Council Question Time
The next item is Question Time (B6-0156/2008).
The following questions are addressed to the Council.
Subject: Passport discrimination in the EU
In some EU countries, passports and other documents used for crossing borders are issued not only to the nationals of those countries, but also to stateless persons residing permanently in the countries concerned. Given that most of these persons belong to ethnic minorities, does the Council intend to adopt or propose formats for passports and other similar documents which no longer include negative details such as 'aliens', and thus put an end to discrimination based on ethnic origin?
President-in-Office. - (SL) I have a rather brief answer. Namely, that the issuing of passports or travel documents to stateless persons permanently resident in a Member State does not fall under the competence of the Community.
Therefore, neither the European Commission nor the Council is competent to propose any changes in connection with this sort of passport, or any other travel documents.
(ES) Mr President, the reply from the President-in-Office of the Council is very clear indeed: there may be no discussion of this kind of issue. Perhaps I ought to ask the question in slightly different terms. Can the Council envisage any kind of EU harmonisation in relation to passports and identification of passports, or does it feel this issue will be permanently beyond the Member States' jurisdiction?
President-in-Office. - (SL) Mr Medina Ortega, thank you very much for your additional question.
At this point the only common standards or common benchmarks that have been adopted are those in the sphere of security elements, passports or other travel documents.
Personally, I could anticipate further measures in this sphere; as for any others, I could not speculate whether there will be any transfer of competence.
This is not a question of whether this matter is important or not, it is a question of competence. At the moment the competence of issuing identity documents to persons without citizenship is in the exclusive competence of the Member States, and the Council and the Commission have no authority.
Thank you.
(DE) I would like to ask a question about a different type of discrimination. In July, your country, Slovenia, is planning to introduce motorway toll stickers and intends to issue two variants: a yearly and a half-yearly sticker. This amounts to discrimination against tens of millions of EU residents travelling to the Mediterranean for their summer holidays. What proposal does the Presidency intend to make to the Slovenian Government to resolve this problem?
President-in-Office. - (SL) Mr Rack, thank you for this question. However, please note that this question should be addressed to the particular Member State, and not to the Council, which does not represent it in this matter.
However, as I have the advantage of knowing this Member State quite well, I should like to add that this is a temporary measure until the satellite toll is introduced, and that the relevant institutions in the European Union have been informed, or notified about this measure, and they have not interpreted it as being discriminatory.
Subject: Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon
Could the Slovenian Presidency please comment on the current status of the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty? What steps has the Council taken thus far to ensure a positive outcome of the ratification process?
President-in-Office. - (SL) I would like to inform Mrs Doyle that as of today's date, 21 May 2008, thirteen member states have ratified the Lisbon Treaty.
Maybe I should list them: Hungary signed first, as early as last year, followed by Slovenia and Malta, Romania, France, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia, Denmark, Austria, Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal - which means thirteen countries, or almost half.
Already during its six-month Presidency, Slovenia has affirmed its desire that the ratification procedure should run smoothly during our Presidency and then continue just as effectively during the subsequent French Presidency, the objective being that the Lisbon Treaty should come into effect on 1 January 2009, as has been planned.
However, I must emphasise that the ratification is not in the domain either of the Presidency or of the Council, but that it falls within the competence of the Member States, the signatories to the Treaty, in each case in accordance with that country's constitutional regulations.
Thank you.
My thanks to the Presidency. I welcome the fact that 13 Member States to date have ratified the Lisbon Treaty. You will be aware that Ireland is the only country that will be ratifying it through the referendum process.
We have major difficulty at home at the moment in trying to counteract the various different groups on the 'no' side. These groups spread fear and confusion in relation to the Lisbon Treaty, deliberately or not, often on issues that are very important but have nothing to do with the Treaty. Can you then confirm for me, Mr President-in-Office, that Ireland's right to veto future direct taxation proposals will in no way be compromised by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and that there is no connection between the WTO negotiations and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty at all?
President-in-Office. - (SL) Mrs Doyle, thank you for the two additional questions.
I can confirm that, firstly, any decisions in the sphere of taxation will continue to be made consensually. In other words, even once the Lisbon Treaty comes into effect, provided it is ratified by all the Member States, Ireland, or any other Member State, will continue to have the right to veto any matter concerning taxes.
As regards your second question, namely regarding the negotiations currently being held within the World Trade Organisation, I can also confirm that these negotiations have no direct connection with ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
Therefore, to both of your additional questions the answer is - yes.
Mr President, I too want to ask the Minister a question with regard to the Treaties and the ratification process in Ireland at the moment.
One of the arguments that is raging at the moment is that, after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, countries may lose their veto in the ratification of international trade agreements - WTO agreements, for example.
As it stands, there is a veto, and the 'no' side are maintaining that after Lisbon this will change. I would like the confirmation of the Slovenian presidency as to whether this is the case or not.
ith the luck of the Irish, the electors of Ireland alone are to be allowed to decide on a Treaty which fundamentally affects the future of us all. Will you, on behalf of the Council, pledge to accept their democratic verdict or, like the voters of France and Holland, will they be treated with contempt if they dare to vote 'no', very much in the disreputable tradition of 'Croppy, lie down!' and Nice II?
Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately I cannot give the floor to any more speakers as the Rules of Procedure do not permit this. I believe everyone is aware that we are studying a change to this Question Time in order to make it more flexible and also more useful. I myself am assisting the working group and we will definitely have positive news in due course. At the moment, the Rules stand as they are and I cannot give the floor to Mr Higgins, despite this having been requested, because he was the third person to request this.
President-in-Office. - (SL) First, regarding the question asked by Mrs Harkin.
There will be changes regarding the conclusion of agreements with third countries and international organisations. This is mentioned in Article 207 of the future Lisbon Treaty. However, it is this very article that at the same time very clearly provides a list of numerous areas where the Member States will retain their veto, since the article lists quite a number of matters and areas for which, when making decisions, the Council will continue to apply the principle of consensus.
It is the fourth paragraph of Article 207. I should mention that there are quite a number of such areas. This is the area of services, the commercial aspects of intellectual property, the area of direct foreign investments, the area of cultural and audio-visual services, the social services area, education, healthcare and others. For all of these areas, even once the Lisbon Treaty comes into effect, the principle of consensus will apply whenever the Council makes a decision, which means with the approval of each and every Member State.
To Mr Allister's question I would say the following: as I have already mentioned in my first reply to the relevant question, the ratification of the Treaty on the European Union is in the domain of the Member States. By signing this Treaty in December last year the Member States committed themselves to do everything in their power so that the text they signed will also be ratified in line with their internal rules, constitutional and other legal provisions.
