Revision of the Package Travel Directive (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the revision of the Package Travel Directive.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am grateful for this opportunity to give you an update of the Commission's work on reviewing the Package Travel Directive. At the time of the adoption of the directive in 1990, package holidays were the most common type of holidays. Since then, the market scene has changed significantly: the development of the Internet has made it possible for consumers to make their reservations directly from tour operators, air carriers and hotels. Furthermore, the rapid development of low-cost air carriers has revolutionised the supply of air transport. It has also enhanced competition and consumer choice in the travel market.
Nowadays, a majority of EU citizens organise their holidays themselves rather than purchasing predefined packages. These changes have resulted in a decreasing number of consumers being protected when going on holiday. We are also aware that the existing directive has led to an uneven playing field for the holiday industry, with some operators being regulated by the directive while others are not, even though they sell similar products.
Moreover, the minimum harmonisation of the directive has caused legal fragmentation in the Member States. This means that the current legislation may not be up to date.
For this reason, the Commission launched the impact assessment process to prepare for a possible revision of the Package Travel Directive last year. In the context of the impact assessment work, the Commission published a study on consumer detriment in the area of the so-called 'dynamic packages' in November 2009.
At the same time, the Commission launched a public consultation on the revision of the directive. This consultation was closed on 7 February 2010. The Commission is now examining more than 170 contributions, which will feed into the impact assessment. The scope of the possible revision will depend on the outcome of the impact assessment.
However, let me explain briefly the guiding principles of this work. First, a high level of protection is key if we want to make sure that consumers have confidence in their holiday purchases. Second, we must improve the functioning of the internal market for travel, in particular, since cross-border purchases are so frequent in this area. There is therefore a good case for more harmonisation of the relevant legislation in Member States. Finally, I think it is necessary to create a more level playing field for the businesses selling travel packages.
The Commission is planning to present its proposal early in 2011. The key challenges for the revision will be to define the scope of the directive. The Commission will look into the possibilities of extending the scope of the directive to cover a wider range of travel arrangements including the 'dynamic packages'. This could help to reverse the trend of the decreasing number of consumers being protected when going on holiday.
We will need to update the different information requirements and clarify the obligation and liabilities of the professional parties to the contract. Finally, in order to improve consumer awareness, the Commission will explore the cost and benefits of introducing a standardised package travel label which would have to be displayed when selling package holidays.
In parallel with this work, the Commission is examining the possibilities of enhancing protection against bankruptcy for passengers buying stand-alone air tickets, as recently requested by the European Parliament.
At the beginning of 2009, the Commission published an independent report that explored the different possible ways of addressing the consequences of bankruptcies. We also launched a public consultation on the future of air passengers' rights on 15 December 2009. These elements will serve as a basis for the impact assessment. We aim to present the most appropriate bankruptcy protection measures to Parliament before the end of 2010.
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I would firstly like to thank Commissioner Dalli for his promises and explanations that in 2011, he plans to undertake a revision of the Package Travel Directive dating from 1990. In terms of timing, it fits exactly in the current window, which we should use, because in the area of package travel, there is a whole range of issues when consumers are not properly informed about their rights. For example, on many websites, they are seduced into booking further offers through additional links, although these offers are not subject to the same protection mechanisms as the original ones. Here we are talking in particular about offers from low-cost airlines.
Secondly, in most Member States of the European Union, these low-cost airlines make the service of judicial documents impossible so that consumer protection is greatly hampered, exactly where consumers actually want to defend themselves legally. This absolutely must be changed with a new proposal for a directive.
Thirdly, we must also ask ourselves whether the rights of air passengers and the rights that are in force pursuant to the existing Package Travel Directive should, in the long term, be transferred into a common document, to eliminate contradictions between components of both legislations.
Fourthly, I believe - and this is something you have pointed out - that the assessment of the work of travel agents that varies from country to country also means that the cross-border provision of goods and services is being made very difficult for travel agents. In some countries, travel agents are liable just like package tour operators; in other countries, like mine for example, travel agents are only intermediaries. Here it would be preferable if, Europe-wide, we could at least agree on principles to facilitate the cross-border work of these travel agents.
Due to the increasing use of the Internet by consumers, package travel deals on the Internet should, in future, also be labelled as such, so that abuse here, too, remains impossible.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, this debate comes at a very timely juncture for tourism, the air travel industry and consumer protection.
We had a summer where it seemed that half of Europe was stranded on holiday, with airlines and travel agents going bust left, right and centre, and consumers being stranded away from loved ones, in countries that were not their own. It was clear that our laws had failed to properly protect consumers. We had several reports of passengers left with no information about when they could get home, no transparency about who was technically responsible for their situation, no phone number to call to get any information and no idea how to seek redress when they did get home.
Therefore, I welcome this timely debate and the Commission's efforts to tackle this matter, as all of us have let this area go for too long. Many problems with the Package Travel Directive were identified almost 10 years ago in a parliamentary report, but very little has moved on it since. I know that the proposed Consumer Rights Directive will deal with some issues, but cross-border air travel needs more European laws for the protection of consumers.
The very fact that the law is still called the Package Travel Directive shows how outdated it is. The majority of consumers no longer use travel packages if they have found cheaper methods to go on holiday and see the world. Forty per cent of travellers in my own country, Ireland, do not bother to use packages, and I know this is replicated in many other Member States. Most people are now acting as their own travel agents with online booking on sites such as Tripadvisor, where they effectively become their own travel agent. Our laws now must reflect this change in consumer behaviour.
