2. Request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Krzysztof Lisek (


Mutual recognition of professional qualifications (debate)
The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Malcolm Harbour, Andreas Schwab, Evelyne Gebhardt, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Heide Rühle, Adam Bielan and Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications (O-0108/2009/rev.2 - B7-0217/2009).
author. - Mr President, with your permission, I would propose that we delay a moment or two because this is an oral question to the Commission and we were hoping that Mr McCreevy would be here, but I see that Mr Samecki is going to speak. I have not met Mr Samecki before, so I am interested that he is here to provide an answer to an issue that Mr McCreevy and his team have been working on. Thank you very much.
I was going to have welcomed Mr McCreevy here and thanked him for his work previously, so perhaps you will pass on our good wishes for what might have been his final appearance here. Nevertheless, I am particularly pleased that Mr Barnier has joined us as a very active member of my committee to hear this, because this is a dossier which will be very much in his in-tray, assuming of course that the Parliament approves his nomination and the Commission moves forward. It is nevertheless very good that he is here.
The free movement of professionals and the Directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications are among the flagship issues that my committee is most concerned about in the whole construction of the single market. It is very appropriate that we are discussing this question to the Commission this morning, which is essentially to ask for an update on the progress in transposing the revised directive that my committee worked on back in 2004-2005, and on how that is actually being implemented by the Member States. It is also very timely because Professor Monti came to our committee on Monday to talk about his mission for the President of the Commission on the future direction of the internal market. He made a very strong point that part of the problem with the internal market is actually not the lack of legislation, but the consistent enforcement and effectiveness of the existing instruments that we have in place to create the internal market.
In the case of the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, as the text of our question quite clearly sets out, we already know that a significant number of problems in relation to recognition of professional qualifications are encountered by citizens across the European Union. It has one of the highest levels of complaints in the Solvit mechanism that we very much support at member government level. Many people feel frustrated by the absence of clear decisions and also by the lack of contact between authorisation bodies in different Member States. One of the things that our own research has done, and this committee commissioned research on this topic, is to demonstrate the fact that there is nothing like enough coordinated activity on helping people to recognise their rights under mutual recognition. The other aspect is that it is also clear from the work we and others have done that not enough professions are actually thinking in terms of moving into a European qualifications framework. There are serious questions that we need to ask about the mechanism, about how simple it is to access and about how effective it is in practical terms. We know from the statistics and the information - and I am sure we will hear from the Commission shortly - that transposition of this instrument has been delayed in just about every Member State. It has taken much longer than people expected to bring this into operation, and that of itself raises concerns about the complexity of the instrument itself.
Just to pull all these things together in the context of the work of the Internal Market Committee over the next five years, I am delighted that, I think, all the coordinators of the committee are here today and I want to thank them for the work they have done, together with myself, on shaping the forward agenda for this committee. This question of mutual recognition of professional qualifications is not just a one-off. It is part of our feeling that the role of our committee is to continue to investigate, to promote and to make recommendations about the future evolution of the key legislations, the key building blocks of the single market.
We know that the Commission is due to review the mutual recognition directive in 2011. We plan to have a meeting of national parliaments and national parliamentarians to discuss this proposal. We have already had a hearing on this and we have our research report. These are the instruments that my committee can use and, if the coordinators agree, I am sure that we will be doing an own-initiative report sometime in 2010 to feed into this discussion that the Commission will have.
That is the context of the question. We look forward to hearing the Commission's reply to set the framework for that, but this is just the beginning of the process and I am sure that the new Commissioner will be able to take that forward and work with us to really develop this crucial piece of legislation and make the single market work better.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the Members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for raising these important questions.
Before responding to the individual questions, let me start with an overview. The objective of the Professional Qualifications Directive is to facilitate the free movement of our citizens in the internal market. Two years after the end of the transposition period, transposition is complete in 22 Member States, and four Member States will hopefully deliver by the end of the year. At this stage I am, however, concerned about Greece, from which we have not received any transposition measure yet.
Let me now turn to the first question. The transposition has constituted a challenge for Member States mainly because it affects more than 800 different professions. These professions have often even been regulated in federal or regional laws. However, this cannot be an excuse for any delays, and the Court of Justice has not accepted such delays in six judgments so far.
Concerning the second question, the main problems relate to the health professions and architects, where a higher degree of harmonisation of training requirements at European level is in place. Problems also occur in professions with higher levels of cross-border mobility of workers such as teachers or tourist guides.
On the third question, the priority of the Commission is to ensure correct and consistent implementation of the directive. To this end, we have developed a code of conduct on administrative practices and a user guide addressed to citizens, which will also promote more consistency.
As to the obstacles which Solvit identified, we are fully aware of problems on the ground, such as delays occurring in the recognition procedure, lack of response from the national competent authorities, unsubstantiated decisions, lost files, etc. Sometimes, erroneous information is even given to migrants and they are invited to follow wrong procedures. However, the Solvit network has proven to be effective in solving many of these problems.
But there is not only Solvit. National contact points are now in place in all Member States to inform and assist citizens, and the Commission expects them to be even more active in the future. Moreover, the Internal Market Information System has also provided a medium for supporting more than 1 200 information exchanges for many of the regulated professions this year. This has brought about enhancements in day-to-day administrative cooperation between Member States.