This is where the Presidency does not have any role. It is owing to the Presidency, for instance, that Slovenia, which currently holds the Presidency of the European Union, has been among the first to fulfil this task. If the ratification should fail, which is something that will hopefully not happen, it will be the sole responsibility of the country where this has happened, and not the responsibility of the Council, or anyone else.
Thank you.
Subject: Negotiations with FYR of Macedonia towards EU membership
Can the Council comment on the current state of play in the negotiations with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?
In which areas does the Council feel there has been most progress? What are proving at present to be the most difficult areas to move forward in discussions?
President-in-Office. - (SL) As the scope of the question is quite wide my answer will be slightly longer.
The negotiations with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on their EU membership have not yet commenced. Until such time as it joins the European Union, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement is currently the primary framework for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's European relations.
In line with the priority tasks defined in the Association Partnership, the country's progress towards gaining European Union membership has been assessed in the Commission's Progress Report. As a rule, the report is published at the end of October or the beginning of November. The Council is looking forward to the Commission producing its next assessment in autumn this year.
In its conclusions of 10 December 2007, the European Council took note of the progress that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had made, and expressed its regret that the implementation of its reforms had been delayed. The delays were due to internal political tensions, as a result of which the attention of the country's political institutions was turned away from the European integration priority tasks.
At this point we can mention some positive examples, indicating that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is making efforts to avoid such delays. Of the political criteria, the country has achieved progress in the sphere of decentralisation, anticorruption policy, cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, as well as in the interethnic relations, and the implementation of the Ohrid Agreement.
Following the publication of the EU Commission's November Progress Report, the country adopted the Law on Public Prosecutors, the Law on the Public Prosecutors Council and legislation on the Board for Interethnic Issues, and the empty seat on the Judicial Council has also been filled. Progress has also been made in the sphere of security of documents, border controls and migration.
The Council will continue to encourage all the political parties to intensify their dialogue and cooperation and that with different ethnic groups, so that the country can achieve progress with the integration process.
The Council will also continue to encourage both sides to renew their efforts constructively, so that in the negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations a mutually acceptable solution regarding the name issue could be achieved. This would improve regional cooperation and contribute to good relations with their neighbours.
The main reforms that the country still needs to carry out in line with the recommendations from the Association Partnership areas are:
in accordance with the Ohrid Agreement they must continue with decentralisation: two thirds of the municipalities are already in the second stage of the fiscal decentralisation;
they must improve equal representation of ethnic minorities in public administration, the sphere of internal affairs being a good example of this.
The next reforms are the police reform, the judicial reform, and the two major unresolved issues from the so-called May Agreement requiring a wider political consensus, namely the law on languages, and the agreement on regulating the status of victims from the conflicts of 2001.
On 18 February 2008 the Council adopted a decision on the principles, principal tasks and conditions from the EU Association Partnership with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Council has updated the current partnership by defining the updated principal tasks for further work on the basis of the findings contained in the Commission's Progress Report for the year 2007.
Thank you very much for your response. I am just wondering: are you satisfied that the tensions have now eased enough to allow progress to be made? And if they have eased sufficiently, what sort of timescale are you talking about for the necessary reforms to be implemented in full so that the full negotiation process can get back on track?
President-in-Office. - (SL) As we know, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia elections have been called for 1 June. We hope that the campaign period will not cause a delay in carrying out the necessary reforms. Also, hopefully, the reforms will be continued before and also after the election period.
In particular, the Presidency is making efforts to achieve progress in the integration of the West Balkan countries, including the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on its road towards European Union membership.
We hope that this progress will be achieved as soon as possible, and that the country will be given, among other things, a date when membership negotiations can commence.
Of course, this primarily depends on the country itself, on the rate and quality of their reforms which still need to be completed, and which I have mentioned in my answer.
As the author is not present, Question No 4 lapses.
Subject: Climate change and international security
Javier Solana's recent paper on Climate Change and International Security draws the Council's attention to some major issues relating to climate change and addresses in particular the implications of territorial claims, exclusive economic zones and access to new trade routes brought about by the consequences of climate change. The emphasis on security and geopolitical power opportunities is a departure from the EU's approach to climate change to date that looks to curbing emissions and increasing EU and global preparedness. Is the Council working towards a position and strategy relating to these important issues?
President-in-Office. - (SL) As you all know, in June 2007 the European Council invited its Secretary-General, the High Representative Javier Solana, and the European Commission to present a joint document on how climate change affects international security.
The joint report was presented at the European Council meeting in March of this year. The report identifies possible threats and forms of disputes which could appear in various parts of the world as a result of climate change.
I should like to list some of them by way of example: disputes due to a shortage of resources, particularly when access to resources is used for political purposes; increased migration, the consequence of which is additional pressure on the transit and target countries, which could cause political and ethnic tensions; and probable political tensions due to changes in coastal areas, disappearance of islands or problems of access to new traffic roads and to resources.
Apart from this, the report I mentioned contains several recommendations which require further investigation; their implementation would then have to be followed up by European Union action plans.
This is why the European Council has invited the Council to study the joint document, and to propose its own recommendations no later than in December of this year, on the necessary further measures. The aim of these measures would be, amongst other things, to strengthen cooperation with third countries and regions in the light of climate change and international security.
I should mention that the European Union does not distance itself from the already known common approach to climate change. On the contrary, with this document it points out a new and a very important aspect of climate change, which we shall not be able to avoid in future debates at various levels.
As Mr Mitchell is probably aware, at its spring session in 2007 the European Council approved the objectives of the European Union regarding the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. This should have been the Union's contribution to the global and integral agreement for the period beyond 2012.
The European Council has also emphasised that the European Union is committed to transforming Europe into an energy efficient economy, with low emissions of greenhouse gases. It has adopted the decision that until a global and integral agreement for the period beyond 2012 is concluded, the European Union will endeavour to unilaterally reduce its own greenhouse emissions by no less than 20 per cent by the year 2020, compared to the year 1990.
Within the climate and energy bundle the European Parliament and the Council are currently debating the contribution of each Member State in order to achieve the above-mentioned Community's target. Apart from the mitigation of climate change consequences, at the international negotiations on climate change special attention will also be paid to new technologies and the securing of funds.
In June 2007 the European Commission published its green paper under the title of 'Adaptation to climate change in Europe - options for EU action'. This year, after intensive consultations with all interested groups, the Commission will also publish a White Paper on adaptation, which will represent a basis for further discussions concerning the European Union's policy in this area.
Thank you.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but I wonder if the institutions are to some extent at cross purposes here.
On the one side we are staring environmental catastrophe in the face, with Europe and the world continuing as normal, while on the other side we move to engage with the problem of climate change and take the hard decisions that our future generations are dependent upon.
As the Minister has said, in its Spring conclusions the Council did undertake to move towards tackling the serious problem of climate change and to take the serious decisions needed.
