authorisation for multi-branding. It includes allowing workshops and dealerships to have unrestricted access to information on vehicles and repair options. Thirdly, it includes providing the necessary opportunities for gaining qualifications. We talked earlier about electromobility. They also need to be in a position to maintain electric cars. Fourthly, they need investment security, in other words contractual protection and no more revisions. They need to be able to make safe investments over a long period.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, let us talk about the reality of car dealers. Car dealers, in my country as in others, are worried about the glaring discrepancy between their scope for action and that of manufacturers. Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 reduced this discrepancy. Without it, the car distribution sector, which has already suffered as a result of the crisis, would face growing uncertainty as regards its investments and its commercial objectives.
The demands made on dealers by manufacturers will become quite simply unbearable and unmanageable for a large number of modest garage owners. In any case, Commissioner, it is not competition that is at stake here. Competition would increase between car manufacturers and not between dealers or between dealers and manufacturers. Local garage owners cannot pose a threat to free competition in Europe.
You talk about market domination, potential domination. Let us talk about it, then! This domination does not exist in the case of competing manufacturers. It does not exist in respect of other producers. It exists between car manufacturers and distributors, and that is a reality that has been proven throughout the European Union.
The Commission is adopting a scientific position based on large companies to deal with a huge number of minor players, who want only one thing: a bit of freedom and a bit of security in their dealings with car manufacturers, whose practices with regard to their dealers are becoming frankly appalling in some cases. It is David versus Goliath, except that, this time, the Commission seems to want to ensure that it is definitely Goliath who wins.
The position and the reasoning behind the abolition of the exemption regulation are misguided. They are wrong; they are aimed at the wrong people. Reducing the scope for action, legal certainty and willingness to invest of garage owners will not further the internal market, and it certainly will not further consumers' interests.
(RO) The automotive industry in the European Union, including both car manufacturers and car part manufacturers, must remain economically efficient and innovative.
Given that road safety is influenced by the competitive conditions in the automotive sector's spare parts market, we urge the Commission to promote efficient competition on the spare parts market so that prices for any type of spare part are affordable. Customers should be able to purchase a vehicle at competitive prices and choose the supplier they want to carry out the repair and maintenance services, no matter which distribution system is chosen by the supplier.
The forthcoming legislative framework should guarantee that SMEs in the automotive sector supply chain are able to enjoy favourable conditions and prevent any growing dependency on major manufacturers. In addition, the new provisions of the regulations concerning the general block exemption regime in the automotive sector should be extended and include the definition of end users in order to take into account leasing as well.
(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, it is very clear from previous speeches that Parliament is very worried specifically about the balance between car dealers and car manufacturers, which is also inevitably reflected in the services that consumers receive.
This balance needs to be evident in particular in small markets and sparsely populated areas, such as Finland and elsewhere in Scandinavia. For us, permitting the sales and purchases of multibrand dealerships takes priority and is the main prerequisite for guaranteeing that consumers have adequate access to the services of the automobile sector.
The population of Finland is five million, and around 100 000 cars will be sold this year. That probably sounds a ridiculously tiny number, and that is why it is extremely important that these changes do not in any way jeopardise multibranding.
The previous regulation that guaranteed multibranding in the car trade was an excellent one, and so we are bound to ask why it is being amended at this stage. Another major impact will be that dealers' hopes of catering for consumers in sparsely populated areas will possibly be dashed and it will probably make it hard for consumers to acquire vehicles locally. It might also mean that smaller brands will not be represented at all in areas other than large population centres, and, consequently, consumers will have significantly less choice among makes of vehicle.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, you have now listened to us and you could almost think of it as the difference between theory and practice. I can only repeat the plea that I made to the President of the Commission back in spring 2009.
We have unresolved issues for vehicle dealers, for the small and medium-sized enterprises, a financial and economic crisis and an uncertain growth and employment market. The best thing to do would be to extend the existing regulation rather than creating a new one that will just compound all of these problems. We have the problem of different national regulations if only single branding remains. We are opposed to a non-mandatory code of conduct and in favour of an efficient enforcement mechanism. We want the 30% limit for the purchase of replacement parts to be left as it is, because it allows authorised car dealers greater freedom of choice.
The guidelines are not clear enough to ensure that there is access to technical information as there was before. There are important contractual clauses that you have simply left out, namely those concerning the notice provisions and notice periods, multi-branding, the transfer of businesses and the settlement of disputes. Please stand up for small and medium-sized enterprises, too. Multi-branding is part of competition and helps to protect consumers. We want more competition. Restricting the options of small and medium-sized enterprises and car dealers will reduce competition. Please give serious consideration to the market, the enterprises and Parliament's resolution and use the 21 days that remain available to you.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, all of the speakers in Parliament have actually now spoken out in favour of an SME-friendly regulation. We need a strong distribution system. Small distributors employ a lot of people. It is important for them that competition within the system remains, just as it is for the dealers - regardless of whether they are large or small. Competition must work. I believe that, in the car sector in particular, consumers also have a right to competition that works, so that they are not faced with very one-sided systems in which there is no longer freedom of choice. It is precisely this freedom of choice that will be important in the future, particularly for rural areas, and we need to ensure that rural areas are comprehensively provided for. I therefore believe that Mr Karas was absolutely right when he said that we have very little time left and we should therefore use it efficiently.
Mr President, firstly I just want to say that everybody would agree at this stage that the car is no longer a luxury: it is a necessity. This was brought home very clearly to me two weeks ago when the volcanic ash struck. I had to go across Europe, across England, by car and train and ferry, and I never felt so independent and happy as when I sat in my own car.
So anything you can do to help the consumer to have choice etc. is very important, but not at the expense of the small to medium-sized car dealer. Most of these are family-owned enterprises in local towns and local villages. They are doing a good deal for everybody, trying to satisfy the market and compete, obviously, in very difficult circumstances, so I agree totally with Mr Karas and other speakers that these people have to be taken into consideration to ensure their viability as we go forward.
- (SK) Firstly, I would like to say that I understand the efforts to secure freedom of choice for consumers over the selection of the garage they would like to use.
On the other hand, however, I can see the objective limits to absolute freedom in this area. Just as it would not occur to any of you to send a European Airbus to a Tupolev workshop for servicing, so the owner of a given make of vehicle is dependent on the technology and work procedures of the producer of the vehicle when it comes to servicing.