Finally, on the last question, the Commission is not in a position to assess whether there is a need for reform at the moment. This will be done during an ex post evaluation exercise foreseen by the directive. Our intention is certainly to respect the timetable set in the directive. It will be up to the next Commission to decide how to take this forward.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in 2005, we adopted this directive after several years of work and debate in Parliament and it came into force. In 2007, it was implemented. Now we have reached 2009 and it is hard to accept that the directive has not been implemented everywhere, particularly since it was not completely new, because there were already proposals in place. I can only encourage the Commission to exert more pressure on the Member States.
I had expected that the problems would lie in the practical management of the directive. That is the main subject of the forthcoming investigations: to find out where there are specific local problems and to discover what is actually happening. There has already been a reference to the fact that 20% of the complaints to SOLVIT concern this subject. This is a very serious matter. Mr Harbour rightly pointed out - and I do not want to repeat what he said - the importance of this problem for the internal market from an economic perspective.
However, apart from the economic issues, it is also one of the fundamental freedoms of citizens to be able to exercise their profession and to fulfil their potential in another state, for example, when they marry or move to another country for some other reason. This is a genuine problem for the citizens of Europe.
It is important for us to acknowledge that there will inevitably be problems. It is a complex matter, it takes time to implement and different cultures and traditions are involved, particularly with regard to the professions and the concepts of quality and qualifications within those professions. Therefore, it is not possible to recognise every qualification from one country in another country without question. For me and for us, this is less about dealing with the individual cases of hardship which will inevitably occur and more about investigating - and this is where SOLVIT comes in - whether there are faults in the structures or in the system and whether and how improvements can be introduced.
I would like to point out that it will never be possible to bring this subject to a close. It is a long-running issue because new professions and new job descriptions are, of course, constantly coming into existence. For this reason, this is an ongoing task for the Commission and for Parliament, but also for the Member States, whose goodwill I would like to call on at this point.
Mr President, I would first like to say that it is totally outrageous that there are no members of the Commission here, because this is a question directed at the European Commission. This shows contempt for Parliament. It is simply outrageous and we find it totally unacceptable.
(Heckling)
Yes? Yes, he did not get up. Well, I am sorry. I cannot accept that.
Moving on to the matter in hand, ladies and gentlemen, this is all about the citizenship of the Union, about the people who have the right to move freely throughout the European Union and to practise their professions where they live and where they choose to work. We have put this legislation in place so that this will become easier and so that the process of recognising professional qualifications can genuinely be brought up to date. I find it simply appalling that the Member States in many cases have not taken the necessary steps to implement this legislation and to ensure that citizens really have this freedom of movement. There is still a great deal to be done by the European Commission in this respect.
I would like to draw attention to one point which is very important to me and which we have repeatedly brought up in Parliament. We must ensure that the European professional card, which we have proposed, is introduced. This will put into citizens' hands something that will allow them to move throughout Europe. There are organisations which are attempting to do this. However, I feel it is important to ask the European Commission whether this is an area in which it could become involved in order to speed this process up.
The free movement of persons is one of the fundamental rights of the European Union's citizens. This also includes the free movement of professionals, which is a vital condition for ensuring that the internal market operates as efficiently as possible.
As has been mentioned in all the speeches made so far, in spite of the adoption of the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications in 2005, professionals wishing to exercise their right of free movement are still encountering numerous difficulties. I have personally come across various cases of this type, which have been brought to my knowledge not only by Romanian citizens, but also by European citizens, relating to a variety of professions.
My colleagues from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection did the honour of appointing me as rapporteur for the European Solvit network. As has been mentioned so far, a significant proportion of the cases which Solvit has to resolve are linked to failures in the system for mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
I believe, fellow Members, that we need to analyse in detail the problems which have been submitted to the Solvit centres so that we can see what we can improve.
Better communication is also needed between contact points in order to promote mutual understanding between Member States. They must understand how the other systems work in the European Union so that the maximum possible flexibility can be used when applying the directive, as well as to avoid the administrative obstacles blocking the professionals' path.
Lastly, it would be desirable for the five Member States which have not yet completed transposition of the directive, or any state among the 22 which has done this but is still having problems with transposition or has transposed it inappropriately, to quickly rectify these situations. The ultimate aim is to facilitate the smooth operation of the internal market for the provision of services which is directly affected by problems relating to the recognition of professional qualifications.
Mr President, Commissioner, I think we all agree on the objective here. Of course, we all want the citizens of Europe to be able to move about freely and to exercise their professions. The question is why this directive has still not been properly implemented after four or now nearly five years. I believe it would make sense if the committee was involved not only in drawing up and enacting the legislation, but if it also carried out an analysis afterwards of the reasons why transposition is delayed in this way.
The Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications is not the only directive which is causing problems. When there are so many cases in the Court of Justice of the European Union, when there are so many complaints procedures and when SOLVIT is so heavily involved with this subject, this should act as a wake-up call for us. We must look more closely at the reasons behind this. There are a number of causes. On the one hand, it is always very easy to say that the Member States are responsible for the delay. Protectionism is doubtless another of the reasons. The different cultures and legal systems certainly also play a role. What effect does European legislation have on these differing legal systems? That is another issue that we will have to address.
In addition, we must consider whether the directive has had the intended effect or whether it was incapable of achieving certain results right from its conception. I believe it is very important that we look at this issue again. This type of ex-ante analysis is one of the important subjects which this committee will have to deal with and make progress on.