But is Mr Solana singing from the same hymn sheet? He has been saying different things: talking of the need for fossil fuel exploration rights in one of the last environmentally pristine places on earth, and calling this an opportunity. Does that not fly in the face of what the European Council is saying? Could we please co-ordinate our messages?
We do have the rapporteur on the climate here, Mrs Doyle, who will be listening to all of this.
President in Office. - (SL) I can assure you that the Secretary-General of the Council - the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy - has, without any doubt, the same viewpoint as the European Council. He prepared his recommendation on behalf of the Council. The Council has welcomed the report, and has not found any discrepancies or contradictions in relation to the Council's other decisions, including decisions in the sphere of the integrated climate protection and energy policy.
So I do not share the opinion that there are any discrepancies between the High Representative's activities, and the Council's decisions or intentions.
(ES) Mr President, I wish to pick up on the reply from the Council to our colleague's pertinent question by suggesting, particularly in the Member States around the Mediterranean, that we should also discuss the problem of climate change.
One of the proposals in the Commission communication concerns enhancement of the Horizon 2020 Initiative for the depollution of the Mediterranean region, both a victim and a cause of climate change, and there can be no doubt that some very pragmatic action can be taken through this proposal. Does the Council not feel that this is a regional priority in the fight against climate change within the framework of the EU's global agenda?
President-in-Office. - (SL) Thank you, Mr Carner González, for your additional question. We can agree with this initiative. In fact, one of the regions that the Mr Solana has particularly pointed out in his report is the Mediterranean, a region that could become increasingly problematic due to climate change, but also due to migration and similar pressures.
There is no doubt that we can expect that climate and environment protection in general will be one of the main topics within the Barcelona Process, which is soon to be updated with proposals for the establishment of a Union for the Mediterranean. I repeat that this will be an updating of the existing Barcelona process.
As you know, the recently presented European Commission document which refers to these issues has found a way of tackling them, which the Member has touched upon, although, for the time being, the document does not yet mention any specific projects. However, we can expect this to be one of the major topics in our intensified dialogue with countries around the Mediterranean.
Subject: Effective protection of the EU's external borders
Could the Council state what progress has been made under the current Presidency towards more effective protection of the EU's external borders and whether the problem of drug trafficking at coastal locations has been discussed at Council level?
President in Office. - (SL) I believe that Mr Higgins is aware that the Council attributes great importance to the efficient management of external borders. With the free movement of people within the European Union, the appropriate protection and management of external borders is of key importance so as to provide the Member States with internal security and to effectively combat terrorism, illegal immigration and people trafficking.
To this end the European Council has so far produced a number of important measures. It has, among other things, adopted legal instruments such as the Schengen Borders Code, the External Borders Fund, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States - FRONTEX for short. It has also adopted measures in connection with the setting up of the Rapid Border Intervention Teams.
I would also like to draw your attention to three communications which the Commission made public on 13 February this year. These communications contain proposals and recommendations on a possible means of border management at the EU level, on the future development of FRONTEX, on the possible formation of the European Border Surveillance System called EUROSUR, and on the external borders entry-exit system.
The debate on the Commission's proposals and recommendations from these communications took place on 12 March, at the Ministerial Conference in Slovenia. It is anticipated that in June the Justice and Home Affairs Council will adopt the Council's conclusions on the management of the external borders of the EU Member States. These conclusions should list the short-term and long-term priorities for FRONTEX's future development, further recommendations regarding the European Commission's work on using state-of-the art security technology, better management of external borders and guidelines on further work for establishing EUROSUR.
Apart from this, we have been carefully monitoring FRONTEX's activities, particularly as regards the implementation of joint operations, the European Coastal Patrol Network, the further upgrading and utilisation of equipment which is recorded centrally, the so-called CRATE, and the possible deployment of the Rapid Border Intervention Teams.
The establishment of a Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre - Narcotics (MAOC-N) in September of last year was an important step forward for border protection. This is a centre for criminal prosecution with military support, established by seven Member States: the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Italy and Portugal. The centre is also available to any other Member State.
The centre's objective is to eradicate the illegal trade in banned substances by sea or by air across the Atlantic to Europe and Western Africa.
This objective should be achieved with intensified collection, exchange and analysis of information, and with optimal utilisation of the Member States' maritime and air facilities.
Among the Council's priority tasks should also be strengthened border control, and the collection and exchange of classified information on the routes of drug trafficking.
Mr President, as drug usage increases and as more drugs become available, it is clear the security authorities are unable to stop the drug supply from entering especially from South America.
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you made a reference to coastal patrol; are you and the Council aware of the fact that there is only an occasional inspector on duty at the harbours and airports of the Atlantic coast in the west of Ireland? There is only one boat. And it is only too clear that Ireland is being used as a gateway to export drugs to the other Member States - to your own country and to other countries in the European Union. Are you and the Council worried about this situation?
President-in-Office. - (SL) I am thankful to Mr Higgins for his additional question. I should like to emphasise that the European Council is really concerned about this, and will remain concerned while drug trafficking continues to exist.
As regards Ireland, I should like to emphasise, as I mentioned earlier, that Ireland is one of those countries that have, in September last year, established the Maritime Analysis and Operation Centre - Narcotics (MAOC-N). Its task is precisely the eradication of illegal trade in banned substances that is taking place via this route, that is, either by sea or by air, across the Atlantic, towards Europe or West Africa.
So given the recent establishment of this centre, I expect it to become more active in future, and the Presidency will support these developments, providing encouragement with the leverage that is at its disposal.
(DE) Minister, the extension of the area covered by the Schengen Accords last December has raised concerns among many citizens of the EU that they no longer enjoy the level of security to which they had become accustomed. Following the enlargement of the Schengen area, can it be said that cooperation between the police authorities of Member States in the enlarged area has achieved the desired results?
President in Office. - (SL) Thank you, Mr Rack, for this additional question.
It is important to realise that expansion of the Schengen Area has not happened automatically, or owing to some momentum, or by itself. It happened once the extensive preparations were completed in all the Member States that wanted to be part of the Schengen Area. It happened once the responsible EU bodies and institutions subjected these preparations to a thorough evaluation.
And only once it was confirmed that adequate control had been established on the future external borders of the widened Schengen Area could this expansion take place.
I would particularly like to emphasise that, since we take people's concerns seriously, it is, of course, necessary to inform them that there are no objective reasons for them to be concerned.
I repeat, the expansion of the Schengen Area has not happened just like that. It took place following thorough preparations, and after thorough checks were made that all the technical and security conditions were met, and since they were met, we can today give reassurances that the security of external borders of the expanded Schengen Area is in good hands.
Subject: Combating poverty
How does the Council view the development of safeguards for minimum dignified living and working conditions involving full and productive employment for European citizens and EU residents as a means of combating poverty, in particular child poverty?