If a vehicle producer provides the customer with a guarantee for the vehicle, he has the right to demand of the customer that servicing is performed in accordance with his specified instructions. If a consumer takes a vehicle for maintenance to a garage where the employees do not have the necessary expertise and skills, there is a risk that they will not do the job well, and even that the vehicle may be damaged. If we want to protect the consumer, therefore, we cannot expect that all garages will be equally capable of providing services for all makes of vehicle. As a consumer I would prefer to see well equipped garages with well-trained staff for a specific make of vehicle. Specialisation and a balanced relationship with the producer are also the best way forward for the customer.
Mr President, I first want to thank you for your superb chairmanship of this sitting and also all the Members who have spoken in this debate.
I would like to extend my very sincere thanks to all of you not only for your speeches here today, but for all your extraordinarily interesting and valuable contributions throughout what has, as I said in my speech, been a lengthy consultation process, in all directions, if I may say so. There has not just been consultation with Parliament, its Members and its committees responsible for car-related issues, competition amongst dealers and consumers, but also consultation with the Member States and consultation with all stakeholders and anyone else who has wished to express their opinion.
The aim of any regulation or decision regarding competition is to benefit the consumer. That is the objective, our central concern and principal aim of our regulation.
When consumers are preparing for the important decision of going to a dealer - because, as one of you said, it is a major expense for all consumers and households - they want to find out about prices and quality, to be able to make comparisons, and they can do that. They can probably do it more easily now than at any time in the past. They want to be able to make their choice without hindrance and without any obstacles arising from a lack of competition. We believe that, with the new regulation, this opportunity for choice will be extended; it will not be reduced, rather it will be extended. They can and must be able to choose - as many of you have said - after-sales services, the repair garage for their vehicle and the service garage for their vehicle; they want these garages, whether or not they belong or are linked to the vehicle manufacturer, to have the correct technical information and the spare parts and specifications they need.
The current proposal by the Commission improves all of that. All that is improved. Please look at what it says in the text that you have seen, the draft and the guidelines that accompany it. In all these respects, the future regulation will give consumers more benefits than the current one.
Small and medium-sized enterprises: what has happened there? It is important to listen to people's opinions and we listen to them with a great deal of attention and interest. I mean everybody's opinions, including yours, of course.
What has happened to small dealers in recent years? Have they increased or declined in number? Have they benefited and found it easier to enter the distribution circuit, the distribution market, or have they found themselves adversely affected or come up against obstacles? It has been mostly the latter. That is the truth of it. That was not, of course, the intention of those who drew up and decided on the Regulation in 2002 but that is what experience has taught us in recent years. That is what we wish to rectify.
What has been happening up until now or is still happening with certain garages and certain spare parts manufacturers? They have problems which will disappear under the new regulation and the new guidelines.
We are therefore proposing a regulation and guidelines which will increase the range of choice and opportunities for small enterprises throughout the whole chain, from the manufacture of spare parts to vehicle repair.
The dealers, whom many of you have mentioned and whom I have listened to directly, and not just through the texts of written consultations or of meetings in which I have not taken part; I have spent time with them and I have spent time talking with them, in an extraordinarily constructive meeting. Not all dealers share the same interests. There are large dealers, who have a strong presence in the market in some of the Member States, and there are also many small dealers who are happier with what we are currently proposing than with what has been in place since 2002, because they have seen that certain aspects, not intended by the legislator in 2002, have not been in their interest, but rather have made it difficult for them to withstand competition from the major dealers.
Finally, the deadlines for cancellation. We establish protection; we even create exceptions for each instance when we consider that competition is suffering under the current regulations, both the regulation on vehicles and the General Vertical Block Exemption Regulation, in spite of our intentions as legislators; and we can waive application of the Regulation if we see that it is not protecting competition. We can do so in the General Vertical Block Exemption Regulation and we shall be able to do so with the specific regulation on vehicles.
I therefore share your concerns. The fact is that I believe that they are addressed better under the proposed regulation than they have been until now, not because we are any more intelligent than eight years ago, but simply because we all learn from experience. It is important to listen to people's views, but it is also important to learn from experience.
To conclude the debate, I have received one motion for a resolutionpursuant to Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Buying a car is often the biggest expenditure households in the European Union have, after buying a house. The European Commission is proposing through the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation to remove the current exemption in the automotive sector and introduce general competition rules.
I believe that, once certain clauses in the current regulation in the sector have been removed, specifically those concerning the freedom to make up to 70% of sales through intermediaries selling several brands of car, the risk arises of increasing the dependency of the manufacturer intermediaries, restricting competition and limiting the options available to consumers on the European car market.
We are in a situation where a large number of intermediaries in the automotive sector, especially the small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector, which are more vulnerable, could disappear from the European market, thereby undermining the whole European automotive market.
Consequently, I call on the Commission to assess the consequences of its proposals, by taking into consideration the structure of the European automotive sector in which small and medium-sized enterprises play a fundamental role, as well as to submit, if this becomes necessary, a new regulation at the end of the three-year extension to the current regulation.
in writing. - (PL) In contributing to today's debate about the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation, I would like to recall that in 2009 the European Commission published its communication on the future competition law framework applicable to the motor vehicle sector, in which it specifies the legal strategy concerning the distribution of motor vehicles and after-sales services after the expiry of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002. Therefore, the problem now arises of an appropriate reaction from competition protection agencies concerning access to technical information, spare parts and authorised service stations, and also concerning the abuse of guarantees. I ask, therefore, whether the Commission is sure the solution it has applied will ensure comprehensive protection of competition in the sector?
The Motor Vehicles Block Exemption Regulation is an extremely important document for the European Union, because it directly affects over 3.5 million people employed in the automotive sector in Europe in both the primary and secondary markets. This regulation brought in advantageous operating conditions which strengthened competition in the automotive market. It caused the creation of new jobs and enabled effective and stable development of the market, which lies in the interests of consumers, large automotive concerns and independent businesses. Also very significant is the fact that it ensures European consumers extensive access to services and goods in the automotive market. The document is of special significance to independent car service stations, which require access to technical information to be able to compete effectively with authorised service stations, as well as to independent producers of car parts. I was all the more pleased to hear that the European Commission has decided to prolong this regulation. In resolution B7 0245/2010, the European Parliament calls on the Commission to clarify the matters which I raised in a written question to the Commission of 16 April this year, such as access to technical information for independent producers, and to explain precisely the concepts 'parts of comparable quality', 'original parts' and 'technical information'. Those to whom the MVBER is addressed, in view of their not insignificant role in the economy, need clear and precisely worded legislation.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes


Documents received: see Minutes


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 21.10)


5. (


1. MEDA and financial support to Palestine - evaluation, implementation and control (vote)
- Report: Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou
- Before the vote on paragraph 38
(PT) Mr President, I should like to table an amendment that has been agreed with our rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou. This amendment is intended to replace the current Amendment 38 with the following text:
'Welcomes the Council decision of 18 June asking the EU to resume normal relations with the Palestinian Authority immediately and to this end to develop the conditions for urgent, practical and financial assistance, including direct financial support to the new government, as well as to ensure the provision of emergency and humanitarian assistance to the population of Gaza;'
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, I should like first of all to thank all my honourable friends from the various political groups who cooperated with me on this report, which is so important for our Euro-Mediterranean partnership and which also contains important and sensitive points which have to do with the funding of the Palestinian Authority.
In the amendment referred to by Mr Casaca which, as he knows, we made together, there is a parenthesis at the end '(via, especially, the TIM)', which is part of the oral amendment. I have no other amendments to table other than to mention that paragraph 38 referring to the Mecca agreement and to a national unity government is no longer topical and has been deleted and replaced by the paragraph which Mr Casaca has just read out, with the parenthesis '(via, especially, the TIM)' at the end. That is all, other than to thank you for your cooperation and support.
To recap for everybody's benefit, Mr Casaca has tabled an oral amendment to paragraph 38, which in its original version and with the rapporteur's addition already has the words 'via, especially, the TIM' added at the end of the text that you will find attached to your voting list. Are there any objections to the oral amendment in its entirety? There are no objections. Quite exceptionally, the rapporteur is asking for the floor again.
Recital N, which has to do with this matter.
The second oral amendment on suppression of recital N was tabled at the same time. It will require a separate vote, but the two amendments are connected.
(The oral amendments were accepted)


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.55 p.m.)


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 10.30 p.m.)