However, I also have questions for the Commission. I am surprised that these guidelines are only appearing after more than four years. This could have been done much earlier. However, I do welcome the guidelines. I have read them and they are certainly helpful. Nevertheless, it would have been useful to have them some time ago. I would like to join with Mrs Gebhardt in asking what is happening about the European professional card. That will be the second important step.
Mr President, the crisis which has affected the European Union in recent months has shown irrefutably how important the internal market is for the functioning of the entire Union. We will not finish building it without introducing a certain freedom for people to migrate, which is guaranteed, among others, by the Directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Therefore, it is a sad and disturbing fact that, four years after adoption of the directive, it still is not in force in four countries, and none of the Member States adopted it before the deadline contained in the directive, 20 October 2007.
In relation to this, my first question to the European Commission is as follows: has the Commission not been too passive over the last four years, and what exactly did the Commission do so that all the countries would manage to transpose the directive in time? Secondly, I would like to ask when the Commission will publish a report evaluating transposition of the directive, and what will be used as the basis for the conclusions in the report? The Services Directive should be implemented at the end of the year. Today, in Parliament, we know already that many countries will not manage to pass laws about this in time. I would like to ask what connection the Commission sees between these two documents?
Finally, a very important matter for the country I represent is the question of migration of nurses. The directive introduces harmonisation of training requirements for nurses. I would like to ask what specific action the Commission has taken to help nurses from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including those from Poland?
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Commission for presenting its opinion to us. However, I would also like to point out that, following the interinstitutional agreement between the Commission and Parliament, and I have seen this happen with the Services Directive, which we discussed in Brussels months ago, Parliament has a right to demand that the Commissioner responsible should be here to answer difficult questions. I do not think that we can resolve this issue with this Commission and there is no point in trying to do so.
On behalf of Parliament, I would like to explain to the representative of the Commission who is here that we believe that this part of the interinstitutional agreement is extremely important. Why is that? Not for reasons of mere formalism, but because this is a very important political question for the citizens of the European Union. Mr Bielan has just referred to the Services Directive, which can only function if professional qualifications are recognised by both sides. It is of great importance, but many people also connect it with a feeling of helplessness, if they have the impression that their employer is making use of discrepancies in the cross-border mutual recognition of professional qualifications simply to reduce their earnings.
These people feel abandoned and helpless. I have seen this myself in a number of cases here on the border between Germany and France. However, this is obviously not the only problem area. It is true that we cannot resolve all the difficulties overnight and that this process will remain an ongoing issue in future, as Mr Lechner, the rapporteur, has said. Nevertheless, it is our job to show the citizens that we take their concerns seriously and, in my opinion, this also includes the Commission attaching sufficient importance to this issue.
I hope that we will be able to work together with the new Commission on this in order to make progress. I would like to ask you to arrange this with the Directorate General responsible for this area.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have already discussed the fears linked to the transposition of the Services Directive. In this sense, the example of the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications is symbolic. Some States have failed to respect the transposition deadline and are having problems due to the gaps in the text. Although this directive lays a solid foundation for mutual recognition, the specific characteristics of certain professions have not been taken into account. The fact is, recognising qualifications without having established actual common levels of qualification and training, including for higher education, can only cause complications and create mistrust on the part of Member States, professionals and the citizens.
The most obvious example is that of the medical professions. For example, French midwives are authorised to write prescriptions and are trained for that, which is not the case in other countries. What happens when a midwife without such authorisation arrives in France without additional training and has to write a medical prescription? Similarly, certain specialisms do not exist in every Member State.
This directive is crucial to the free movement of workers, the foundation on which the European project is based, but it must be improved and enhanced, and the difficulties encountered must serve to identify the professions for which language teaching and harmonised training are necessary.
I should like to mention the remarkable initiative, which is supported by all health professionals, to create a European card. This is a genuine guarantee as much for the carrier as for the customer or patient, and I call on the Commission to extend it to other professions, since this will enable us to improve mutual recognition and to gain the citizens' trust.
Mr President, when discussing the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and the good functioning of the internal market, we have to look at the current situation in the health sector, for which the directive and its implementation may need to be further discussed.
In addition to the full implementation of this directive, it is crucial to introduce further measures applying to mutual recognition, not only of diplomas, but of health professionals' qualifications as well. The provision of health services requires appropriate linguistic skills, registration through national regulators and, most importantly, the ability to deliver safe and high-quality care.
I think there is a need for better sharing of information between Member States regarding health professionals' registration, for example through a common EU database. A competence assurance system is also a key element of safe health care services provision, and we should think about common standards for the assessment of competences and skills.
Health professionals' mobility is also a question of public health and public safety. On these grounds, the ECJ has already approved additional national safeguards for the circulation of goods. There is also a rationale for such measures applying to the provision of health services, especially when new communication technologies allow controversial practices such as e-doctor consultations. We have to face the challenge of an ageing population, and this will put even more pressure on the European health workforce.
While ensuring the mobility of health professionals, we must also be able to guarantee to all European citizens accessible health services, timely delivered with the highest quality standards. This is a responsibility for all of us. I hope that the European institutions and Member States will consider it seriously, given the fact that some national health care systems are almost drained of professionals and this will make it extremely difficult for us to provide basic health care service.