President-in-Office. - (SL) Thank you for the question posed by Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou.
Employment and fighting poverty and social exclusion represent the greatest challenges for the European Union and its Member States. However, I should point out that both employment policy and social policy are within the remit of the Member States, and the European Union supports and complements their activities.
This is why the Member States must develop the most appropriate combination of policies, taking into account their economic and social situation and their employment situation.
Allow me to mention some EU measures taken in this sphere, the intention of which is, as I have already mentioned, to support and complement the policies within the remit of the Member States who are conducting them.
Firstly, the EU legislation regulates a large number of matters concerning employment, including free circulation of the workforce, information and consultation, working conditions and antidiscriminatory measures.
Secondly, tools such as employment guidelines, integrated recommendations and common principles on flexicurity, and political guidance of the Member State in the transposition and implementation of their policies.
Thirdly, also within this open form of coordination, the Member States have shown strong political commitment to an exchange of information and learning from each other. The open method of coordination has contributed to this by establishing common indicators, by encouraging studies and mutual surveys, and through a stronger cooperation at EU level.
In connection with workers' rights and the improvement of working conditions, apart from anything else European legislation regulates the circulation of workers, freedom of information and consultation, working conditions, including working hours, health and safety at work, and antidiscrimination measures, which also cover gender equality measures.
Allow me to point out that Article 137 of the Agreement says that the provisions of this Article shall not apply to salaries. This means that the European Union is not authorised to set minimum wages, nor is it authorised to adjust minimum wages between the Member States.
Within the open method of coordination which has already been mentioned, the Member States are, in fact, encouraged to provide adequate minimum standards. The decision on standards - the type and level of entitlements - are in the exclusive domain of the Member State.
Because the situation differs between Member States, in our opinion there is no point in imposing a common standard. We must keep in mind that in the area of the European Union many Member States are facing issues such as availability of funds, indebtedness and the sustainability of social security systems. So it would be dubious to set up or impose common standards in these areas.
All of this indicates that the Member States should both plan carefully and discuss the issue of minimum standards, and in that way contribute to the elimination of poverty.
In her question, Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou referred to child poverty in particular. Children are faced with poverty in households where the parents are not in employment, in households where the rate of employment is low and the family income is insufficient, or in instances when income support is not sufficient to eliminate poverty.
Therefore, implementing balanced and integral strategies, and the strategies of active inclusion at least to some degree make a real contribution to promoting the well being of children and young people.
Thank you.
(EL) Mr President, I thank the Council representative for his answer to my question about safeguarding acceptable standards for decent working and living conditions. Decent work is an aim of both the UN global community, under the auspices of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), and the EU. We have in any case passed a resolution on this.
How does the Council intend to implement these decent working and living conditions for citizens, particularly for children?
President-in-Office. - (SL) Thank you very much for the additional question.
On this resolution too, it must be taken into consideration that this topic is within the remit of the Member States. The Council can only speak in general terms. Of course it encourages the Member States to comply with the general provisions contained in the quoted Resolution, or in the standards promoted by the International Labour Organisation. All the EU Member States are also members of the International Labour Organisation.
Thank you.
(PT) We agree with the aims behind alternative energies but it is clear that the food problem and hunger which seem to be increasing are making many people wonder whether biofuels are the right step. My question is, while agreeing that we need to move forward with alternative energies, whether you are able to say publicly and assure our citizens that this route is not increasing the cost of foodstuffs and world hunger.
President in Office. - (SL) Thank you for your additional question.
The issue of higher food prices is certainly a big problem, and that is why this high-level forum too has organised a debate on this topic. The European Council is prepared to do everything to tackle effectively the problem of higher food prices. However, in order to do this, we must first find the reasons why the prices of food are going up - and the reasons are probably numerous.
The factors causing higher food prices are many and varied, and that is why the Council is dealing with them through various bodies. Recently this was debated in the Agricultural and Fisheries Council, which adopted certain guidelines that should contribute to slowing the increase in food prices.
Some time ago, in this very hall, biofuels were mentioned as one of those factors that are supposed to be contributing to higher food prices. There is global awareness of the potential influence of biofuels, and that is why there is an intensive development of so-called sustainable criteria for the production of fuel. Among these sustainable criteria are certainly also those of the social effect, which we shall try to take into consideration.
The work is not complete, but it is continuing intensively. However, I should like to emphasise that the influence of biofuels as a factor influencing higher prices, is most certainly among the less important factors, and that there are a number of others which are more important and are at the same time also being intensively considered by the Council.
Thank you.
Subject: Human rights in Cuba
In February 2008, the Cuban Government signed two legal covenants from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the United Nations in New York. These legally binding covenants commit Cuba to allowing the people 'freedom of expression and association, and the right to travel'.
In light of this positive action by Cuba, and the recent constructive visit by Commissioner Louis Michel to Cuba in March, what moves is the Council making to normalise relations with the Cuban Government? What pressure will the Council bring upon Cuba to live up to its international commitments?
President-in-Office. - (SL) Regarding the question posed by Mr Evans, I would like to say the following:
The European Union has welcomed the fact that Cuba has signed the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICPPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
In its statement of 4 March this year, the Presidency assessed Cuba's signing of the two pacts as positive. As Cuba has become a signatory of these legally binding international instruments it has, of course, accepted the obligations arising out of them.
The Presidency has encouraged Cuba to continue with such positive actions, and to further increase its cooperation with the international structures in the area of human rights protection. The European Union will carefully follow the implementation of these legally binding commitments to human rights accepted by Cuba.
In its Conclusions on Cuba, in June 2007, the European Council invited the Cuban government to make political and economic reforms which are necessary to improve the everyday life of the Cuban people. The European Union recognises the right of the Cubans to decide for themselves on their future. The European Union is prepared to provide further constructive support for future development in all spheres of Cuban society, including measures within development cooperation.
However, the European Union continues to remind the Cuban authorities of their particular obligations to encourage and to respect human rights, and their citizens' freedoms.
Further debates are taking place in the European Council on the possibilities of re-establishing a general and open dialogue with Cuba in line with the conclusions reached in June last year. However, whether this will materialise depends also on Cuba, and whether it is prepared to accept the proposal for a political dialogue.
The Presidency invites Cuba to make a further important move and to ratify both the United Nations pacts without any reservations that would undermine their character and effectiveness.
Thank you.
My thanks to the President-in-Office for the further call he has made tonight. I wonder, given the changes in government in Cuba, whether he and the Council have detected any change and increase in the enthusiasm of Cubans to enter into the open political dialogue he mentioned? I wonder also if he could reflect on the current debate taking place in the United States and the debate that no doubt takes place between the Council and the United States in our transatlantic relations. Does he detect any change of policy there which may incentivise further improvements in human rights in Cuba?
