Enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Marielle Gallo, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market -.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament must seize the opportunity of the vote on this own-initiative report, which is not my report but the fruit of numerous compromises, to open up a major debate. For almost 10 years, we have been repeatedly saying in all our texts that the European economy must be a knowledge-based economy. The explosion of the digital era means that we must now rise to this globalised challenge.
The creative and innovative industries currently provide 7% of the EU's GDP and 14 million jobs. Faced with severe competition, they are, and must remain, the key asset of the European economy. We therefore have to protect them, or else they will disappear.
What apparatus can protect them? What apparatus encourages creators to innovate? What apparatus ensures European cultural diversity and its global spread? What apparatus ensures that our researchers, creators, artists, engineers and intellectuals are remunerated? What apparatus enables the economic sector of the creative and innovative industries to function and develop? What apparatus encourages SMEs and young creators to be enterprising and transform the European economy for the year 2020?
The answer to each of these questions is obvious: intellectual property law. Everybody agrees on intellectual property law in relation to physical assets. However, some of us have not yet woken up to what has been happening since the arrival of the Internet. They have not yet understood that all digital assets - music, films, books, video games, software - also need to be protected.
We must not be scared of the Internet. It is an extraordinary opportunity which we can welcome. We guarantee access to the Internet for all EU citizens; it is a right. However, we must also subject the Internet to legislation which protects intellectual property, because that is also the law. If we do not do so, it will be a jungle, and the law of the jungle will apply.
Is this really what we want? Do we want to destroy the creative and innovative industries sector by wantonly sacrificing it? Are we European legislators going to give in and resort to demagogy and populism, or can we reflect on matters and assume our responsibilities?
I ask you this question because the purpose of this report is to send out a signal to the Commission so that we can combine our efforts and find appropriate solutions. Let us get rid of crowd-pleasing responses. Let us try to overcome our petty political disagreements so that we can work in the general interest. Let us not allow the Commission free rein. The fate of the creative and innovative industries, and of the people who depend on them, is in our hands. Let us not fall at this hurdle; the debate is only just beginning.
(PL) First of all, I would like to thank Mrs Gallo for a good and well-balanced report. The report confirms the fact that the European Union upholds intellectual property rights and copyright, and protects the most creative sector in Europe. This challenge ties in well with the European Commission's communication on the European Digital Agenda, which also refers to matters such as orphan works or works that are out of print.
I would like to say that today's report is a balanced and carefully considered text. It does not take a particularly restrictive approach to the problem of piracy and counterfeit goods, as it primarily introduces a prevention-based system, in order to raise awareness among citizens, who frequently unwittingly break the law, that copyright is a fundamental and important issue. I would like to say that today - and here I am also referring to Mr Echeverría's report - we need a good business model, which would protect copyright and intellectual property rights, while also allowing works of literature or film to be purchased at a reasonable price.
I think that the report should serve as a point of departure for further discussions, but I would like to thank the rapporteur for very successfully highlighting in her report the issue of protecting both copyright and a system which maintains the highest level of creativity.
(RO) I welcome the report being debated, which is part of the European Parliament's general initiative to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights. I very greatly appreciate the work done by the rapporteur, Mrs Gallo.
However, I would like to highlight a few points of principle which ought to have been included in the report. Firstly, a clear differentiation needs to be made about the socio-economic impact which copyright infringement can have. It is unacceptable for serious infringements, with a possible major impact on the individual's health and integrity, to be included in the same category as those with a limited financial impact. Last but not least, there needs to be a provision whereby Internet service providers are not held liable for the actions of their customers and are not obliged to get involved in monitoring and filtering the traffic on their own networks.
(NL) I should like to thank the rapporteur for the nature of our cooperation. Indeed, Mrs Gallo, all parties came together in the Committee on Legal Affairs and reached a compromise. This ultimately led to a tremendously diffuse and emotional discussion, which I also faced within my own group. In the end, we submitted an alternative resolution as a middle course between the supporters and opponents of the report.
I hope that this resolution makes it through tomorrow, but it is a shame that the discussion has been so protracted and that a solution is yet to be found. We all want more innovation, more e-commerce and an internal market, and yet we do not want protection of intellectual property rights, which ultimately forms the basis of our innovation. I think this a great shame, and so I would call on everyone to vote the right way tomorrow - which I would venture to say is the alternative resolution tabled by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
A European approach is needed, and I would also call on Commissioner Barnier to come forward with the proposals for an EU legal framework for intellectual property rights, as there is a huge need for multi-territory licensing, for example. This is currently impossible, thereby impeding the development of the internal market.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is no coincidence that we are not finding it easy to agree on this matter here because we are combining two incompatible issues. If we had concentrated on trademark protection, we would probably have been able to reach a good agreement. However, mixing this with the subject of the Internet is also substantially incorrect, because different and newer strategies are required here compared with those required in substantive law. It is not easy to transfer these strategies from the one to the other.
We also need to be clear in our own minds that we will pay for every prosecution on the Internet with infringements of civil rights, because we cannot see or find these things out automatically.
Thirdly, it is abundantly clear to me that if I place cultural enjoyment on the Internet under the threat of punishment, so that I virtually risk being sent to prison every time I view the Internet, I will not be able to make use of the opportunities that the Internet also provides for art, culture and creativity. I would therefore urge us to discuss this matter further. That would be a more intelligent approach.
(DE) Mr President, naturally, the fight against counterfeit goods has top priority, including here in this House. Nevertheless, I have to say that I clearly cannot support this report by my fellow Member on Wednesday, as, among other things, I share the concern of very many young people and citizens that an attempt is being made here - for example in Article 22 - to make Internet blocks respectable again through the back door.