One of the most significant issues that must come from any review is to demonstrate clearly to the consumer who is responsible in the event of these delays and cancellations. Travel companies must be mandated to provide very clear information. Consumers must be told where they can get this information and be informed of their rights in the circumstances.
(The President asked the speaker to speak more slowly for the sake of the interpreters)
Under the current legislation, there are no clear lines of responsibility. In the event of a mishap, is it the airline that is responsible? Is it the travel agent? Is it the airport or train station? Who should a consumer ask for the information? Typically, these situations descend into scrambles of information from various sources and nobody knows whether they are going or coming.
If we are trying to build the European economy based on cross-border trade, consumers have to be aware of their rights and entitlements and how these are enforced and communicated. I know, for example, that it is extremely difficult to find an airline's complaints department. How can you get redress if you do not know where to go or ask?
What I will be calling for - and I am hopeful that the Commission will take this on board - is for the basic principles of customer care to be enshrined in clearly communicated legislation that is uniformly understood and simple. Updating this law is not enough. Member States must be obliged to communicate new legislation to citizens once it is agreed.
Finally, one other idea that the Commission might consider is: how much does a flight cost? We are all aware that the advertised price does not include taxes and charges: there are charges to check in, charges for extra pieces of luggage, charges for virtually everything and anything. Revising this directive provides an opportune moment to compel travel and airline companies to provide better transparency, and we must take this opportunity to do so.
Mr President, Commissioner Dalli, I would firstly like to give you a warm welcome on behalf of the ALDE Group. You have already said that you are planning a revision of the directive we are talking about.
We can indeed be glad that we live in Europe, as in Europe in the European Parliament, we can even discuss how we can go away on trips with ferrets and other pets. That was the previous debate and I was delighted and proud to be a European because we can even regulate something like that for the protection of consumers and animals.
Now, however, we are talking about people travelling. That is an important right in Europe. We want mobility and freedom of movement for people and we have considered how we can ensure that. Twenty years ago, we had the directive regulating package tours, so that you could say to yourself 'I can go and explore other countries, see the beauties of other countries in Europe and know exactly that my rights protect me'. I will be informed in advance on what to expect, I will not be misled, the information must be right and if something does not work, I will receive compensation. That was 20 years ago.
As you said, Commissioner, a lot has changed since then. Now people are frequently booking on the Internet themselves and that then leads to loopholes in the system. Six months ago, we in the Transport Committee put a question to the Transport Commissioner because in the context of SkyEurope in Slovakia, we had the case of passengers with low-cost flights being stranded and not being transported further. Here it was actually a matter of a small loophole, which only affected those who had booked on the Internet without a credit card, but we do want people to be able to move freely in Europe, so that they can actually enjoy their holidays and are protected at the same time.
That means if we have loopholes in the system in terms of consumer protection and if we want to have a high standard of consumer protection for people in Europe, then we need a revision of this Package Travel Directive and we must also consider whether is it necessary - as my fellow Member has already mentioned - to have a special regulation for air passengers. We still have to discuss this and I am already looking forward to this with great expectation, as we want to be able to travel happily and safely, not just with animals, but, of course, also with our families.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as our new Commissioner has already said, the legislative framework is no longer suited to today's reality of a greatly changed travel market, which has given rise to very many problems and a great deal of frustration, not only among consumers but also among travel agents and tour operators. It is clear that the number of people still enjoying effective protection under the existing directive has fallen tremendously even though more people are travelling.
Indeed, the European Parliament has been calling for a revision of the directive for years. As you said, the sticking points and possible solutions are well known. Another consultation has just been completed. In my opinion, it really is now high time we took the plunge. I welcome the Commission statement, but I should just like to identify a number of specific points that are very important to us.
Firstly, the scope of the directive must certainly be clarified and even extended. As we have already heard, more and more consumers are putting together dynamic travel packages or booking separate travel services. Just recently, as a result of the problems with the Eurostar, we saw thousands of tourists running into problems because they were not given any compensation for hotels or theatre tickets they had booked. This kind of thing is unacceptable.
In my opinion, passengers' rights must also be given a clear place in the directive. We do have to take sufficient account of the widely differing travel markets and differing holiday practices of consumers in the various Member States and of national case-law, of course, but harmonisation is required, as some concepts differ greatly, such as that of the tour operator, the agent and force majeure. I read in the consultation held by the Commission in 2007 that, in fact, very detailed feedback came in from the industry and the stakeholders, and so I ask myself what the problem is. Why are we not taking a decision now? There have also been calls for a kind of 'Travel Protection Label'. I should have liked to hear the Commissioner's opinion on this.
My second point concerns the role and responsibility of travel agents. This needs to be defined much more clearly, as consumers are inundated with information via the Internet but this is far from reliable and can even cause significant harm: in extreme cases, people have paid rent for holiday apartments that do not even exist. Therefore, the role of travel agents should be regulated much more precisely.
We have already discussed bankruptcies. In a Parliament resolution, this House made a very clear call for the passengers affected to be better protected. Living as I do in a border region between Flanders and the Netherlands, I also wish to call for particular attention to cross-border sales, as protection is often limited to the travel contract entered into in a particular Member State.
My final point concerns consumer information on prices. In most other sectors, the prices of services sold must be fixed and all inclusive, and this should also apply to travel services. Do you share this view? I should have liked to hear your views on this. Consumer rights must be clarified and stricter and more specific information requirements must apply in the case also of force majeure and a change in the range of travel services offered. Perhaps we should also consider introducing sanctions in the new directive. I hope the Commission will get to grips with this very soon and present us with a new proposal to discuss in this House.