President-in-Office. - (SL) Thank you very much to Mr Howitt for the additional question.
I could not say that we have noticed any substantial changes, although we are aware of the potential for change, and the potential for a new chapter in the relationship between the European Union and Cuba. This will also be discussed at one of the next sessions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council.
We hope that this potential will be utilised, and that this can become a reality. Although, I repeat, this is also or primarily up to Cuba.
Thank you.
(SK) The release of the four Cuban prisoners of conscience is a very positive step, as is the Cuban Government's signing of two legally binding covenants from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the United Nations on 28 February 2008. However, at least 58 people still remain incarcerated in Cuban prisons purely for insisting on their fundamental rights. In the context of these two UN human rights covenants, what can the Council do for the 75 prisoners of conscience from the 'March group'? I trust that the Council will call on high-ranking Cuban officials to review all cases concerning Cuban dissidents by impartial and non-partisan courts, and will try to get them released.
I was slightly disappointed by your reply because I think the Cubans are indicating a real willingness to move and that the change in government is a change in emphasis in terms of the Cuban approach to the outside world. It would be a great pity if the EU did not use this opportunity and grasp the chance to have a serious dialogue with Cuba. So let us not keep putting more pressure on Cuba to make concessions, let us start with the EU engaging with the Cubans.
President-in-Office. - (SL) Firstly, regarding the question posed by Mrs Pleštinská.
The fact is that the number of political prisoners has been reduced, and the European Union applauds this. However, the European Union will continue to demand from the Cuban authorities the release of all political prisoners. Primarily because Cuba is a member of the UN Human Rights Council and, of course, this implies that it has certain obligations. There is no doubt that the human rights issue will be one of the fundamental issues in our dialogue with Cuba.
And here I should like to turn to Mr Martin's comment. I can reassure him that the Presidency, or the Council, will not lose any opportunity to re-engage in dialogue, should the opportunity arise. Of course, the subject of this dialogue would absolutely have to include the human rights situation, and we hope that Cuba will accept such a proposal for establishing a dialogue.
Thank you.
(DE) Mr President, it baffles me how the Council can simply leave without batting an eyelid. I have been a Member of this House for a long time. Question Time with the Council used to begin at 9 p.m., and the Council was with us until half past ten. Then the Council asked that Question Time be brought forward to 6 or 7 p.m., and we deferred to its wishes. That was our first mistake. Since then, Question Time has always started late, and the representatives of the Council have had to leave on the stroke of seven, regular as clockwork. It is not the fault of the Slovenian Presidency; it is a general problem that we must discuss with the Council. For half of the year, the representatives of the Council can surely stay until Thursday in this beautiful city of Strasbourg and be available to us on Wednesday evenings too.
Your comment is noted. Today we actually started on time at 6 p.m. The sitting therefore did not start late. In any event, the Council has asked for the floor and may speak.
President-in-Office. - (SL) Thank you, Mr President, for allowing me to speak.
I would just like to tell Mr Posselt that the Council respects and has conformed to the decisions that the European Parliament has adopted, of course with consultation with the Council. However, it has been decided that question time should be one hour - which today started on time. It has also been decided that, as a rule, question time should be on Wednesdays, between 6 and 7 p.m. The Council has adapted to meet this, and it respects this and will continue to do so in the future.
Thank you.
(DE) Mr President, allow me to inform the Council that Question Time normally lasts for an hour and a half; when we complain to the Bureau, we are invariably told that Question Times which last for only one hour are the exception. The exceptional arrangement applies every time now.
Mr Posselt, that is a matter for the Conference of Presidents to decide. It is not a question of whether or not I agree. I should like us to have more time, but we must abide by the decision of the Conference of Presidents. In any event, your criticism has been noted and will be forwarded to the Conference of Presidents.
Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).
That concludes Question Time.
(The sitting was suspended at 7.05 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)


Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast) (debate)
The next item is the report by Wolf Klinz, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast) - C6-0287/2008 -.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in July 2008 the European Commission presented its proposal for a revision of the existing Directive on Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS), thus providing the basis for what we are debating today. We needed to stick to an extremely ambitious timetable if we wanted to ensure that we could actually succeed in revising the UCITS Directive, which has been in place since 1985 in its initial form, by the end of this parliamentary term.
The clear aim of these reforms was to improve the competitiveness of the European fund industry, to enable it to reduce its costs, to develop and make use of economies of scale, to ensure that all fund providers do indeed have access to all markets in the European Union, and to achieve all of this without reducing protection for investors: on the contrary, we wanted to improve protection for investors. In other words, we had a very ambitious programme, and I have to say that I really do appreciate the fact that, in cooperation with all the institutions involved, we have managed to conclude this project within such a short period.
Investment funds provide small investors with the option of investing small sums of capital in a diversified, professionally managed portfolio. In the past, European UCITS have already proven to be a great success story. Collective investments in transferable securities are not only sold in Europe, but are also, to a not inconsiderable extent, exported to regions outside the European Union - particularly to South America and Asia - where they are very highly regarded. That is why it was so important, when revising this directive, to ensure that we did not damage the status of these UCITS.
The UCITS Directive has been amended twice in the past, and on this occasion too, the Commission has tackled the revision with great care. It carried out a consultation process, presented a green paper and a white paper, and undertook in-depth discussions with all those involved in the market. The Commission proposed a total of six measures in this revision, which should help to achieve the aims I referred to earlier.
These include, firstly, introducing a management company passport; secondly, facilitating cross-border mergers of funds, in order to reduce the number of funds provided in the European Union and thus resolve the imbalance that can currently be seen between Europe and, in particular, the United States; thirdly, providing the possibility of master-feeder structures, in other words the option of investing one fund in another master fund and having that master fund manage the investments; fourthly, developing a short - only two pages long - information document, known as the key investor information, containing the most important information for small investors; fifthly, simplifying the notification procedure in order to ensure that, when a fund requests authorisation in a country where it is not yet authorised, this does not de facto result in a new re-authorisation; and, finally, strengthening supervisory cooperation.
The fund industry has not escaped unscathed from the financial crisis. A lot of money has flowed out, and in these circumstances it is absolutely vital that we make decisions as soon as possible, in order to strengthen the credibility of the funds and to ensure that small investors do not lose confidence in these investment instruments.
I would just like to conclude with two final comments. The first is that the Commission has established a group, chaired by Jacques de Larosière, to examine the issue of supervision in Europe. I hope that the conclusions drawn by this group and the proposals it develops will ultimately be taken on board by the Commission and will find favour here. Secondly, particularly in the case of cross-border mergers of funds, we are still seeing differences in the tax treatment of cross-border mergers and national mergers. Here, too, we call on the Commission to make sure that we have the same conditions for both, not different treatment.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am pleased to express the Commission's support for Parliament's amendments to the UCITS IV proposal. This will facilitate the adoption of UCITS IV modifications in a single reading. Such an outcome will be a very welcome development for EU fund markets which have recently been confronted with many tough challenges.