It is also deplorable that the terms piracy and counterfeiting have been used as synonyms by the Commission and also here in this report. That will create additional legal uncertainty. The term piracy is not appropriate for the use of non-commercial Internet exchange services. This would de facto turn many millions of citizens into criminals, as is quite rightly pointed out in the alternative report tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.
I am also very definitely against the establishment of a new authority. I believe that the structures currently in place will be able to deal with this matter very economically.
(DE) Mr President, property - whether intellectual or physical - is a cornerstone of the market economy. It is therefore important that we consider how we regulate this matter with a high degree of mutual consensus. In any case, we need a one-stop shop. It must become easier for consumers, the self-employed and small and medium-sized enterprises to acquire corresponding licences in this regard.
The availability of EU-wide licences for intellectual property rights is particularly important. We need an internal market for intellectual property. Above all, we also need the original language to be available throughout the whole of Europe. Every language is an important cultural product and it ought to be possible for licences that are granted for one language to apply throughout Europe and therefore be capable of being used by all citizens. We need interoperability and technical neutrality in order to be able to use this intellectual property accordingly. Above all, we also need sanctions for those who violate competition and commercial law.
Mr President, there are several problems with this report, but I will highlight one fundamental problem: inconsistency. It starts out by saying that we do not have the facts and figures necessary to legislate, so therefore we should have this IP Observatory to get those facts and figures. Then the report goes on to criticise the Commission for not having proposed legislation. It goes on to propose non-legislative measures, etc.
I agree with what was said at the outset: we do not have the facts and figures available to us as policy makers; that is the fundamental problem and is the reason why the European institutions have been unsuccessful in finding a good policy for these matters. I therefore recommend the Verts/ALE, S&D and GUE/NGL resolution, which states that we should by all means get the facts and figures, then consider what to do, and then we can legislate.
(DE) Mr President, the different regulations in the Member States in the area of intellectual property prevent this intellectual property from being protected everywhere to the same high degree. That has a detrimental effect on the freedom of the internal market and hinders innovation and investment in this area. Infringements of intellectual property rights are also occurring more and more frequently in connection with organised crime. Unfortunately, the Internet provides an easy-to-use platform for this purpose.
A uniformly high level of protection can therefore only be achieved by means of a targeted common approach by the European Union. Harmonisation of national regulations is therefore to be welcomed and it is a necessary prerequisite for the functioning of the internal market.
Many thanks to the rapporteur, who has taken up an important subject here. I am sure that we will be debating this subject many more times in this House.
(CS) As rapporteur for the opinion of the IMCO committee, I am disappointed that my colleague, Mrs Gallo, has not stuck to the text of our recommendations. In the meantime, of course, in response to my question, the European Commission has confirmed that it will address the proposal to create European protection for registered trademarks as early as next year. Thank you, Commissioner. We must combat counterfeits, particularly from Asia, with all of the available resources which the Gallo report rightly proposes. I am, of course, sorry that such an unbridgeable gap has opened up between Members in relation to the fight against the downloading of copyright works from the Internet. The mass communication of copyright works on the Internet must be regulated, but it should be done through balanced measures, and not by criminalising high school students. Copyright law is not properly set up in Europe, and it does not provide modern rules to support authors and the broad use of their works by the public. On the contrary, it rather gives precedence to the interests of copyright holders and collective administrators at the expense of the actual authors and users of works. It worries me that this report does not even have the ambition to formulate a much-needed balance for copyright law in the digital world.
I am sure the Commission can satisfy everybody. Mr Barnier, you have the floor.
Mr President, I always listen very carefully to what the Members of the European Parliament say. The Commission cannot know everything and always has need of these analyses and proposals. This is why I should like to offer my very sincere thanks to Mrs Gallo and to Parliament for the interest it continues to show - this report is additional evidence of this - in the improvement and strengthening of respect for intellectual property rights.
I know that this report has been debated on numerous occasions, and this is quite normal. However, I think that it offers a good balance between all the interests at stake. I should like to say once again, in particular, echoing the comments of Mr Borys and Mr Rübig, that effective protection of intellectual property actually fosters creativity and innovation and safeguards jobs in France.
Let me add, however, that, when we talk about protection and fair remuneration for creation, we are referring not only to cultural or industrial creation but to a particular notion of democracy as well. Here I am thinking of the work of journalists in the written press, which also deserves to be protected and properly remunerated. Then - I think it was Mr Borys who referred to health problems - we also know what the risks associated with counterfeiting generally involve.
I should like to highlight, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's commitment to working very closely with all the parliamentary groups over the coming months in order to step up the fight against counterfeiting and piracy, which Mrs Roithová has just mentioned. The Commission is going to continue its battle against breaches of intellectual property, using both legislative and non-legislative measures. I also think that any fight must necessarily be combined with positive measures, such as the promotion and development of legal products.
I should like to emphasis the need, as it appears to me, to increase awareness amongst citizens and, of course, amongst young people - but not only young people - of these phenomena using - and I should here like to echo the request from Mr Engström - indisputable statistical information on the consequences and the extent of counterfeiting and piracy, and also an analysis, which must be as fair as possible, of their impact on society and the economy. This is a point which Mr Enciu mentioned a moment ago.
The Commission will pay particular attention to the development of the Observatory and of the other measures announced in our communication of September 2009 relating to administrative cooperation and inter-industrial dialogue.
Next autumn, ladies and gentlemen, I shall present an action plan dealing with all these counterfeiting issues and all aspects of counterfeiting and piracy. This action plan will be specifically based, in terms of communication, research and the training of border control personnel in each of our countries, on the work and expertise of the Observatory that we are going to establish in a very credible and very concrete manner.