Mr President, the EU Package Travel Directive, which we are debating today, comes from the year 1990, 20 years ago, and so from the times when the most popular form of holiday was a two-week package tour, reserved, usually, in a travel agency and chosen from among the offers remaining in the brochure.
The directive provides for fundamental means of consumer protection in the case of this type of package, which includes, principally, clear information about the packages being offered, the right to withdraw from the trip, compensation for services of lower standard than agreed and matters related to the insolvency of travel agencies. The problem is that in the last 20 years, there has been a complete change, both in the business model and in the pattern of consumer behaviour. I, myself, reserve most of my holiday trips via the Internet, very many people in Poland do the same, and in the European Union as a whole, the proportion of people who book their trips in this way has now reached 23%. There are countries, such as Ireland and Sweden, in which this proportion is as high as 40%, while almost two-thirds of the people who buy their holidays in this way do not realise that their interests are protected to a significantly lower degree than in the case of people who still buy holidays in the traditional way. We should fight this. I am pleased that the European Commission has, at last, raised this matter. I think 20 years is definitely too long.
I hope that, today, we will hear from the Commission specifically when the directive will be revised and what direction the revision will take. For it must not be the case that in the European Parliament or in other EU institutions, we encourage citizens of the Union to use the services of e-commerce and also to buy services in cross-border trade, while at the same time not offering the same protection to the people who do this.
(DE) Mr President, it is certainly not only differences in consumer protection, but also language differences which, until now, have made package tours to other Member States difficult. It is already 15 years since the European Union created fundamental basic protection as well as common procedures. In my opinion, the revision of these procedures must not get out of hand to the effect that they are subject to blanket standardisation in the name of the freedom to provide services. Travel needs themselves may vary from country to country. In general, I also consider it dangerous to measure everything by the same yardstick and campaign for enforced conformity everywhere.
If we want travel agents to assume greater liability as travel intermediaries, we must be aware that this may have serious economic consequences. If we want to avoid killing off small local travel agents with the simultaneous uncontrolled growth of online travel, then the tour operator should primarily be made liable.
The relatively satisfactory protection on package holidays will hopefully reassure those holidaymakers who are worried by the current negative headlines about Greece. Further announcements of strikes and protests could intensify the tendency to avoid other Mediterranean countries and the price collapse in relation to Greece. The state's debt crisis guarantees that this will be a critical year for Greek tourism, this we know. We can expect further strikes and protests. Hopefully, we will be spared the experience of discovering how travel protection would function in a case of national bankruptcy.
(HU) I would like to draw the attention of my fellow Members to the excellent objective mentioned during his hearing by the new Commissioner for Transport, Siim Kallas. To my mind, what I heard impressed me as an excellent principle: the free movement of people is one of the most important freedoms. To this end, we need to integrate the rights concerning the various modes of transport and incorporate them into one integrated charter. We need transparent systems. I would like to remark that this topic is included among the priorities of the Spanish Presidency. Why is this so important? it is important because the 20-year-old directive fails in every area to take into account the rights of people living with disabilities when they are travelling, even when they are travelling in groups. People living with disabilities are given no opportunities whatsoever. That is why I come back to my remark at the beginning. An integrated charter of passengers' rights would enable everyone - including people living with disabilities - to make use of transportation services, including group travel services. When this becomes a reality, we will truly be able to say that in the European Union, everyone can travel freely.
(RO) The Package Travel Directive encompasses transport and accommodation services, along with other related services provided through package holidays. It also sets out consumers' rights and the responsibilities of distributors and tourism service providers.
The 1990 directive fails to take into account new trends, such as buying package holidays and making payments via the Internet. The rise in the level of Internet use and the emergence of low-cost operators have made 23% of European tourists and 20% of European households buy customised package holidays via specialist websites.
The directive must therefore be revised to include within its remit suppliers of 'dynamic' package holidays as well. Consumers must be fully informed about their rights and about how these rights are guaranteed by each of the offerings available, both for the complete package holiday and each component individually.
I also feel that it is important that websites which offer travel services are accredited. This will help guarantee that the identity of the tourism service provider can be recognised and, by extension, there will be a clear assumption of responsibility for the information and services provided.
The study published by the Commission in January 2009 on package holidays organised at the customer's request, known as 'dynamic packages', indicates that the proportion of package holidays purchased online rose by 12% in 2009, even though their value only accounts for 25% of the total value of tourism services sold. 66% of the transactions made online involve direct purchases via the websites of airline operators, travel agents or via specialist websites offering last-minute travel deals.
Tourists prefer dynamic packages because they offer greater flexibility, lower prices compared to traditional package holidays and a higher quality of service, or because they cannot find traditional package holidays to meet their requirements. In addition, the dynamic package holidays purchased can only be paid for using online payment methods.
However, approximately 70% of the complaints received last year by the European Consumer Centres Network related to tourism services and were due to the incorrect and incomplete provision of information prior to and during the trip, the provision of services falling below the standards advertised, flight cancellations or delays, and even to failure to provide the services purchased.
I think therefore that it is important and necessary to review this directive.
Thank you.
Mr President, I want to thank the Commissioner very much, both on behalf of our group, but also as the chairman of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, for making a very timely appearance before us this evening, and also for having responded so quickly to the oral question from my committee on 3 December which set out a number of areas which he has answered very comprehensively.