(PL) Mr President, if we want our citizens to be mobile - and this is what the European economy needs - they have to be sure that when they gain their qualifications, for example, in Poland, they will not have problems with recognition of these qualifications in any Member State. I understand the scale of the problem perfectly. The 800 regulated professions of which Mr Samecki spoke, together with numerous regulations of these professions at national and regional level, are a considerable challenge for the administrations of the Member States. However, the challenge for our citizens who are having problems with recognition of their qualifications is, principally, how to find their feet in the complexities of the entire system. This is confirmed by data from Solvit, and this is why the problem with implementing the directive in time is only one aspect of our discussion.
We should not, however, forget that many problems are emerging because there is a lack of trust in Member States towards the education and training systems in other Member States. We lack, finally, cooperation, resources and the engagement of national administrations. The introduction of a European professional card is a good idea, and we had the opportunity to discuss this during the previous term of the European Parliament. Such a card must, however, facilitate the flow of people, and not make it more difficult. Introduction of this card - and I would like to stress this very strongly - should not become another barrier in the internal market.
Ladies and gentlemen, in just under ten days, the deadline for transposition of the Services Directive expires. I mention this because it is also important in the context of our debate today. These two directives complement each other in certain respects. Transposition of the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications cannot be called a success, and so I will permit myself once again to appeal from this place for an intensification of work on both directives, because without them, we will not make progress with the internal market.
(PT) Mr President, as we are all aware, 15 directives were consolidated into a single legislative act for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. That has given rise to a number of practical problems with transposition in the various Member States. The difficulties are well known, and the Commission should list the sticking points and analyse the problem areas found in the transposition of this important internal market provision.
The protectionism that rears its head at various levels is an obstacle not only to the free movement of persons but also to the internal market. We must try to identify the hazy areas so that the directive is not made less effective through mistrust. We are not asking the Union to do what the Member States should be doing, but an effort is needed to facilitate matters by helping to demolish professional corporatism.
To improve the transposition of this directive will require dissemination of the recognition of qualifications via the Solvit and EURES networks, the encouragement of joint platforms, implementation of effective contact points and, no less importantly, the linking of this directive to the Services Directive.
(MT) The biggest issue affecting the proper enforcement of this directive is the Member States' lack of trust in each others' systems. The Member States' disinterest in collaborating with each other is also reflected in the incoherent manner in which they perceive the internal market information system. Every Member State claims to use the system, but the frequency of use varies in accordance with the purpose for which it is used. It is impossible for an information exchange system to work properly when the Member States do not use it in the same way. It is necessary to have a full compilation of data which is updated regularly and it is also necessary to create a point of reference for all Member States, where each Member State inputs all necessary data which will allow the concrete application of the directive.
I would like to ask the Commission to inform us on the plans of action it intends to adopt for the proper transposition of this directive, if we truly wish to embrace the concept of the single market and not merely interpret it as we deem fit.
Mr President, before I go onto my question, there has been a lot of talk this morning about Solvit. At the last IMCO Committee meeting, we were told of the under funding of Solvit centres. You may want to take note of this before your hearing, Mr Barnier, but there is one intern running the organisation in one large Member State. We cannot allow that to go on, because Solvit provides us with an excellent service.
My question to the Commission is connected to health care professionals. An impaired professional risks putting patients' health at risk and, in the most extreme cases, can cause death.
Is the Commission considering a legal duty for competent authorities to proactively and effectively share information about struck-off professionals to ensure that the mobility of health care professionals does not compromise patient safety?
The current internal market information system allows for the sharing of information, but only when a competent regulator has a question about an applicant to its register, so we have to have a better exchange to alert authorities when an individual has been struck off due to incompetence.
Thank you, Mr President, for raising this issue for the committee.
(FR) Mr President, much has been said about the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. The question is: why is this directive, which is so important and so universally longed-for, difficult to apply? Well, quite simply because it is difficult and complex to apply in everyday, operational terms.
I see three main problems: the first is obviously language, a point that has been raised; the second is the complexity of the procedures to be followed to have a person's qualifications recognised as valid - at times, people have to literally jump through hoops to have their initial diplomas recognised; and the third is perhaps the variety of types of initial training.
In this regard, I think it would be a good idea for the Commission to ask the Member States to appoint, for each profession, a single competent professional body to be in charge of continuing training - continuing training being one of the solutions. These competent bodies should be asked to sit as a board, at European level, to define a common European form of certification. In that way, we would gradually see professionals go from an initially heterogeneous level to a common level of continuing training.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Belgium is one of five Member States to have not yet fully transposed the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications. However, according to the information that I have, the only thing it has left to do to comply with European law is to solve the problem of travel professionals.
Leaving aside the difficulties inherent in the Belgian institutional system with regard to the transposition of the various European directives, it seems that the directive that we are discussing here is particularly complex. That has already been mentioned. Belgium is not the only country to be affected by the non-transposition, poor transposition or partial transposition of directives. That is why, in the interests of professionals, I call on the European Commission to help those Member States that are having difficulties. Professionals should be able to benefit from the free movement of persons and freedom of establishment which, I would point out, constitute the main objective of this directive.
Mr President, firstly, my thanks to Mr Samecki for his good work. I think we all agree with the principle we are discussing here this morning, but it should apply not only across the European Union but worldwide as well.
This is something we discussed recently at the Canadian delegation, which is a step in the right direction. However, if we want that Utopian situation, we must ensure that professional qualifications are of an equal standard across the European Union and, ideally, worldwide.
There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that, in some countries at least, when students have not reached the educational standard to qualify for a course, they can go to another country and pay to do it there.
So there is a need for independent verifiable evidence that the standards are equal and, if they are equal, then there is no excuse for not transposing this principle across the European Union and, hopefully, in due course worldwide, to attain what we desire - the free movement of labour for professionals.