We shall also pay particular attention to improving the legislative framework relating to respect for intellectual property and - of course, I am addressing this to Mr Jahr - a European framework. The solution will be based on a balanced, proportionate approach that respects the fundamental rights of citizens. Moreover, I should like to say to Mrs Lichtenberger that, as I have also said before your committees, we do not intend to criminalise certain behaviour in any way, in particular, that of young people. That is not what this is about.
The Commission is preparing a report on Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights for the autumn. I therefore wish to confirm to Mr Manders, who was asking me about this issue, but, in particular, to say to your rapporteur, Mrs Gallo, who highlighted this point, that it is on the basis of this report that we will table - as I believe will be necessary - some amendments to this text to improve the enforcement of intellectual property rights in Europe.
Thank you, Commissioner. That was very well received.
That concludes the item.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday, 21 September 2010) at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - I opposed the Gallo Report as a regressive and unworkable proposal going against the openness of the Internet and fundamental rights and leaving many issues in a legal grey zone. Not least, it confuses counterfeiting with file-sharing. The S&D Group tabled an alternative resolution focusing on the need to protect the rights and interests of the artists and workers of the creative industries and, at the same time, on the need to ensure broad access to cultural goods and services for European consumers. It is a constructive and progressive vision on IPR enforcement seeking the development of a fair, balanced and forward-looking framework for Intellectual Property Rights in Europe to the benefit of both creators and consumers. Importantly, it distinguished between how commercial and non-commercial file-sharing is dealt with, opposing the criminalisation of the latter. The alternative resolution also sought to guarantee net neutrality, protect personal data and other fundamental rights, ensure judicial redress; oppose non-judicial measures of enforcing copyrights; reject the three strikes law (Hadopi) being introduced Europe-wide; and proposed the creation of innovative alternative business models. Note, this is a non-legislative Report. The Commission is due to bring forward legislative proposals shortly.
Intellectual property is a broad concept which covers patent law, trademarks and logos, as well as copyright. The report restricts itself to addressing the issue of piracy involving the infringement of copyright, which generally means another party's trademark. The report deals with the enforcement of intellectual property rights through the creation of the Observatory, the implementation of administrative procedures, and the relevant international agreements. Trademarks are used to distinguish goods or services belonging to different economic operators. Entities engaged in unfair trade practices may try to exploit the reputation of a certain product or service on the market. All the proposed methods of combating piracy involve developing a kind of policing system, funded by the taxpayer. What we, in fact, need are efforts to strengthen customs authorities, mainly in order to improve the detection of threats such as harmful plant protection products, counterfeit medication, harmful food products and animal feeds. The liberals are, on the one hand, attempting to weaken any state which produces cheap products while, on the other, they are forcing it into protecting monopolies. These matters could be left to sectoral associations to resolve. The state's only role should be to settle possible disputes. In order to achieve this goal, the European Union needs to draw up and implement legislation on patents, utility models and trademarks registered to date, as well as copyright legislation. We also need to improve the monitoring of the European Union's external borders, the excessive influx of goods from third countries, which compete with EU products, and the quality of those goods.
Enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market (Mario Gallo,. This report, while containing a number of valuable ideas and conclusions, is unfortunately a typical example of the lack of planning and even indecision in the area of intellectual property rights at Community level. Of course, an even more striking example of this kind would be the Commission communication entitled 'Enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market' (COM 2009(467), to which the report, among other things, refers. I consider it particularly alarming that the Commission has still not managed to conduct a thorough analysis of the effects of Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the field of intellectual property rights. The continuing lack of a Community patent is a major barrier to the construction of an effective Community system for protecting intellectual property rights. The final comment relates to the proposal to create a European centre for monitoring counterfeits and piracy. There is no need for further bodies, bureaucracy and costs. The Commission has sufficient resources to handle the tasks that are to be assigned to the centre itself.
I welcome the drafting of this resolution, the provisions of which largely relate to the spheres of culture and education, which is a committee I sit on. It is widely acknowledged that not only scientific and technical innovation, but also cultural activities make a vital contribution to the European economy's competitiveness. European education and development policy must be based on passing on knowledge, disseminating information and facilitating access for the widest possible audience to technological progress and the products of cultural creativity. To achieve this, better conditions need to be provided in terms of cost to the consumer, including access to services with an unlimited subscription or at a low cost, especially in educational, cultural and non-commercial institutions. I would therefore like to make a helpful distinction between use for educational purposes and use for commercial purposes, which would obviously help boost innovation at European level. At the same time, it is important for us to educate our young public so that they understand the issues involved with intellectual property. Another key aspect is protecting the incomes of the authors of works. This measure requires strict rules regulating the use of these products or services by third parties. Last but not least, greater attention must be focused on orphan works, a point which does not feature in the draft resolution.
Theft is always theft. Stealing a recoding online is like stealing the same content from a record shop. Nevertheless, attitudes to Internet piracy, or theft, are still a lot laxer and more lenient than those to shoplifting. We need to take a serious view of Internet piracy. The information networks are a practical, effective and natural means of disseminating digital content, but that does not mean that their creative content must be freely available to everyone, without any sort of payment being made. Unfortunately, some of those opposing this report seem to think it does. The future of the creative sector, and it is the same for any sector, depends on whether people are paid for the work they do or not. When the fees of musicians, actors or film directors fall into the clutches of pirates, the result is cultural impoverishment, as professional artists are unable to make a living. Is that what we want? Another option which the report, to its credit, proposes is to evolve fair rules for the information networks to protect copyright. They would be based on an old precept, for which the law has existed from time immemorial: do not steal.