I think that we have some time available now, as the Commission is putting its ideas together, in which my committee and, I am sure, the Committee on Transport, whose representatives are here as well, will want to reflect together about many of the issues that you have raised and how this is going to move forward.
I think that, given the nature and change of the whole of the travel and holiday business, and many of the issues raised by colleagues tonight, the new directive needs to be clearly future-proofed, but that means it does not need to be too rigid in terms of trying to anticipate consumer needs.
However, one thing I do think the Commission needs to think about is that there are other aspects that online consumers need to consider when they are shopping for travel; issues about the safety of the hotel, if they have young children, a safe swimming pool, for example, or the fire safety of the hotel, where my committee has done extensive work before. We need some proper indicators and markers there, which may be done by voluntary agreement, but I do think that this needs to be a wide-ranging and ambitious proposal. I get a sense from this that this is what you would like to do, and I think my committee would give you full support in coming up with such a proposal.
(NL) Mr President, this is one of those dossiers where the European Union can indeed provide tangible added value by affording a kind of protection to the millions of people in the EU who go on holiday in Europe and purchase travel services there. Cross-border problems call for a cross-border strategy and approach.
All of us here agree that the 1990 directive is hopelessly outdated. Twenty years ago, most people chose trips from a travel brochure and then went to a local travel agency to book them. Nowadays, more and more people are putting their holidays together themselves and booking trips on the Internet. In addition, there are relatively new phenomena such as the emergence of the low-cost air carriers and the growth of the cruise industry.
Well, then, what do I believe to be the essential components of this new directive? Firstly, a definition of the scope of the directive; in short, what kinds of package travel are covered? Secondly, a precise definition of legal liability and, last but not least, far-reaching consumer protection in the event of operator bankruptcy. Only if there are watertight rules for these things will the revision have succeeded and better protection be afforded to millions of EU consumers.
(MT) I would like to seize the opportunity to extend my welcome to Commissioner Dalli for this, his first session, in this Parliament. Indeed, as has already been stated, in recent years, there has been a substantial decline in travel bookings via travel agencies and an increase in package tours purchased online. What consumers do not realise is the fact that travel packages purchased online offer limited protection which is much lower than that provided by travel agencies. On the other hand, packages offered by agencies carry added costs in order to ensure compliance with this directive, while those purchased online do not carry such expenses. For these reasons, I believe that this directive is failing to protect consumers and is also creating an imbalance between operators in the travel industry. In order to ensure that this goes on, I appeal to the Commission to ensure equal protection on all packages irrespective of where such packages are purchased, so as to protect consumer rights which I know are of paramount importance for the Commissioner. Therefore, in the context of the revision of the directive, it should be ensured that definitions and terminology are clarified and updated; these include the definition of the consumer, the seller, the operator and essential contractual terms as well as, as was previously stated, the scope of the directive itself. In my opinion, it should be solely the operator who should comply with the directive, irrespective of how the package is sold, whether directly or via an agency. The operator should be the entity which sells or offers for sale at least one of the services included in the package in its name and which provides access by whatever means to the other services included in the package. I believe that this is a clear example of how I think Commissioner John Dalli will be working in the coming years; we have here clear proof of how the consumer will be given all the rights he merits.
(CS) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the revision of the Package Travel Directive must respond to a series of new challenges in the area of tourism, especially in connection with the development of new technologies which have influenced ways of communicating and selling services. This mainly concerns sales over the Internet, which, among other things, has facilitated the dramatic growth in budget airlines. Every challenge has its opportunities and risks. The opportunities include greater flexibility and access to services for customers, while there is a possible risk in the insufficient level of protection for consumers.
Several months ago, the Committee on Transport and Tourism questioned the Commission in response to a series of bankruptcies of budget airlines. In these circumstances, we have witnessed the situation of passengers being stranded in airports without money and struggling to make alternative arrangements for their return journeys. This is only one of the examples of insufficient protection for consumers/airline passengers. The Commission should find a solution that will deal effectively with the situation in the foreseeable future to assist consumers and to boost confidence in the sector. The holiday season will begin in a few months and we certainly do not want to again experience problems similar to the collapse of the SkyEurope company last year.
However, the consultation with the Commission over this directive has also uncovered other issues. Their common denominator is the need to strengthen consumer protection, especially through better levels of awareness on the part of customers concerning the real terms and the price of services.
I would like to conclude with one more remark, which applies generally to public consultations with the European Commission on various themes. I consider it important for these consultations to be implemented in all EU Member State languages, if we really want to discover a broad spectrum of views on a given topic. In this sense, it is EU citizens who are clients with rights to information and for whom we wish to revise the Package Travel Directive.
Mr President, I would just like to comment on the third point of the oral question this evening on airline bankruptcy.
A recent resolution in this House called for the establishment of a guarantee fund that would be used to compensate passengers in case of airline bankruptcy. However, the establishment of such a fund would inevitably have to be funded by the consumer, meaning passengers would be required to pay even more for their tickets. At this stage, this is an unnecessary step and would add to the sizeable list of existing airport taxes, security charges and other duties that they are already forced to pay.
In addition, the Commission should ensure that the national aviation authorities and regulators uphold existing obligations, such as regularly carrying out financial status checks of airlines and exercising their right to revoke airline operating licences before liquidation occurs. We ask the Commission to vigorously pursue this course of action now.