Mr President, let us get straight to the point here. The failure of Member States to get their act together in terms of the recognition of qualifications is costing us jobs. The failure of Member States to actually take this seriously enough is a serious issue. Our level of cross-border trade for what is supposed to be a single market is nowhere near what it should be. We are in the process of rebuilding the European economy, and part of this move must involve ways to enhance cross-border trade and make labour more mobile than it is now.
We must move to a new area of entrepreneurial innovation, where in Europe we are working together to make the world's most cutting-edge products. Given that our manufacturing base has dried up - Ireland being a case in point - exporting our services represents a new way of enhancing trade within Europe. However, for this, Europe must have standards when it comes to qualifications.
So far, the failure of Member States to agree on the rules for this matter is limiting our ability to sell these same services across borders. For the individuals involved, it is restricting the free movement of labour.
I agree with my colleague, MEP Grech, that Member States are not showing enough respect in particular for the information system they use and somebody needs to be held responsible in each Member State for the same. I urge the Commission to identify and tackle the obstacles which are preventing the realisation of the single market in this instance.
(NL) Mr President, I should like to pick out one aspect in this debate. There seems to be a great shortage of specialised professions, which has resulted in a trade in these qualifications and led to genuine qualifications being disregarded. This can entail great risks, both in the security sector, for example, and in large-scale plants such as chemical companies and oil refineries. National supervision in this regard seems to be inadequate.
I should like to ask the Commissioner three questions. Firstly, whether he knows about this; secondly, whether the European Commission can give us a report on this; and, thirdly, what we can do about it.
This is an absolutely ridiculous, undesirable phenomenon that I believe must be eliminated.
(SL) Ladies and gentlemen, this is really a very important issue that we are dealing with here, that of mutual recognition of professional qualifications within the European Union. This is a major problem because qualifications are granted by the education systems of EU Member States, of which there are at least 27.
Some of you will probably recall that, in March last year, we established the European Qualification Framework, which is a mechanism enabling comparison between education systems. However, one problem with this qualification framework is that it has not been implemented by the Member States. Some of them have not implemented it fully and some have used it merely as a convenient translator of various qualifications, occupations, skills and educational levels.
In my opinion, a major task lies ahead for the Member States in this particular area and, if they were really to enforce the European Qualification Framework, which was previously adopted at European institution level, they would greatly facilitate the comparison and the real mutual recognition of educational qualifications.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, honourable Members, my apologies for not standing up during my first intervention. It is because of a lack of experience and the early morning hour.
In general, I would like to refer to a couple of selected questions. First of all, we should underline that the Commission has been supporting Member States in preparing the transposition of the directive. Where the transposition period has lapsed, we have also been vigorous in enforcing transposition. In 2007, we published a transposition guide. Then we developed the internal market information system, which is now used quite intensively by all Member States, and we also published a code of conduct on administrative practices in June this year.
A year ago, the Commission brought non-compliant Member States to the European Court of Justice, and the Court of Justice issued six favourable judgments condemning the lack of transposition by the Member States concerned. Very recently, we published a scoreboard illustrating the state of transposition in the Member States, as well as a user guide for citizens and the business community.
To conclude, I would like to thank you for all the questions and comments, and especially the Chair, Malcolm Harbour, for his valuable input. We believe that it is up to the Member States to deliver now. The Commission is looking forward to developing a special relationship with Parliament also as regards this file. In particular, we are ready to actively discuss how the directive works in practice, and how to take best account of a swiftly changing environment in the coming years.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
One stated goal of this directive is to implement fully the current legal provisions concerning the freedom of movement of professionals within the EU. The free movement of professionals has already been adopted in Directive 2005/36/EC. However, problems are occurring repeatedly, particularly in regions near national borders. Many people in the region I come from work in Luxembourg, Belgium or France. I receive numerous enquiries from citizens who cross into one of the neighbouring countries to work. These enquiries often relate to the recognition of professional qualifications. This situation must change. Agreements have been reached by the professional organisations for specific professions, but this does not help in every case and all too often, citizens have to fight to have their qualifications recognised. It becomes particularly difficult when a particular country does not have a specific profession or that profession is organised differently, for example, physiotherapists or people with a PhD in business administration. At the same time, many areas are short-staffed. Nurses or toolmakers, for example, must, in future, have better opportunities on our labour markets and, above all, the internal market must function effectively as far as work is concerned. We need a transparent, simple and clear recognition procedure.


7. Draft amending budget No 8/2009 (
That concludes the vote.


Statements by the President
Ladies and gentlemen, we have learned with deep sorrow of the death of our former colleague, Nicholas Bethell, who was a Member of the European Parliament from 1975 to 1994 and again from 1999 to 2003. Lord Bethell died on 8 September at the age of 69, following a long and courageous battle against Parkinson's disease. During his many years as an MEP, Lord Bethell proved an outstanding Vice-President of what was then the Political Affairs Committee. He devoted himself energetically to many issues, on which he also drafted reports: the liberalisation of air transport, the EU membership of Cyprus and the introduction of the Sakharov Prize, which over the years gave moral support to many people worldwide in their fight against oppression.