Aviation security charges (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Leichtfried, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on aviation security charges - C7-0038/2009 -.
Madam President, at the moment, in the area of European aviation security and aviation security charges, we have a situation in which everyone does what they want. No one really does it properly. However, we will have to pay for this. This is something that we really should not take lying down, and this report aims to change things. What specifically will it change, and what does it aim to change?
I would just like to say in advance that on almost all points - and I would like to thank my fellow Member - there is a unanimous perception that the report could bring more transparency. Transparency means that on the one hand, airlines will, in future, be able to obtain information allowing them to understand what security charges will be applied to them by airports, what they are for, whether they are too much - which still sometimes happens at the moment - and, as the next step, that passengers too, of course, will be able to understand what airlines require from them. Here too, I have the suspicion that the transparency of the airlines is sometimes intentionally restricted, even when, as they say, they make a great effort to be transparent.
One point which is very important in this regard is the fact that, across Europe, there are various different systems for financing security facilities. There are states which have financed them purely through taxation. There are states in which only the end-user pays, and there are others which have a mixed system.
Our intention was to ensure that these systems could be retained. We do not want to prescribe to any Member State how security charges should be financed; we only want to ensure that whoever pays ultimately knows what he has paid.
There are, or were, different ideas about which airports should be included, and we have decided that it is a question of security. It is not about earnings and not about profits; it is about security. Therefore, we have decided that all airports that are commercially run must be included, and I think that that was the correct decision too.
Finally, we have reached a point where we have a great deal of unanimity here in plenary, namely on the point that we should make a distinction between charges for security facilities, security measures included in the EU rules, and charges for security measures which go beyond that - what are referred to as the 'more stringent measures'.
We say that everything that falls within the EU context will stay as it is; each Member State can do what it considers right. If, however, security measures going above and beyond that are taken, then those Member States have to finance this themselves. On the one hand, this should ensure that it will be dealt with carefully, that security measures will not just be taken immediately without considering whether they are really necessary and that it will also be taken into consideration what this means for passengers and what it means for airlines and airports.
On the other hand, it should also be ensured that, in this regard, we also apply the principle that security is a public duty as well. Attacks on airlines are, as a rule, not directed at airlines, but at the states from which these airlines come, and therefore we also think that, in principle, security is still a public duty, and therefore must also be financed publicly.
I would briefly like to say something more on the amendments, which have reached an unbelievably high number - three in total. I think that they are all very justified and well-founded. I would say, particularly concerning the two amendments by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, that they are very much worth supporting, not because Mrs Lichtenberger is sitting next to me, but because they contain social requirements for employees at airports. I think that that is very important, particularly at times when airlines and airports are under pressure.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the proposal for a directive on aviation security charges is the result of the debate on financing aviation security which has been on the table since 2001. It follows on from the rising security costs observed subsequent to the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and from the establishment of an EU regulatory framework for aviation security.
By its legislative proposal, the Commission intends to set up a transparent and non-discriminatory framework for levying aviation security charges in Europe. Furthermore, the Commission considers that aviation security charges should be set in consultation with airport users and should be cost-related. I would like to congratulate Mr Leichtfried for his fantastic work on this report and also to thank the Members of the TRAN Committee who also contributed to this report.
I believe that the report goes precisely in the direction of the Commission's intended goals, and I welcome the support it gives to the Commission's proposal in those regards.
I would just like to emphasise two specific issues which are dealt with in the report. Firstly, the report introduces what is really a new element, namely the important and sometimes very controversial question of who pays for aviation security. Well, the Commission's proposals did not address this issue, and the reason is that nearly all Member States insist that they are not in a position to take commitments in that regard, even though they acknowledge that public financing of aviation security should be permitted.
The choice, in our view, should therefore be left to the individual Member States, and thus be dealt with through subsidiarity.
With this in mind, and with respect to the position outlined in the report up for adoption, the Commission would like to note that Amendment 32, which would oblige Member States to finance more stringent measures, will give rise to intense discussions with the Council on this proposed directive. However, I am confident that the rapporteur knew all this, and expected this fight with the Council.
The second issue is more for clarification, and relates to the impact assessment to be undertaken in advance of any further aviation security measures being taken under the framework regulation. This is definitely a very justified measure, but I would like you to know that we already have some mechanisms in place and we should not overburden ourselves.
First, there is the Stakeholders' Advisory Group on Aviation Security which consists of air transport industry representatives among others, and it is fully involved in the conception of any proposed measures on aviation security.
Secondly, the regulatory procedure with scrutiny ensures that Parliament can exercise its right of veto if it deems appropriate.
Thank you very much for this excellent report. We look forward very much to working with the rapporteur and the Parliament and to further progress on this issue.
(DE) Madam President, I am sorry that I must burden the plenary session, but in accordance with Rule 151, I feel forced to make a personal remark. I was targeted a moment ago. This is typical if you live in Austria. There is a group there which, by international standards, is classified as far-right. They have party leaders who make certain gestures in the air and think nothing of it. These are also people that cannot bear to be beaten in democratic elections, and then refuse any form of handshake or contact. If you wave at them, they only see one thing: the thing that they have real experience of, the Hitler salute.
Of course, these are problems which simply show that my home country has unfortunately not succeeded in coming to terms with the past, that we will not just be dealing with one far-right party which is represented here, but soon with two. I would simply like to make it clear once again: we are the democrats. The far-right wingers sit over there. I am proud to belong to a political group that has managed to make a decisive contribution to the fact that we no longer have a far-right group in this Parliament and hopefully will never get one. The answer is thus to have more democracy and not more far-right politics, hostility towards people and cynical contempt for people. Those are the men who have already said that I should seek psychiatric help because they could not bear to lose elections in a democratic manner.