The proposal adopted by the Commission last July is the outcome of a thorough process of consultation. It started before the financial crisis. It sets some clear objectives for improving the functioning of the UCITS Directive. Bearing this in mind, the Commission wanted to simplify and stimulate cross-border sales of UCITS, provide fund managers with effective tools for increasing the size of their funds and benefit from economies of scale. However, it is not only about being competitive. The Commission also wanted to put in place effective rules on investor disclosure ensuring that anybody wishing to invest its savings into a UCITS should receive essential, clear and understandable information before taking his or her decision.
I am pleased to note that the goals set by the Commission proposal have been met. Parliament and Council have adjusted the Commission's proposal on mergers, master-feeder-structures, fund notification and key investor information, but the high-level ambitions set by the Commission in its original proposal was fully respected.
The Commission is very pleased with the outcome of the codecision process as regards the chapters contained in its July proposal. On the subject of the management company passport - which became an important part of the proposal - initially at the time of the adoption of the proposal, the Commission had serious concerns about the potential negative impact that an insufficiently prepared management company passport would have for the security and retail investors placing their money in UCITS funds.
Looking back, I am convinced that our decision to consult the Committee of European Securities Regulators on these issues was the right one. It helped Parliament and the Council to design sound provisions which would protect the interests of unit-holders. This was my one and only consideration dealing with the management company passport.
We have come a long way since July 2008. The CESR advice has provided the basis for a comprehensive set of provisions that clarify respect for responsibilities, ensure full information flow and underpin the necessary cooperation and support to EU Member State authorities. This is true at all stages: initial authorisation, ongoing supervision and enforcement. The Commission can now sign up to the compromise text.
Our work in this is, however, not finished. The success of the management company passport depends on our ability to deal with some remaining complex issues, like risk management via Level 2 measures. This work will also provide the occasion to tackle weaknesses in risk management that have become apparent in a small number of cases in recent times.
Very strict deadlines have been imposed on the Commission in delivering these measures. We have expressed our concerns on the feasibility of these deadlines. We will need time and resources to carefully prepare these measures, to consult stakeholders and adopt them. The Commission will endeavour to start this process as quickly as possible. We will also need the full and active cooperation of all actors, including this Parliament, to be able to deliver on time.
I would like to warmly thank again the rapporteur Mr Wolf Klinz and express my appreciation and admiration for the efficient handling of this file by Parliament. All three institutions can be satisfied with the consensus that has been achieved in the space of only a few months. You have shown that Europe can move speedily to bring about useful regulatory improvements. You must build on this achievement now and complete the ambitious programme of implementing legislation.
Finally, let me conclude by making two statements which the Commission agrees to make in relation to the adoption of this report.
Firstly, regarding the issue of taxation of cross-border mergers. The Commission will undertake to examine the potentially adverse impact that national taxation systems may have on cross-border mergers and use its funds once the proposed provisions are adopted. The Commission will in particular examine the potential cases of adverse tax consequences for investors.
On the issue of supervision, I have been vocal about the need to strengthen supervisory cooperation. In Solvency II and in the amendments to the capital requirements directive, the Commission has, on my recommendation, put forward proposals to strengthen supervisory cooperation. I therefore have no difficulty in agreeing on the need to push forward in this crucial domain. Therefore, in order to ensure consistency and coherence in all relevant financial sector regulation, the Commission agrees, on the basis of the conclusions of the de Larosière report, to examine the need to strengthen the provisions of this directive related to supervisory cooperation arrangements.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, please allow me first of all to salute the remarkable work accomplished by our rapporteur, Wolf Klinz, who has managed to find broad agreement within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and negotiate a completely satisfactory compromise with the Presidency.
The Committee on Legal Affairs, when asked for its opinion, made known its views and these were taken into account. The original UCITS Directive was the key to development for European investment funds. In June 2007, the assets managed in UCITS represented EUR 6 000 billion and UCITS accounted for around 75% of the investment fund market in the European Union. The internal guarantees provided by UCITS explain why they are recognised by investors well beyond Europe's borders. However, the regulations must change to promote the development of these funds.
The changes made in 2001 opened new investment areas for UCITS but they left behind several bottlenecks. The Green Paper led to a public debate. In 2005 it was followed by a White Paper.
Today, we can welcome the major advances in efficiency offered by the proposal that we have before us. The most significant progress is the recognition of a European passport for management companies. The proposed provisions will allow the implementation of this passport for management companies, whilst guaranteeing adequate protection for investors. It is a complete passport and we welcome it. The supervision measures it includes will certainly be effective in removing any doubts which might have been expressed.
The proposal also makes major technical improvements, for example, notifications, cross-border mergers and the grouping of funds via master-feeder-structures. The harmonisation which will be thus achieved will also guarantee equitable competition conditions across the European Union, provided, as our rapporteur has stated, that actions are taken at a fiscal level to avoid distortions.
Mr President, Commissioner, more than ever, I have very mixed feelings about the proposal for a directive on which Parliament is preparing to vote. It is true that the rapporteur, Mr Klinz, has been working for many years on this and has negotiated with talent, especially during the trialogue. It is also true that the directive will make some significant advances in the operation of the internal market and in the collective management of financial assets, and these have been welcomed by Europe's investment fund industry. It is still the case that the debates and discussions in the Council and Parliament have never been totally free, as the result was known in advance: for some players it was essential, at any cost, to introduce the European passport for management companies.
On the principle, there is no more to say; the passport is its own defence. However, it is necessary to ensure that the introduction of the passport for management companies is accompanied by the necessary guarantees, especially as regards the supervision of funds, as it leads to dissociation of functions beyond borders. I note with regret that the system as implemented is not only complicated but also subject to different interpretations. There is a risk that it will soon run into practical difficulties that will damage the European export fund industry, especially for export to third countries.
I have indeed noted that my position is in the minority, although I do not feel ill at ease. In normal times, I would have been tempted to say that only in practice will it be possible for definitive conclusions to be drawn on the issue and therefore to decide who is right. Is it those who trust in the abilities of market operators to adapt or those who insist on a more prudent approach? I do not exclude the possibility of success, but it is not guaranteed either. Given the latest news, especially the Madoff scandal and its implications for the collective financial assets management industry, we are unlikely to be reassured.
My scepticism gives way to concern. The investment fund industry will not be spared by the financial crisis; we know that now. It may be that fundamental questions need to be asked. In this deep crisis, making choices that dilute the responsibilities of stakeholders or assume perfect cooperation between the regulatory authorities may really lead to incongruity.