Let me say a few words on this subject. Armed with his masterly knowledge of the Russian language and at considerable personal risk, Lord Bethell visited the Soviet Union on several occasions, where he made friends with many leading dissidents, such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, Anatoly Shcharansky and Alexander Ginsburg. He held discussions with them, interviewed them, campaigned for the release of those of them who were imprisoned and in general fought for the freedom of nations and for justice. Lord Bethell translated two books by Alexander Solzhenitsyn into English. He brought Anatoly Shcharansky and Elena Bonner, Sakharov's widow, to the European Parliament, not just once but on several occasions.
Lord Bethell was a colleague and a friend, who acted with conviction and set yardsticks. We will remember him with gratitude.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have just heard that two Spanish soldiers have been killed by a mine in Afghanistan and others - also Spanish - have been seriously injured. I would ask you to observe a minute's silence in memory of Lord Bethell and all victims of terrorism.
(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have taken note of the pro-democracy and freedom demonstrations in Burma/Myanmar. I am sure I may express solidarity and sympathy on behalf of all of us. That goes in particular to Aung San Suu Kyi, a holder of the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize, who has been under house arrest for many years. The European Parliament hopes that the time will come when we can welcome Aung San Suu Kyi here in the European Parliament and we call on the Myanmar authorities to release all the detainees immediately and grant them the right to demonstrate freely.
(Applause)


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


8. Annual report on the European Ombudsman's activities in 2007 (
Before the vote on amendment 5
rapporteur. - Mr President, as has been discussed, my oral amendment is as follows (paragraph 23): 'Proposes that the Ombudsman take measures to reduce the number of complaints in such cases where no action is possible;'. The end of the paragraph has been changed.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
Before the vote on amendment 7
rapporteur. - Mr President, it is just to delete the words 'by the first European Ombudsman' from the first part of the amendment.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
That concludes voting time.


Formal sitting - Costa Rica
Bienvenido al Parlamento Europeo, Presidente Arias! President of the Republic of Costa Rica, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to you, President Arias.
Your visit is a milestone in relations between the European Parliament, the European Union, Costa Rica and Latin America.
Dr Óscar Arias, you have been President of Costa Rica already, from 1986 to 1990, and in 2006 you were re-elected for a four-year term. You are best known as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to you in 1987 to acknowledge the enormous efforts you have made in the quest for paths to peace in Central America.
President Arias's efforts in his role as an international broker came to fruition in the Esquipulas Peace Agreement, which was signed by the presidents of all Central American countries on 7 August 1987. The European Union supported these efforts wholeheartedly.
The President of Costa Rica is therefore a role model for people throughout the world. He once said it was vital to have values, principles and ideals and to fight for them. President Arias, you have been committed to this for many years and the citizens of Costa Rica honoured the results of that work by re-electing you two years ago.
In my speech at the 5th EU-Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) summit meeting in Lima, Peru, which took place in May this year, I emphasised the foundational significance of regional integration for the 21st century. As Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, expressed it so succinctly, it is a case of 'building union among people, not cooperation between states'. President Aria, you too have subscribed to this ideal and worked actively to achieve it.
From the point of view of the European Parliament, it is desirable to conclude an association agreement between Central America and the European Union in the near future - and I said so in Lima as well - and I would like to add, as we discussed in detail in our meeting just now: whenever war breaks out somewhere, vast amounts of money are made available in dollars or euros or whichever currency, but when support is required to establish peaceful relations, then countries argue about far smaller amounts of money. We must give peace a chance!
(Applause)
That is our message today to the other European institutions.
President Aria, let me say, in conclusion, that we believe that you and your country will continue to play a crucial role in bringing these negotiations to a successful conclusion.
On behalf of all the Members of the European Parliament, I would like to welcome you again. I hope that your visit will give us the opportunity to strengthen the bonds of friendship between Europe, Costa Rica and Latin America.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to add something a little 'off the record': it is wonderful that the President of Costa Rica is here; and it is a very nice coincidence - by way of exception, I am allowed to mention somebody's age today - that the Member of the European Commission responsible for external policy, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, is celebrating her 60th birthday today. That is another happy occasion, and good reason to wish her many happy returns of the day.
(Applause)
Mr President, I greet you on behalf of a small American republic, in which just over 4.5 million people dare every day to live and to dream; in which the ideal of a society without an army has been possible, and in which we will soon be celebrating 110 years of democracy. I greet you on behalf of a small American republic that during the second half of the 20th century was surrounded by the most appalling dictatorships, whilst never experiencing oppression itself; which refused to be a pawn in the Cold War, and has refrained from using arms to achieve peace. I greet you on behalf of the Republic of Costa Rica.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen:
Two events have preceded me today, separated by centuries and decades, but they are as connected with the present as this morning's dawn. This very day, 225 years ago, the US War of Independence came to an end with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, the first wave of the independence movement across practically the whole of the American continent. Also 69 years ago today, the Second World War began, with the declaration of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom, and the emergence of the Allies, which included a large part of America. I am mentioning these events because as I come to this podium, a symbol of communion between different peoples, I do so with an awareness of the historical baggage I carry on my shoulders and which you also carry in the pasts of each of the nations that you represent. We have not come here to establish relations between our two continents, but to recognise that these relations have existed for a long time, and that any attempt to improve them should start with an attempt to understand them as a whole.
With the frankness that should prevail among friends, we have to recognise that our common history has its origin in the domination of one civilisation by another. America came to know Europe first of all through its power rather than through its ideas. Fear characterised the conquest, and indignation characterised colonisation. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to admire this age-old culture. Despite the battles that we have fought, it is undeniable that Europe turned on the light of reason in our land, and that it instilled in us an attachment to the best causes of humanity, causes that we did not abandon when we gained independence.