Finally, I would call on the Commission to pursue other options which could protect passengers in this regard, including the provision of obligatory information regarding risk, insurance options and other protective mechanisms.
Mr President, I think we all applauded when the former Commissioner for Consumer Affairs announced on 29 August 2009 that the current directive is totally out of date and does not meet the challenges or the demands of the modern travelling public.
Why is it out of date? Well, these reasons have been enumerated here this evening, but they are worth looking at again. It was fine in its own time but now it is certainly not equipped to meet the modern challenges of the travelling public.
It does not consider consumers self-packaging their holidays, and that has become increasingly the trend. It does not cover consumers based in one country purchasing from suppliers based outside the jurisdiction of the European Union. It does not cover scheduled airlines, and more and more people are now arranging their own package holidays by virtue of the fact that they have easy access to the Internet.
Indeed, over the past number of years, the proportion of holidays that are protected has fallen from about 90% to about 60%. In other words, the current measures do not extend to online travel firms selling foreign holidays with flights and hotels as separate components, a practice referred to by the industry as 'dynamic packaging'.
We pride ourselves on having a lot of achievements within the EU, and we laud ourselves - quite rightly - on our achievements, but, when you look at the current situation in relation to travel protection, the European Union has the least integrated market for travel services of any modern trading bloc.
There is also considerable confusion as to who accepts liability and when a customer is covered. For example, additional security can be obtained by someone using a credit card, but not if the billing is taking place, for example, in my own country, the Republic of Ireland.
And because of the diversity of products in the marketplace today, a blurring has occurred between airlines, tour operators, cruise operators, agencies and so on, so the new legislation is urgently needed.
What we need is a vastly improved, modern piece of technology by way of the implementation of a new directive to cover all the contingencies. We need clarification, we need certainty, and we need protection for the consumer.
(PL) I support revision of the Package Travel Directive. The directive is 20 years old and does not reflect the realities of today.
Today, over half of all consumers organise their trips by themselves, often using the Internet and the offers of cheap airlines. Members who have spoken before me have talked about this. Not all of them, however, have drawn attention to the fact that the scope of the directive needs to be defined clearly. We cannot allow a situation in which we do not know what comes under the directive. Such a situation is not good either for consumers or for business.
Furthermore, I do not think it is necessary to extend the scope of the directive to include individual products or packages made up from products bought from different suppliers, for extending the directive's requirements to cover dynamic packages or affiliate sales would ultimately mean the consumer would pay in the form of a more expensive ticket. I do not imagine that, for example, a hotel stay bought after clicking on WIZZ Hotels just after buying a ticket from WIZZ Air would constitute a package which would come under the requirements of the directive. Consumers must know, in the case of a specific journey, if, and to what extent, they are protected by EU law. All the rest is a matter for the free market.
It would be a good idea to mark journeys covered by the directive with a special European logo.
(DE) Mr President, I am from Austria, a country for which tourism and the tourist economy continue to play a very important role. Almost every one of us is involved in an area of tourism in some way or other. Therefore, this question is rather important for our country and I am very pleased that the Commission is tackling this issue right at the start of the legislative period - and I would like to extend my thanks to the Commissioner in this regard.
Freedom of travel and travel possibilities mean that purely in quantitative terms, there is a very different level of importance than perhaps twenty or more years ago. The possibilities offered by the Internet have also led to the emergence of a completely different kind of travel behaviour. It is, however, all the more important that, if they can afford a proper holiday during the crisis, our citizens can also return from this holiday satisfied. If they should experience a problem, then they should at least get back some of their hard earned money.
It is, of course, tempting to make bookings over the Internet; we know this and it is also cheaper. However, no traveller will be persuaded that if he books a hotel through a travel agent, he will be treated completely differently from someone who has booked it on the Internet and that, above all, any compensation claims will be handled completely differently.
Finally, another small problem. Obviously nobody can see that there are divergences in the guarantee, which treat the tour operator completely differently from the airline. The latter is only liable if its guilt is proven. Anyone who has already experienced this problem knows that this is a major problem which you can normally only consider tackling with very good legal cover.
I therefore hope very much that the Commission will put a proposal before us which takes these problems into consideration and, above all, thinks of our citizens, who have a right to a trouble-free holiday and particularly at this time.
(EL) Mr President, it is true that widespread use of the Internet nowadays allows consumers to change the way in which they plan things, even down to their holidays. In other words, they have the facility, via the Internet, not to buy ready packages, as we have learned to do in the past, and to pick and choose how they wish to plan their holidays. Of course, now that several parties are involved, the question arises as to who is responsible in the event that there is a problem with the service and from whom the consumer will ultimately claim compensation. My fellow Members rightly raised this matter and we need to find answers and to update the directive which we have applied to date.
This is also crucial for Greece which, as you know, is a tourist destination, and the more clearly we define who is responsible in each instance (the Greek hotelier or the travel agency or anyone involved in the procedure), the more we shall be able to rely on everyone trading in the tourist sector.
I should like to close by saying that legal protection for European citizens is crucial. At the same time, Commissioner, we have a duty to inform everyone who chooses to holiday in a European country of the rights which they have had to date and, more importantly, to inform them of the loopholes and of the improvements we want to make. All this is important, but citizens need to know about it in order to exercise these rights.
(EL) Mr President, almost everything has been said. However, I should like to focus on four points. This directive is twenty years old. For a woman, twenty is an excellent age. For a directive, twenty means it is in need of a facelift.