Blue card questions on a personal comment under Rule 151 are not permitted. Your request to speak on this point therefore cannot be accepted.
(HU) This is a blue card question addressed to the previous speaker. I would like half a minute to ask a question.
Madam President, this intervention - which is totally acceptable - is interfering with a debate on a subject. I would suggest that you place this sort of thing in between the reports.
Many thanks. We will now continue with the debate. I allowed the personal explanation because the previous point of order referred directly to Mr Martin. We will now go on with the debate and also devote our full attention to it.
Madam President, at the outset, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Leichtfried, for a splendid report and for ideal cooperation during our work on this document.
We had to answer four questions, but first we had to state the task, which was protection of the interests of airline passengers, and this was the most important part of our work. However, the four questions we asked ourselves were a matter of answering a question about transparency, or which groups might be admitted to participate in the procedure. It was a question about the scope of the directive, or at which airports the directive can be applied. There was one very important question, about financing, which the Commission was not able to answer. However, together with Mr Leichtfried, we did manage to find a solution, and I thank him especially for this. I am talking about the more stringent measures, which should be financed by the Member States.
Another matter concerned the competence of the independent supervisory authority in establishing charges connected with air traffic security. During our work, we developed a common position, which I consider a very ambitious one. It is, today, a challenge for the Council and the Commission. I think that we, as airline passengers, and in contradistinction to the passengers of ships, cars and railways, should not have to pay for this kind of security. This is a gesture to the Council, it is a compromise position and I expect, today, an equally ambitious position from the Council.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, to begin with, I would like to thank the rapporteur for an excellent piece of work, some would even say a fantastic piece of work. Thank you, therefore, and thanks to those who have contributed to it.
Might I just remind you that the issue of funding is not a new one. This dossier has actually been in the making since the moment we adopted a European regulation on the application of security measures at European level in the wake of the attacks of 11 September 2001. Right from the outset, the European Parliament has always stressed that the funding issue is a serious one and that we have to find a European solution to it. However, the Council has always obstructed this. As a follow-up to this debate, we should again call on the Council to honour the agreements it has made with us in the past, particularly the one that would allow us to draft a separate proposal on this issue, and to commit itself to working with us towards a solution.
Obviously, we need to bear in mind a few considerations. The first and the most essential one is transparency. At the moment, we are not looking into exactly who in each of the Member States should foot the bill. However, one thing we certainly do want is to organise a consultation on this issue, to reach agreements and then to stick to those agreements. In other words, what we want to see is the revenue generated by security charges actually being ploughed back into financing security measures and not, for example, into some sort of parking. That is essential and it should be clear that we must not budge on this issue.
A second important consideration is that we need to make a distinction between security measures which we all have agreed jointly at a European level, and other additional measures being taken individually by Member States. As far as the first consideration is concerned, the transparency rules are clear and they have to be applied. As far as the second one is concerned, we have to make it clear that the financial responsibility lies with Member States and that they are the ones that have to foot the bill for additional security measures. Coordinating security measures at a European level would also be a bonus and if Member States decide on their own to introduce body scans or whatever, well, they will also have to bear the financial consequences of that.
Madam President, I would first like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Leichtfried, also on behalf of Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert. She cannot be here today. She arranged everything together with you, and was also completely satisfied.
We can also say that another thing that shows how good the report is is that there has been pretty unanimous voting in the Committee. This is also - just like the question for oral answer which was just raised - a question of protecting consumers, and it is also a question of aviation security. We want security to be in place; however, we also want consumers to know how much they are paying for what. It has already been pointed out that the systems in different Member States are very different, and we do not want to change that in general either. We do not want to impose anything. We do, however, want there to be transparency on how the costs are put together and on the proportion that is to be paid by the consumer. This is not always provided at the moment. That is, we want to know what proportion of the ticket price - at the moment it is just a proportion of the ticket price that is paid for security - is really relevant to security. Then we also want a guarantee that what is paid for security is also actually used for security, and that no one profits from it. I think that the approach that we have developed on this is also a completely logical one.
There is a critical sticking point between what Parliament would like and what the Member States think is good, and this is the question of who will pay for additional security measures taken which go beyond what we want in Europe for passengers. Here, we have said that actually, the Member States should do this. It is a question of national security in which the national states, too, must take a strong interest. Of course, the states do not want to pay for it. As has already been noted, with regard to the question of whether we want body scanners or not, we will undoubtedly also have to consider whether we want to have them throughout Europe or not, and who will eventually pay for them. Of course, we will also have to ask whether they really provide more security.
So, aviation security charges of this kind must be administered transparently.
(The President cut off the speaker)
Madam President, once upon a time, an airport was a place where you bought a ticket for a flight, checked in your baggage, showed your passport and took off or landed. Today, airports are more like a small town, offering all kinds of facilities - but with security measures that have made them something of a Fort Knox, and things are only moving in one direction: towards more and more of them.
Certainly, aircraft crashed in the old days, and unfortunately they still do. That is why it is important that the same rules apply both within and outside of the EU. In this context, the EU is too small to be an isolated island. This is an area where we can see the benefits of having the same rules, the same transparent rules, for aircraft from every country. That also applies to charges. Everyone - both passengers and airlines - needs to be clear as to what is covered by an aviation security charge. Nobody should be lost in a jungle of unclear charges and levies. Passengers need to know exactly what the charge covers, nor should they have to pay special national charges or pay extra for airlines. I wholeheartedly support the report by the Committee on Transport and Tourism ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, first, I would like to thank the rapporteur, as well as the other groups, for their work. We had an interesting discussion in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. I am, however, of the opinion that we have already made many compromises with the Council, which has shown itself to be very unwilling to compromise here, just as it has in the past. For when we start to talk about implementation, that is when the discussion gets going. Here, we as Parliament should also expect the support of the Commission for the idea that security charges will apply to all airports. We should not repeat what we have already done in other areas - whether ground handling or aviation charges - that is, to allow for exceptions affecting two or five million passengers.