These were the causes that brought me to Europe 21 years ago, during my first administration as President of Costa Rica. At that time I came to ask for the strength of this continent to help in the quest for peace in Central America, where five nations were fighting for their lives in the midst of civil war. Bloodshed was dividing our peoples and pitting brother against brother. In a cruel experiment, the powers of the time used us as a testing ground to demonstrate their might: they brought in the weapons and we suffered the deaths. The number of fatalities rose, according to some estimates, to 350 000 people. On a proportional basis, this equates to nearly 4 million US citizens dying in the Iraq war. It was only by achieving peace that we could guarantee a future for our region.
At that time, Europe was the answer to our prayers. The moral support of this continent legitimised our efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the conflicts, a Central American solution to Central American problems. The international aid that you provided us with at that time was extensive and generous, and it was a symbol of Europe's genuine desire to help with the progress of the Central American nations.
Now, 21 years later, I am returning to Europe, and like Fray Luis de León when he came out of four years in prison, I feel compelled to start with 'As we were saying yesterday...', because in many respects we need to pick up where we left off. Relations between Europe and Central America, so close in a time of war, have become distant in a time of peace. Aid from Europe for Central America, which was so great in a time of oppression, has become more moderate in a time of freedom. We never imagined that in crossing the threshold of peace, we would enter the kingdom of oblivion. I would like to think that this is the time to show that the friends who supported us in our darkest days will also be able to do so in our brighter days, precisely because we are now experiencing brighter days.
Today I would like to propose three courses of action, through which we could strengthen our ties and fight, shoulder to shoulder, to build the utopias that you yourselves taught us to pursue: the signing of the EU-Central America Association agreement, the Consensus of Costa Rica and 'Peace with Nature'.
I am well aware that in this House there are all kinds of views regarding free trade. However, I also know that those views are expressed from the high-altitude perspective of those who have the good fortune to live in a developed nation. Today I would like to give you the perspective from down on the plains. For a country like mine, one of the smallest in the world, it is not possible to produce everything that we consume. We are doomed to be the Phoenicians of the modern age. In an era of globalisation, the dilemma that developing nations face is as harsh as it is simple: if we cannot export more and more goods and services, we will end up exporting more and more people.
It is clear that Europe needs to look after the interests of the European people. It is also clear, however, that the interests of the European people, and of any race in the world, are increasingly determined by the common destiny of humanity. No nation can carry on regardless while beyond its borders hunger, ignorance, violence and disease are rife. While the disparities between our nations remain so great, a global diaspora will continue to take thousands of human beings over oceans, rivers and city walls to seek the opportunities that they have been unable to find in their own countries.
The Association Agreement between Central America and the European Union, which may be the first agreement between regions that the European Union concludes, is the closest, clearest and most immediate opportunity that Europe has to revitalise its presence in Latin America. Since the creation of the Central American Common Market, few initiatives have held greater potential for accelerating economic growth in the Central American isthmus, to modernise our institutions and provide new opportunities for those Central Americans who are still living in poverty. For Europe, reaching this agreement would mean taking up the position of leadership that it has lost, and occupying the vacant position at the forefront of the battle for the development of our Latin America. Yesterday we were allies for peace, today we can be partners in development.
However, Central America and Europe still have colossal differences, which have to be considered. The first is the difference between our two models of integration: Europe must accept that Central American integration has happened in the manner that our institutional development has allowed. We are now the most integrated region in the developing world, and we therefore think that it is not fair for conditions to be imposed on us in terms of our integration in order to advance the negotiations; conditions that it is difficult for Central America to comply with, and that, moreover, are not required of other regions of the world.
The second difference between our regions, and perhaps the most important one, is the difference between our levels of development: it is crucial that the commercial component of the agreement gives asymmetrical treatment in favour of Central America, and above all that it avoids the terrible practice of retaining the barriers in the areas where it is precisely Central America that has the comparative advantages. If we reach an agreement on the basis of these assumptions, Europe would be making a giant leap to benefit the people of Central America, but also of Europe, because in times of international crisis, Europe could benefit greatly from an economy that has been growing at approximately twice the rate of the European economy over the last five years.
Europe can begin to play a new leading role in the developing world, but first it needs to ensure that this leading role will indeed benefit development. Goethe said that 'nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error'. We cannot enter a new phase of international cooperation while carrying the burdens of the past, particularly the burden of a military expenditure that is in itself truly offensive to the nearly 200 million Latin American people who are languishing in poverty. The time has come for the international financial community to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to recognise, with the evidence before it, what expenditure translates into a better standard of living for human beings, and what does not.
It is not a badge of honour that in 2007 Latin America's military expenditure amounted to 36 billion dollars, in a region that, with the sole exception of Colombia, is not currently experiencing any armed conflict. The money that is spent on a single Sukhoi Su-30k aeroplane could buy around 200 000 MIT Media Lab XO laptops for our students. The money spent on a single Black Hawk helicopter could pay a grant of 100 dollars per month to 5 000 Latin American young people. The developed nations of the world must not support, with aid and resources, the decision of those who prefer to equip their soldiers rather than educate their children. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, my Government has announced the Consensus of Costa Rica, an initiative to create mechanisms for forgiving debt and supporting, with financial resources, developing countries which invest more in environmental protection, education, health and housing for their peoples and less on arms and soldiers. I still hope that the Consensus of Costa Rica, with your support, will one day become a reality.