That is because four things have entered our lives: the first is the Internet. Now that the Internet has entered our lives, we can choose to holiday in the furthest corner of the world without thinking twice about it. However, when we get there, we may find that perhaps we should have thought twice.
The second is prices. Consumers have both an obligation and a right to know if the prices which they have to choose between are legal or if there is unfair competition.
The third is quality. Accommodation which may be considered exceptional in one Member State may be considered average by a citizen from another Member State.
Finally, there is the question of security. As people work very hard to save for holidays, we must make them feel secure. That is what we want from the new directive.
Mr President, many colleagues have pointed out the necessity of having this review, and the sooner the better. They have particularly mentioned the value to the consumer - and that is absolutely correct - but benefiting the consumer does not mean it is going to affect industry: it can benefit both industry and the consumer.
I particularly have in mind the fact that over the next few years, we are going to have two million people passing the age of 60 in the European Union. That gives a great opportunity to the industry to tap in to what those people would like to do in terms of travel, particularly travel without hassle. If this directive is all-inclusive and offers full protection, it is a great opportunity for the industry to tap into the over-60s in this European Union, which would be of great benefit to them. I think, therefore, that, like the Timeshare Directive, this can be seen as a win-win situation both for the consumer and also for the industry.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I am the mother of a large family and over many long years, have learnt to study brochures. It is a great challenge, a challenge that sometimes even those employed in the travel agents are not up to. That is why I would like this new directive to give me real freedom of choice as a consumer. I will only have freedom of choice when comparability is possible, when I have the criteria to compare different offers with one another.
For me, one of these criteria is the age of the children. Whichever tour operator we are talking about, there are fixed prices for children. Sometimes, this affects six year olds, then ten year olds, next time twelve year olds. With some operators, the first child is not worth as much as the second, and the third and fourth do not exist at all. It is important for the protection of consumers - as well as for the protection of travel agents and operators - that as a consumer, I know what I am buying, so that I feel really well informed beforehand and have comparable criteria.
Mr President, I would like to add my support to what colleagues have said on the rights of disabled travellers, what Ms Kadenbach said about children, the issue of fire safety in hotels and, in particular, the issue of sprinkler safety in all EU hotels, and the need to future-proof the new proposal. Who could have predicted the rate of change that we have seen in the past 20 years? There are, however, two specific issues that I would like to raise.
We have heard about the issue of credit card charging, and there has been discussion on hidden charges. However, airline and travel companies are exploiting the fact that more people use their credit cards to book due to the protection they receive from using them, by placing double credit card charges for each leg of our journey or placing credit card charges on passengers for one online booking. You might have one online booking, but you are charged four times for using your credit card because you have four passengers involved. Commissioner, could you please look at this in order that people are protected.
There is, finally, the issue of bankruptcy. In Scotland, we saw the demise of Globespan, and we must ensure that people are compensated and that no one loses out. After all, this is the biggest budget expense many families have in a year and they expect us to protect them. We need to do more so thank you, Commissioner.
(LT) Over the last two decades, the travel market has developed in a very dynamic manner. More and more people are making their own travel arrangements by purchasing services from various operators and service providers. However, the provisions of the directive currently in force do not apply to these new travel packages, and this means that our citizens are travelling without proper protection. I think that while revising the directive, it is necessary to define more accurately its scope and we should not allow inflexible rules to leave our citizens without appropriate protection. Moreover, the question of liability must be resolved in cases where air carriers or travel service providers go bankrupt. Over the last decade, more than 70 airlines have gone bankrupt, leaving travellers in the dark. Therefore, I believe that this matter must be highlighted clearly when we review the provisions of the directive.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I have listened to the views of the honourable Members with great interest. Many of you have affirmed the direction being taken by the Commission. Others have underlined and emphasised many points that we have noted to make sure that they are all taken into consideration in the deliberations and discussions that we will be having on this revision of the directive. I would like to assure you that the Commission takes these issues very seriously and is determined to find the best solutions for the way forward.
We are now in the middle of a consultation process. We are analysing the feedback we gathered from the recent online public consultation. Consumers, businesses, organisations and Member States have all contributed. Moreover, I can inform you that the Commission will host a stakeholders' workshop on 22 April 2010. This workshop will focus on possible policy options for the revision of the Package Travel Directive, including all the issues that have been mentioned during this debate. I must stress that it is, as yet, too early to decide the way forward. It is essential to respect the impact assessment procedure. However, I am determined that any action should aim at ensuring a high level of protection for the EU's citizens.
Before I close, may I once again thank all those present for contributing to this debate. Thank you very much.
The debate is closed.


Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes


10. Modernisation of public procurement (


Documents received: see Minutes


1. Women's rights in Afghanistan


8. Access to SIS II by the services responsible for issuing vehicle registration certificates (vote)
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - (PT) Mr President, the Council could not attend the Monday debate and has just issued a statement. I feel it is right that Parliament should issue its response to the Council's statement through your rapporteur. If I may, Mr President, I should just like to make two very simple remarks. Firstly, I wish to congratulate the Presidency on its work on this matter, and, like the Presidency, I believe that Parliament can be pleased with the fact that the Act that we are about to adopt will help strengthen our external borders, and will help increase our citizens' security.
The Presidency contributed a great deal to this process, but the Council, as such, did not. The Council did not honour its undertakings in the trialogue in May here in Strasbourg. I hope that the Council does not do to the Finnish Presidency what it did to the Austrian Presidency. Hopefully, it will honour its commitments and adopt the document in the form in which we are set to adopt it, because this is the only way in which we will have an agreement at first reading and in which the second generation Schengen Information System will enter into force without delay.