The second thing, and this is even more important for me, is, of course, to ensure transparency for passengers - who pays how much for what - and that is unequivocally a duty for the airports as well as the airlines. This is quite an important consideration in my view.
With that, I come to the third point, payment - an area in which there are always sticking points, of course. With regard to financing, personally, I am of the opinion that public security should be paid for with public funds. We are already compromising by leaving some things to so-called subsidiarity. This is always an effective trick here in the House, and also together with the Commission: if you cannot get a solution with the Council, then you simply call it a question of subsidiarity. Personally, I am not very happy about that, but there we are. Therefore, I think we should at least stick to what we have said here, namely that special measures, stricter measures, must definitely be paid for from the public purse. Security charges and security overall have increased significantly in recent years. Therefore, this dossier also has an economic aspect. We are now talking about around 30% of the costs. If we are talking about security and who pays for it, that will have an economic aspect tomorrow as well. Therefore, these three points are crucial for me. I hope that, at least with the current requests, we will get a positive result with the Council and the Commission.
(RO) The legislation being tabled offers a framework for setting aviation security charges which is transparent, non-discriminatory and allows the right of appeal. Airport security is the responsibility of Member States.
Passengers are the ones, however, who ultimately pay for security measures through the price of their ticket. This is why passengers are entitled to be told separately how much of the final ticket price is to pay for security.
The directive on aviation security charges and the directive on airport charges should be harmonised. Parliament has asked on repeated occasions for the aviation security charges specified in this directive to be used by companies and airport operators only for implementing aviation security measures. Parliament has also asked for transparency and a correlation of the security taxes and charges with the objectives being pursued.
Member States can also apply tighter security measures, the cost of which, however, will be borne entirely by Member States. These security measures should not, all the same, impede the smooth flow of passenger traffic at airports. Unfortunately, here in Brussels in particular, we encounter endless queues which passengers stand in to be able to travel.
I would also like to mention the ban on bringing liquids on board. This means that various items can be confiscated. Unfortunately, at Brussels airport, for example, there is a long-winded procedure involving both additional charges and the confiscation of items. Regrettably, this procedure does not include the option of receiving the item later at the addressee's address.
(SK) The introduction of security charges has brought a new financial cost to the aviation market, which airport operators and airlines will immediately and adroitly pass on to passengers.
It is therefore right to look for mechanisms to protect passengers in order to prevent fictitious amounts concealed as security charges being added in a non-transparent way as well-hidden items, with the aim of generating unjustified profits for crafty entrepreneurs in the aviation sector. The level of these charges should correspond only to costs demonstrably incurred in securing the safety of passengers.
Our duty, Commissioner, is therefore to define clear and transparent rules - rules which will eliminate the current anarchy in this sector and prevent operators in future from exploiting mandatory measures for the protection of passengers in order to make unjustified profits.
It is necessary to define rules, and not to establish more institutions and authorities which will burden passengers, airline operators and also taxpayers with yet more additional costs.
Commissioner, if we want to help Europe become competitive, we must forget about setting up new authorities. Authorities do not create the added value which can raise living standards for our citizens. Thank you for your attention.
We had a technical problem here, so it was somewhat longer than a minute. However, the clock is now working again, and hopefully everything should now go according to the set timetable.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the effects of the volcano ash cloud on Europe's airspace, which, as is well known, caused many thousands of flights to be cancelled, are a good example of why aviation security is important. There is already a big argument over who should cover the costs arising from this - who should pay for the natural disaster, so to speak - and to what extent the restrictions are justified. While transport ministers are agonising over this, we must decide which costs relating to anti-terror security regulations, which are becoming more and more restrictive, can be passed on to passengers. In the end, the costs of a task to be undertaken by the state, namely the maintenance of public safety, cannot simply be shifted on to the citizens like this. Only if countries themselves have to take financial responsibility for the strict security measures which have been prescribed can we prevent the possibility of a wild increase in the number of body scanners and other rather ridiculous security measures.
While we are still struggling with the SWIFT agreement, the US is concluding agreements, in the name of fighting terror, to exchange passenger data with the European Commission and the various aviation organisations. Furthermore, the fact that the lack of air traffic controllers and their growing workload could have fatal effects on aviation safety was pushed into the background in the discussion. Since the liberalisation of the 1990s and the vision of a unified European airspace, it has mainly been costs, and not so much safety, that seem to be at the forefront of consideration. What is clear is that the ash cloud has only delayed the pilots' strike which has been announced. So one might take an ironic view of this: hopefully, we will not go from one chaotic aviation situation to another.
(FR) Madam President, I, too, would like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mr Leichtfried, on his text and his spirit of cooperation on this matter, and I particularly support his proposals on the financing of aviation security, since we are discussing aviation security here, and not air safety.
Our committee has been fighting for many years to gain acceptance for the principle that the most stringent security measures should be funded by the Member States, and I fully support our rapporteur on this point. In fact, security does not concern only travellers, but all citizens, and it is the states' responsibility to take counterterrorism measures.