I am saying what I think: this directive is also from another era, from before the crisis. It is marked by a certain nonchalance. The financial system, in fact, is experiencing a lasting and fundamental crisis of confidence, and entire chunks of its architecture must be reconsidered. Let us not forget that the first duty of money market funds is to protect the investor by diversifying the risks and by establishing strict rules. By voting for this text as it stands, without really knowing where we are heading, we make it look as if nothing has happened. This withdrawal from reality will lead to no good, so I will abstain, even though I have signed the compromise amendments negotiated with the Council. Given the circumstances, the improvements made seem to me to be of little import compared with the questions of principle that I have just raised.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are about to vote on the new directive on undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities. This directive has been extremely important in the past and will continue to be so in the future.
Things have changed so quickly since the first directive, which dates back nearly a quarter of a century, that we now need to coordinate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions, as the title states, and request a radical update to take into account new needs, which I think should be seen in terms of greater fluidity and mobility, as well as greater supervision and control.
The work in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs went ahead in a spirit of excellent cooperation due to the positive attitude of the rapporteur, whom I cannot thank enough, and the Council, perhaps because we realised that we were touching on an area that is closely connected to the financial crisis and that we urgently needed to come up with some timely and appropriate answers. I think it is important at this stage to sum up a few points on which we reached a good understanding and, I hope, good results. This is the case with management companies, particularly as regards identifying the applicable law - the law of the Member State where the fund is or where the management company was set up - in order to take us toward a clearer, safer and more efficient supervision system. It is also the case with the agreement on the Level 2 measures that the Commission has been asked to adopt by July 2010 without fail.
It also applies to the understanding that makes the management company responsible for procedures, mechanisms and contact names to enable consumers and investors to obtain specific information, not least if they have complaints to make, if the management company is not based in their Member State. We should view in a positive light the possibility of further strengthening cooperation in terms of supervision, with bilateral and multilateral agreements between the competent authorities of Member States on UCITS and management companies, and also the agreement on merger and master-feeder-structures that make it possible to operate throughout the full extent of the internal market. We still have some differences of opinion, however, on the timing of the notification procedure, because we would have liked and would still like this to be longer and more appropriate, as laid down by the Council.
Lastly, I would like to mention the progress made on the prospectus, the key investor information for consumer protection, noting that in this case as well we would have liked a hard copy of the prospectus to be circulated automatically due to its small size, and not solely on request. To conclude, I feel there should be broad agreement on the need to complete this dossier at first reading.
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Mr Klinz, for his excellent work. In such a turbulent time as this autumn has been, the rapporteur has succeeded in finding a reasonable compromise, as we have already heard. Even without the financial crisis, these issues are difficult to deal with. I know this only too well, as I was responsible for steering through UCITS in 2001.
The aim of UCITS funds is to create not only a better and larger funds market, but also an open and consumer-friendly market. This has largely happened. Many obstacles were removed in 2001. I would like to remind everyone that it was not particularly easy then, either. It was also prior to the Lamfalussy process. A few obstacles remain, however, and it is these obstacles that are being dealt with now. There will be an improvement in marketing. There will be greater protection for investors. The merger of funds and master-feeder-structures will be possible, and cooperation between supervisory authorities will be strengthened, something that was also mentioned by the Commissioner.
The rules concerning the management company passport have been a sensitive issue. We have already heard comments on this. We are aware of the different opinions. However, I think that the present proposal is a good one. Competition and openness are always good in a well-organised market.
Another important issue was the key investor information, which replaces the simplified prospectus. A balance must be achieved between relevant information and effectiveness. Too much information is not good but neither is too little. The question of language is, of course, a sensitive one, but I believe we must have the courage to deal with this issue if we want to make more headway with cross-border trade. A reasonable balance is also required in this area.
As became evident in the autumn, Europe needs a financial market that functions effectively. UCITS have cleared the way and become a success and an esteemed trade mark outside Europe, too. Let us safeguard this development, which is also something this proposal does.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mr Klinz, the rapporteur, on his excellent report. He has worked extremely hard to get an agreed compromise, and I congratulate him on that.
The revised UCITS directive will, when it enters into effect, serve to reduce much burdensome red tape and unnecessary costs.
During compromise negotiations, certain specific concerns of some Member States were recognised, allowing for the production of a strong and widely supported proposal. I believe it not only protects consumers but is also good for investors. As some speakers have already said, an open market is a positive thing and can be a very good thing for all of us if it is well regulated.
UCITS revision is yet another recognition that the financial markets of today are so integrated that we need common rules and standards for the effective regulation and operation of the global financial services industry. That is recognised not only in Europe but also globally, as we go through unprecedented financial times. It is very important that we work together at a global level to try and resolve the problems.
Let me just say that today is a great occasion: we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the euro currency, which itself serves as an illustration of the importance of economic cooperation. It is fortunate that my own country, Ireland, is a member of the euro zone as the current currency has been a source of stability for Ireland and other countries at a time of unprecedented turbulence and during the current global recession. If Ireland were not in the euro zone, we would probably be in the unfortunate position of Iceland - but that is not the case.
I would like to remind some of the Irish Members in this House - Sinn Féin in particular - that if they had had their way, we would not be in the euro. They described it at the time as a backward step. Ireland would not be in the monetary union and Ireland's economic position would be as bad as Iceland's.
I would like to remind those who opposed the European project in Ireland that many countries around the world are now using Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty and exploiting the confusion over its possible or perceived repercussions to win over new contracts at the expense of Ireland. Economically, Ireland must stay at the centre of decision-making in Europe, where we have traditionally been and where our enterprise needs and wants Ireland to be.
Mr President, with all the controversy currently surrounding regulation of the financial services industry and the headlong urge to rush towards over-regulation, this is a welcome example of common-sense, appropriate and measured regulation of the industry. Mr Klinz and the Commission have done a good job and I happily support this report and the proposed revision.
UCITS are a vital part of the European - and, yes, of the Scottish - investment management industry. They are a vitally important savings vehicle for savers and investors, not just in Europe, but all over the world. Imitation is surely a sufficient compliment and, even in the US, the UCITS is the model to be aspired to. Mr Klinz has incorporated much of what I consider to be vitally important, such as diversification into new investment products and techniques with reasonable security at a common-sense level. Most importantly, we have to achieve greater economies of scale in Europe. Many of our UCITS are too small and there are too many of them, so we must facilitate mergers. Personally, I would have liked to have seen that go even further to allow UCITS with different investment objectives to be able to merge more easily, provided that the investor was adequately protected and informed of such changes.
Thirdly, the management passport is a vitally important new provision which will allow for greater economies of scale, greater efficiency and the reduction of red tape. This must only be in the interests of the investor. The revision will therefore be good for the industry but, even more importantly, it will be good for the investor and the saver, not just in Europe but all over the world. I am very glad to support Mr Klinz's report and the UCITS revision.