Signature of acts adopted under codecision: see Minutes


Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes


Enforcement of regulations on the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries (debate)
The next item is the debate on
the question for oral answer to the Commission on the enforcement of regulations on the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries from Mrs Bearder, Mrs Ek, Mr Ouzký, Mr Seeber, Mrs Klaß and Mrs Harms on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the European Conservatives and Reformists, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance - B7-0217/2011) and
the question for oral answer to the Commission on the enforcement of regulations on the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries from Mrs Wils, Mrs Liotard, Mrs de Brún, Mr Ferreira, Mrs Matias and Mr Chountis on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left - B7-0218/2011).
author. - Mr President, does the Commissioner not consider that, if any of us woke up one morning to find our rich neighbours had dumped their toxic rubbish in our front yard, we would be furious? Yet that is what the EU is doing every day.
Every year tonnes of toxic waste is shipped from the EU to developing countries against European environmental law, smuggled through ports with very weak controls. Almost three quarters of electric waste in the EU is unaccounted for and only one third of electronic waste is treated according to EU legislation. In the UK the average Briton throws away four pieces of electronic waste every year. That is 500 000 tonnes of broken TVs, computers and phones, but over half of this is not recorded as being recycled - it just disappears - and that is only in my own country.
The export of controlled waste from the EU for disposal is prohibited under current legislations, yet annually illegal shipments from the EU are thought to average about 22 000 tonnes. The WEEE Directive states that exported electronic items must be in working order. However, this relies on effective EU-wide inspection policies which are clearly missing. This waste contains lead, cadmium, barium, mercury, brominated flame retardants and other chemicals and plastics that become hazardous when burned. Burning is often the cheapest method to recover these valuable metals as adults and children scramble over the dumps of rubbish in their quest to earn a few cents.
We cannot ignore the environmental and health impacts of this scandal which affects the most vulnerable. Frankly, as a European, I am ashamed. I thank the Commissioner for the answers and the responses, but we need to know the specifics of how he is going to close this loophole in the Waste Shipment Regulation. Does the Commission have any plans to address the tonnes of EU waste already dumped in African countries? Does the Waste Shipment Regulation need to be revised or is it just a matter of enforcement? This is an urgent problem and action needs to be taken now. I await your response.
deputising for the author. - (DA) Mr President, I am pleased that so many of my fellow Members are aware that our waste does not simply disappear of its own accord, but unfortunately often ends up out in the wider world where no one deals with it properly. There is actually nothing new about this, of course. A great many European countries started to send their discarded ferries filled with asbestos to India many years ago, where bare-foot workers separated old iron from the hazardous components on an open shore - as they still do today. An even worse situation is that of the African children who sit on the ground and separate out our electrical waste right down to the individual components. Is this acceptable? No, of course it is not. However, the EU lacks reasonable and realistic means to enforce the sound regulations that were laid down as long ago as 12 July 2006.
The directive is enforced via the individual Member States, as stated in Article 50 of the same regulation, but some States turn a blind eye when it comes to this enforcement. Something has to be done, however, because 70 million tonnes of hazardous waste per year - and rising - is no trifling matter. I therefore have another question in addition to the written questions that the Commission has already received, and that is: Has the Commission considered utilising special port areas for unloading hazardous waste in selected ports? That would provide better means of control in general. Could the Commission envisage carrying out some publicity work to encourage EU citizens to take their hazardous waste to specific places in the Member States? It is extremely important to make our citizens aware of the problem, because without their help in the struggle to manage hazardous waste we will get nowhere.
author. - (DE) Mr President, Mr Barnier, it is not just in the banking sector that we have regulations that do not work, but also in the environmental area. Although we have a regulation covering the shipping of waste dating back to 2006, this does not work because there is an increasing trend towards shipping hazardous waste beyond the EU's borders, in particular to developing countries where the proper disposal of these hazardous substances cannot be guaranteed. This cavalier approach to disposal leads to environmental and health problems in these countries that can cause many fatalities in extreme cases.
In addition, here in the European Union, we are discarding valuable resources. Part of the 2020 strategy includes a strategy on resources and waste is one of our resources. We should make every effort to improve our research activities in this area so that valuable materials can be segregated at the end of the product lifecycle.
In a speech on 7 April of this year, your colleague, Commissioner Potočnik, announced that, despite the Commission having avoided this issue and done nothing for many years, he intended presenting a communication in the autumn of this year in which he would tackle the problem, in particular with regard to implementation of existing regulations and an improved inspection system, as well as a broadening of the scientific base. Commissioner, I would like to know whether this communication is already being prepared by the Commission services.
In other speeches, Commissioner Potočnik also referred to a new agency. Although we already have a large number of official bodies, he is obviously thinking of a way to strengthen the control of the Member States' authorities in this area. I would like to know how things stand in this area, because at present it would seem that we are unable to resolve this problem. What steps does the Commission intend to pursue in this area?
deputising for the author. - (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the poor implementation of the Waste Shipments Regulation has been a serious problem for a long time now. This has been emphasised by the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law since 2003, and it has made clear proposals for improvements. The Commission, however, has done virtually nothing, unless you count the many studies it has conducted and its proposal for a new Renewables Directive.