It is therefore not justifiable to make air passengers alone bear the cost of security measures in airports and on board aeroplanes, all the more so since, on means of transport such as trains and ships, security measures are financed by the states, either partly or fully, as appropriate. I therefore think that we need to stand up to the Council and defend to the bitter end Amendment 32 of the report adopted by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.
I would like to quickly raise another point. While I support the progress that the text will bring in the field of non-discrimination and transparency, I do not believe that the objective of this directive is to put in place a single and identical system for security charges in Europe.
While respecting the common rules, the Member States must be allowed to keep their current systems for levying charges. Thus, in states such as Spain, Italy or France, the charges are approved by their parliament and, in these cases, it is the authority responsible for investigating appeals to laws which must act as the independent supervisory authority. This is the subject of Amendment 40 which, I hope, a great number of you will support when we vote on it.
(ES) Madam President, despite the difficulties that have become cruelly obvious this week associated with the current lack of a single European sky and, more importantly, of a genuine single authority to control and manage that single sky, little by little, we are moving closer to the target that we set ourselves, and this text should be one more tool to help us along that road.
I am aware of the tenacity of the rapporteur, Mr Leichtfried, whom I congratulate on his work and also on his particular sensitivity to air transport and social issues. In this case, however, I feel that we might be falling prey to a degree of naivety and maximalism, and that by seeking perfection, we are running the risk of not achieving the best outcome.
While I am entirely in agreement with creating a common system, including an independent supervisory body with the ability to establish fair and transparent powers in relation to charges, and with taking into account environmental and social criteria and passenger protection, etc., I still think that some aspects are missing, which I would like the Commission to clarify. For example, I refer to what Mrs De Veyrac just said: I do not see a clear acknowledgement of the system by which a national parliament votes on charges by parliamentary agreement, as it is the body that has to apply them. I am also finding it difficult to see - and I would like the Commission to clarify this - how viable this text can be given the differences with the Council and, more importantly, the consistency, or lack of it, in my view, between this text and the general directive on airport charges.
Given the major uncertainty and disagreement over who is going to pay for this security - which I admit is public security - I think we need to make it clear that, when we talk about the Member States paying, it is the public in general who are going to pay. When we talk about Member States, it sounds like an abstract person, but it is not: it is every one of us citizens who travels, as well. I therefore fear that we will ultimately see very little progress.
I would therefore like the Commission to give its opinion on how it sees the future of this text.
(RO) It is true that air transport is the safest out of every form of transport. However, aviation incidents with global ramifications, like the one which took place 10 days ago, or the chaos created by a volcanic eruption, make us face up to the issue of the whole safety and security chain in the aviation sector: airports, airlines, control towers, aircraft, crew and passengers. There needs to be a particularly close bond between all these links, along with open communication.
Passengers concerned about their own journey and comfort cannot understand the need for security measures, no matter how lax or tight they might be, and even the costs they incur, unless they are aware of the significance of such dramatic or tragic events as those of 11 September 2001. A terrorist threat, pilot error, technical defects, a misunderstanding between the pilot and control tower and unforeseen atmospheric conditions are all factors which must be predicted and stringent measures must be taken to apply the regulations both in spirit and according to the letter.
I agree with adopting exceptional measures in the scenarios already mentioned. However, these measures must be transparent. Passengers are entitled to and must enjoy a safe journey to the same extent as they are entitled to know the truth. Unfortunately, communication and transparency are features of the aviation security sector which need to be improved urgently. This is the task of airports and airlines which must become more open and transparent. On the other hand, passengers need to realise that they must be aware that the security measures applied at airports and onboard aircraft, no matter how stringent they might be, are ultimately for their benefit and their benefit alone.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first I would like to thank Mr Leichtfried for an excellent report which contains good, sustainable proposals.
What, in the end, is the issue here? It is about strengthening transparency, consumer protection, security and coordination, as well as quality control. I would, however, advise against creating a new authority to deal with these questions. I take a positive view of the subsidiarity in the report, and it should definitely be retained. It is also very important for me that there should be a clear separation between taxes and charges, and all government tasks - whether fingerprinting and photographing, police tasks, fighting terrorism or something similar - must clearly be financed through taxation and not through consumer charges. If individual states then have a vital interest in taking security measures that go beyond this, then I think that, in this area, they also have the duty to bear the costs. Whoever orders government-related security measures also pays for them. I think it is different in the case of technical or personal security, which can certainly be passed on to the passenger, as long as its purpose is clearly declared.
It is worth noting, though, that in the impact assessment that the Commission has put before us, we are talking about a sum of around 0.1% of the total fare for these measures. We should therefore not start too high.
I believe that we are bringing about a sustainable compromise, including with the Federal Republic of Germany, which has considerable reservations here in the area of subsidiarity. I would hope that the end result is very close to our proposal.
(CS) Although I fully support this proposal, because it greatly increases the transparency of rates and the calculation of security charges for all European consumers who use air transport, I am amazed that there is not more harmonisation in this important area. I am concerned that, because of the dominant position of certain airports, passengers will pay excessively high security charges with no direct impact on the level, speed or quality of security measures at check-in.
In its evaluation report for the two years after this directive entered into effect, the Commission should have been much more courageous and should have proposed a unified and binding method for calculating security charges throughout the EU.
I fully agree with the demand for more stringent measures, such as body scanners, to be financed by the state and not by passengers, especially as the debate is still continuing over the need for them and the associated health risks. Last but not least, I am concerned about the interpretation of the provisions on charging for the cost of security measures implemented not by airports but by the airline companies directly, as these costs may, on the contrary, be charged to passengers, and this, in my view, means there is a potential risk of abuse in the form of over-charging.