I also hope that we will be able to adopt a plan that is closely connected with the Consensus: the Treaty on the Transfer of Arms that Costa Rica has proposed in the United Nations, which bans countries from transferring arms to States, groups or individuals if there is sufficient reason to believe that those arms will be used to violate human rights or international law. I do not know how much longer we will be able to survive without realising that killing many people, little by little, every day, is just as reprehensible as killing many people in one day. The destructive power of the 640 million small and light arms that there are in the world, 74% of which are in the hands of civilians, has proven to be more lethal than that of nuclear bombs, and it constitutes one of the main driving forces behind public insecurity both nationally and internationally. The fear of death must not be the key in which the future of our people is written. Today we can do something to ensure that this is not the case.
There is just one more thing that I would like to mention, and it is something that also has to do with violence and destruction, but not only against human beings, but against all forms of life. Every forest that we cut down, every tonne of carbon dioxide that we emit into the air, every river that we pollute, bring us one step closer to the gateway to the extinction of our species, on the threshold of which, as at the gates to Dante's hell, we will have to abandon all hope. I refuse to witness humanity going through that gateway.
Sixty years ago the former President of Costa Rica, José Figueres, had the vision of abolishing the national army and thus declaring peace to the world. We have now taken the decision to declare 'Peace with Nature'. We have set out to be a carbon neutral country by 2021, when we will celebrate 200 years of independence. Last year we became the country with the most trees per capita and per square kilometre in the world, by planting 5 million trees. In 2008 we will plant 7 million more trees. We are leading an international crusade against global warming, and today I humbly ask you to join us in it.
Global warming has made it possible for olive trees to grow on the coasts of England, which is a truly alarming sign to the scientific community. Unlike in the Bible story, this time the dove will not bring an olive branch as a sign of peace, but as a sign of danger. Today I ask for us to send that dove to the farthest corner of the world, so that it may return carrying the will to change of all the nations of the world. It is only together that we will be able to form a new alliance, this time not between God and man, but between man and God's creation.
Mr President:
The great Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges used to say that he was an exiled European, alluding to the European ancestry of a large proportion of the population of our American continent. After centuries of intermingling and interchanging of races, there are probably also many exiled Americans here. We were exiled by the geographical chance of an ocean, and the historical chance of a pendulum that brings us together and distances us according to circumstances. I believe it is time to leave the pendulum set at union, to take the path once again that the winds took 180 million years ago, before the first crack appeared on earth, when Europe was joined to America, and it would have been possible to walk from Paris to New York.
We are all members of a single species, which is still capable of plucking the best flowers from the garden of life. Our dreams are a common heritage and our decisions have an impact on the lives of others, whether we like it or not. I think that this is far from a threat, but rather that it is undoubtedly a wonderful opportunity. I think, as the greatest Costa Rican poet, Jorge Debravo, said, 'it is wonderful, above all, to know that we have the power to bring to life the most remote things that we touch, to expand our horizons and not see any edges, because all the things that we see become, along with us, infinite'. I have no doubt that we will be able to use this infinite power for the good of everyone, both Europeans and Americans, and that side by side we will follow the star of a tomorrow of greater justice and freedom.
(Standing ovation)
President Arias, on behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to thank you most sincerely for this brilliant, distinguished speech. Your words expressed that you and your country represent democracy and freedom; you work against violence, against terror, against dictatorship. When you say that Costa Rica is a small country, then I would like to point out that the population of a country or its geographical area are not the most important things. What is important is the spirit of a country and its president. Anyone who has heard your speech knows that President Arias and Costa Rica stand for freedom and democracy. That makes Costa Rica a big country in the world.
(Applause)
You are a man of peace; that is why you were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987. However, you did not retire after that; 21 years have passed, and now you are advocating peace between people and peace with nature. The European Parliament stands alongside you in upholding these principles.
I would also like to give a warm welcome to the ministers of your government who are accompanying you - the Minister of Foreign Relations, Stagno Ugarte, and the Minister of Foreign Trade, Ruiz Gutiérrez, who are also here in the Chamber, together with many citizens of Costa Rica, who live here in Brussels and in Belgium. Be proud of your country! Not in a nationalistic sense, because then countries that have dictatorships and are ruled by violence could also be proud of themselves, but be proud of your country, of Costa Rica, because you champion the right values: democracy, freedom and peace.
Thank you very much once again. Muchas gracias, President Arias!
(Applause)


8. Agreement between the EC and the Maldives on certain aspects of air services (vote)


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 12.55 and resumed at 15.00.)


5. Rights-based management tools in fisheries (


8. Business registers for statistical purposes (vote)
- Hans-Peter Martin report
- Before the vote
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, I have a request to make on behalf of all democratically minded people. It is unacceptable for Members of the European Parliament to be dubbed the 'cancer of Europe', in other words to be called after a deadly disease. This did not happen in Budapest, like the insult to which Mr Schulz referred yesterday, but in Brussels. In his speech in the plenary chamber of this House, a Member of the European Parliament described critics of the EU as a cancer. The Member in question was Othmar Karas, Vice-President of the EPP Group. He said it at the plenary sitting of 10 October 2007.
I demand ...
(The President cut off the speaker.)
That did not pertain to the report.
All I will say on that point is that Members of Parliament should always be exemplary in their words and actions.