(FR) Mr President, Mr Klinz, thank you for your work, your commitment and your negotiating skills. UCITS are in some way a trade mark for the European financial markets; they are a good export product. However, there are imbalances in the European Union, as it is an area in which there are producer countries and consumer countries, so there are different strategies.
One of the aims in revising this directive is to organise, in these conditions, an internal market in UCITS which really works. Now, there are four questions at this stage: the first, which has already been raised in this debate, is evidently that of the management passport and I heard the Commissioner tell us about his fear of seeing this passport badly prepared. However, Mr McCreevy, there needs to be a will to prepare it: I have sometimes had the impression that it was not something the Commissioner was set on achieving. I am therefore pleased about the negotiations that have begun on the initiative of the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that, when the UCITS Directive is revised, we will adopt a real management passport which will allow the European Union's internal market to function in normal conditions.
The second observation relates to the issue of retention. If, when the Capital Requirements Directive is revised, we require the banks to hold 5% of the securitisations that they place on the market, it will be necessary immediately to harmonise, and under similar conditions, the retention obligations in the UCITS field, because the same risks must lead to the same rules.
My third observation relates to the issue of supervision. I do not think anyone here will doubt our determination to seek improved supervision conditions. We are all awaiting, on the initiative of President Barroso, the results of the working group led by Jacques de Larosière. I believe that the stakes are such that we cannot wait much longer for the results of this working group to be implemented. That will have an impact on the conditions for organising supervision between the stakeholders, in other words the producers and the consumers of UCITS. We thus need the supervision issues in this area to be defined.
Finally, my last observation is about tax regime issues. The rapporteur has mentioned them and the Commissioner has made a commitment. There is, behind the issue of tax regimes, hidden protectionism which we must denounce, which we wish to overcome. To do so, the Commission must take initiatives so that the tax regime allows truly free movement of UCITS products, with no protectionism.
(LT) I would also like to underline our rapporteur's excellent work and ability to find a suitable compromise. However, like some of the speakers, I also have a few doubts. Those doubts concern the provision that EU Member States will have to prepare all the documents related to investment business, as stated in the document, 'in a language customary in the sphere of international finance', and this means in English.
I spoke in favour of creating an opportunity for business to reduce costs which would not be regulated in detail, but fund managers with one language, in this case English speakers, should not receive priority and a competitive advantage. We should also avoid creating legal uncertainty.
How can a consumer defend his rights if the document creates prerequisites for ambiguous interpretation of financial business responsibility? I am in favour of clearly defining financial business responsibility and the competitive conditions which investment business follows.
(PL) Improving the effectiveness of the mechanisms by which UCITS function should, in my opinion, be a priority of Parliament's work. In order to increase the benefits and competition in the European fund industry, costs to investors should be restricted, guaranteeing them at the same time the same high level of protection. I agree with the rapporteur that the existing prospectus should be replaced by a free document containing key information for investors.
It is also extremely important to continue work on the directive in the area of taxation of fund mergers in order to remove tax barriers. Furthermore, and like the rapporteur, I take the position that practical use of the management company passport, which is intended to give management companies the right to offer group portfolio management services in the whole of the EU, would contribute to the creation of a true common market for the fund industry.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, once again I express my appreciation and admiration for the efficient handling of this file by Parliament. It is a result of a remarkably quick consensus.
As has already been mentioned, this is not yet the end of the story - much still needs to be done at Level 2. Member States will also have the task of transposing this new set of rules - Level 1 and Level 2 - altogether before the summer of 2011. Arrangements for cooperation between national supervisors will have to be put in place. These are key to the good functioning of the management company passport.
I can assure you that the Commission will play its role in order to facilitate this progress and to put these badly needed changes to work in the EU fund industry.
Mr President, first of all, I agree with the Commissioner that this is indeed not the end of the story. We now need to get started on implementation, and one reason why we have set relatively tight deadlines for Parliament and for the Council is that we want to ensure that we do not have to wait too long for implementation. We need to keep up the pace, because we can see that the markets are changing at a tremendous pace, and if we are constantly lagging behind we will not be able to achieve our targets fully, or perhaps not at all.
Today's debate has shown that we have broad cross-party support for the compromise we have negotiated here. I acknowledge that Mrs Lulling sees things a bit differently in this respect, but I am reasonably confident that the future will show that her concern that Luxembourg's position as one of Europe's central investment fund centres could be damaged will prove to be unfounded, and that, on the contrary, this new UCITS directive could also provide opportunities for this financial centre.
Mrs Berès is absolutely right: what this is really about is finally creating a real internal market in the investment funds sector. This sector is an example of the fact that, though we talk about the internal market, in many cases we do not yet have one. That is crucial. No one disputes that it will lead to a completely new and very ambitious level of cooperation, including between the supervisory bodies, but we need to achieve that in any case. In other fields, too, the supervisory bodies need to work more closely and more constructively together, and trust each other more, than they have in the past. If the UCITS directive can give a gentle nudge to encourage that, then in my opinion that is all to the good.
The Level 2 measures to which the Commissioner referred are legion, and need to be dealt with within a short time; that much is true, but we all have an interest in ensuring that this does happen.
That, however, is not the end of things: the industry itself also needs to do its own homework. The Commission, and we here in Parliament too, have deliberately chosen not to raise the issue of fund processing at all, because we are working on the assumption that the industry will keep its promise to deal with this matter on its own, without legislative pressure. It has been working on this for quite some time now, and we still have nothing concrete to show for it. I hope that it will soon be able to put something on the table, otherwise we will have no choice but to take further action in the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, I would like to thank not only the Commission but also, and in particular, the Council for their cooperation and for their active support. I am also grateful to all the representatives of the other groups, particularly Mrs Berès, Mrs Gottardi, Mr Gauzès, and also Mrs Lulling, who, as we have seen again today, defended her interests valiantly but was still perfectly willing to compromise where possible. Thank you very much.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
(The sitting was suspended at 09.40 and resumed at 10.00.)


Voting time
The next item is the vote.
(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)


Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes


24. 2006 discharge: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (formerly European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) (


Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes


Corrigendum (Rule 216): see Minutes


Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes


1. Commission Annual policy strategy 2009 (vote)
- Before the vote on paragraph 24:
Madam President, very briefly, two days ago we adopted a policy action at EU level on organ donation and transplantation. I thought this was important enough to include it in this motion for a resolution with a suitable short reference as indicated in the voting papers.
(The oral amendment was not accepted)
- Before the vote on paragraph 37:
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am asking for the three words 'independent impact assessment' to be included after 'better regulation'. That was the wording in the original draft but, for reasons I am unaware of, it seems to have fallen by the wayside. As far as I can determine, the oral amendment has the approval of the other groups.
(The oral amendment was accepted)