Madam President, Mr Leichtfried is right. The cost for extra security should, in the end, be covered by the Member States. After all, the passengers, and every citizen, are already paying the Member States for their security in general.
The state cannot simply say to its citizens, 'you get exactly what you pay for'. Its obligations go beyond that, because the state is not simply another service provider motivated exclusively by profit. I am reminding you of this simple truth because, in spite of this principle, the passengers and not their states are footing the bill for extra air security in the end, as the rapporteur rightly notes.
Moreover, many times the extra security that passengers are getting by paying extra charges is not even provided by the state, but by subcontracted private companies, often disregarding the passengers and their rights under the general shelter provided by the secrecy covering security matters in general. That simply should stop.
(DE) Madam President, given that aviation security charges within the EU have been dealt with in very different ways, I think it is important to apply an objective measure here. It would make a lot of sense to take a combination of the number of passengers and also maximum take-off weight as the basis for assessment. It is important, however, that there is a clear connection between the security charge levied and the services which are actually provided. It is important to define aviation security itself, and we must also know exactly what we are paying for. The exact way in which the security charges will be calculated must be comprehensible. Information on the size of the charges, and what they consist of, must be provided openly. Transparency is imperative here. For this, however, we need independent regulatory authorities in order to be able to counteract any distortion of competition quickly and efficiently.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, this debate on aviation security has been a fascinating one, and shows that we all have our own experiences in this field.
In my case, I lost all the cheese I wanted to bring because it was tartinable! I thought that excessive, but nevertheless believe that we have provided improvements throughout the system. The Commission proposal goes one step further because where there is security, there are also charges, and the first rule is transparency. The report and the Commission proposal strengthen each other.
On the question of who should collect the charges, my view is that subsidiarity is still the best way because, after all, it is not Member States, but citizens, that pay. The only question is whether it should be all taxpayers that pay or just those who are passengers.
That is not a simple question to answer, but I consider the subsidiarity aspect to our proposal to be in keeping with today's aviation security arrangements.
Parliament is going one step further, in looking at the whole of the aviation security sector. We will see where that debate leads. I believe the Commission has made a very decent proposal and am very glad that Parliament has broadly accepted it and is, as usual, going a little further than does the Commission proposal. I believe that the timing and scope of the proposal are correct.
Madam President, I am somewhat embarrassed after so much praise, and so I will keep it short. I would nevertheless like to take the opportunity to thank the rapporteurs and the shadow rapporteurs, who have worked hard together: Mr Zasada, Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert, Mrs Lichtenberger and Mr Kohlíček. We have worked hard on this matter for nearly a year now. This is how I see European politics, not as a forum for bickering to provide a spectacle, as perhaps other fellow Members are doing.
Second, I would like to address the Council and make an appeal to them. The Committee on Transport and Tourism is actually a very amicable committee, a committee which works and argues in a businesslike manner, and in this spirit, we have very much met the Council half way on this law. From the start, we have been very willing to compromise. However, I would like to warn the Council to let sleeping dogs lie. If you are willing to compromise, then you must also be able to expect compromises from your opponents or partners.
If the Council is not at all willing to meet the European Parliament half way now, then the attitude of this committee will also change. This is not only my opinion. I have already heard from some colleagues that if the Council is not willing to meet us half way, then we will also discuss body scanners in quite a different light and perhaps also not be willing to meet the Council half way. This is something which is not in the interests of the matter as a whole and which absolutely must not happen. This is why I am appealing to the Council and the Member States to move on this. We now have the Treaty of Lisbon. Both the Council and the Member States must keep moving on this, otherwise we might once again hear: Come on, let's SWIFT again!
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place during the next plenary sitting in Brussels.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - Mr Leichtfried should be commended for a thorough and conclusive report, which had dealt effectively with many of the issues left open by the Commission paper. However, there are some questions which remain unresolved and these issues should be viewed in a new context following the prolonged closure of European airspace. With the aviation industry set to lose upward of €1 billion as a result of the volcanic ash cloud, the EU must act quickly and decisively to ease the financial blow on the aviation industry. Though Commissioner Almunia must be applauded for his favourable comments on the crisis today, we as MEPs also have the opportunity through this report to aid an industry which has just been brought to its knees for the third time in the last ten years. This house and our colleagues in the European Council and Commission should begin to consider state funding to cover the proposed security costs, particularly in the event of a low passenger threshold not being passed. While these measures were not popular before the eruption last week, we are currently at the point where any missed opportunity to provide assistance to the aviation industry could prove to be fatal.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mr Leichtfried for his excellent work on the report on aviation security charges, which considers, among its various aspects, one important point: consumer protection and passengers' rights.
There have to be clear and transparent rules because, if airlines charge passengers extra for security measures, this information should be made available, in my view, to ensure that passengers are not out of pocket.
I believe that it is only right that consumer protection organisations should take part in the consultations and thus gain an insight into the pricing of security measures, which they can then check against the ticket price. Only in this way will it be possible to guarantee greater transparency and information for passengers.


Petitions: see Minutes


Welcome
I have the pleasure of informing you that members of a delegation from the National Assembly of Mauritania have taken their seats in the official gallery. I would like to extend a warm welcome to this delegation led by Mr El Arbi Ould Sidi Ali. They are here to meet with Members of the European Parliament.
Once more, welcome to Brussels and to our Parliament.
Relations between the European Union and Mauritania are very important for the European Parliament. I am convinced that the fruitful dialogue between Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Mauritanian Parliament can contribute to enhancing these relations and also to developing new areas of cooperation between the EU and Mauritania.


8. The need for an EU strategy for the South Caucasus (
That concludes voting time.