For more than 10 years now, Parliament has been calling for tighter controls, including legislation on European inspections: for minimum criteria for inspections in Mr Jackson's report in 1999, for legislative reform for shipments of waste in Mr Blokland's report in 2003, and for minimum criteria for inspections in the 2008 resolution. All these the Commission has mainly just ignored.
In 2006, we were shocked by the massive Trafigura scandal, when huge quantities of toxic waste were dumped in Côte d'Ivoire. The then Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, promised to look for ways to strengthen the Waste Shipments Regulation and its implementation in the Member States, but nothing concrete happened. Two years ago, a Commission study recommended that a special agency should be set up for the implementation of legislation on waste. It would execute numerous tasks, such as checking the investigation systems in place in Member States and coordinating controls and inspections, but no proposal was put forward.
Last year, a Commission study came to the conclusion that the best option would be a legal instrument governing the criteria for inspections, but no proposal was put forward, although Commissioner Potočnik has said that the implementation of EU environmental legislation is his priority.
Now I would ask the Commission when it actually intends to introduce proper measures, instead of just conducting more studies. When will we have a proper legislative proposal, and not just communications and studies? As my colleague Mr Seeber said, this would also improve Europe's resource efficiency.
author. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, illegal waste exports and the illegal disposal of waste pose an increasing threat to the health and environment of millions of people in developing countries.
The volume of toxic waste is continuously increasing in the EU. Because of the high cost of recycling and disposing of waste, there is an enormous temptation to ship this waste to countries with less stringent environmental controls and lower disposal costs. I am pleased to find that this problem is accepted by all sides of the House and hope that Parliament will take a concerted approach to this issue.
The legal loopholes that permit these hazardous exports must be closed. The existing regulations on the shipment of toxic waste to developing countries must be tightened up and enforced. We need a legislative proposal for environmental inspections, something that Parliament already called for in 2008, so that ships can be inspected effectively by the authorities in the local ports.
This must also be linked with the possibility of impounding ships in ports throughout the EU if there are grounds to suspect breaches of the law. We propose that this should be reinforced in a joint resolution by all sides of the House.
The entry of waste into the EU must also be better controlled. Off the coast of Calabria, just a few miles away from the port of Cetraro, there is a sunken vessel known for carrying highly toxic waste. It is assumed that many other toxic waste transporters have been sunk just off the coast in the Tyrrhenian Sea. This example illustrates the need for transparency in the shipment of waste and for reliable official inspections.
Mr President, honourable Members, firstly, my colleague and friend Mr Potočnik sends his apologies, as he is in New York this evening for the signing of an important agreement - the Nagoya Agreement - on biodiversity.
Nevertheless, I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to stand in for him, or to try to do so anyway, since the issue you are discussing is one that has always interested me, ladies and gentlemen. I was Environment Minister in my own country and I have not forgotten the efforts that we made, during my first mandate as Commissioner around 10 years ago, to begin to address this extremely serious issue with Parliament. The Waste Shipments Regulation prohibits exports of hazardous waste to developing countries, as well as exports outside the Union and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries of waste intended for disposal.
However, we know - and you have pointed it out - that the efforts made to enforce this ban vary greatly between Member States. Operators often seek to benefit from inadequate inspections in order to get round the ban and smuggle the waste through other Member States where the inspections are less rigorous, as you said.
Furthermore, false declarations are often used to export waste as second-hand goods, which complicates the work of the authorities responsible for monitoring and enforcing the rules. Then there is the obviously low treatment cost in third countries, which is the main economic factor encouraging or driving these illegal shipments. There is also the very serious situation of countries that receive, so to speak, this waste, these illegal shipments, which cause significant pollution of the air, water, soil and homes, and which threaten - as you said a moment ago, Mrs Wils, and as Mrs Bearder and Mrs Rosbach said with the same emotion before you - people's health, and particularly children's health, which is the most shocking of all, as well as the health of workers and of a large proportion of the population. The already toxic nature of the hazardous substances contained in waste often poses a further increased risk when inappropriate waste management techniques are used, which is often the case in these countries of destination.
Furthermore, illegal shipments of waste to third countries obviously have an adverse effect on trade and competition since, economically speaking, businesses that comply with the legislation evidently face competition and are put at a disadvantage. The European recycling and waste management sector, which is bound to comply with the EU's rigorous environmental legislation, is a dynamic one. It has a healthy EUR 95 billion turnover. It provides, or supports, 1.2 to 1.5 million jobs and accounts for 1% of GDP, and this waste management and recycling sector, which operates by the rules, is also competing with, and put at a disadvantage by, these illegal shipments.
Effective enforcement of the Waste Shipments Regulation at EU level would encourage this sector, I believe, to invest and to create even more jobs in the future. Illegal waste shipments and poor quality recycling also lead to a loss of resources, since secondary raw materials can go a long way towards meeting Europe's raw material requirements, and can also improve the effectiveness and use of resources. On the basis of this diagnosis, then, we need to improve the situation. That is why the Commission has sought to find out whether additional legislative measures need to be taken at EU level and, if so, which new, specific requirements and criteria they would include for waste shipment inspections.
We are currently completing an impact assessment of the various possible approaches to resolving the problem that I just mentioned, including national inspection and mandatory national risk assessment plans and programmes, as well as more targeted training for national officials responsible for enforcing the provisions and, on the other side of the coin, for proving that those who declare waste to be second-hand goods are doing so fraudulently.
I should like to conclude, Mr President, by raising the following points in response to some specific questions. Firstly, it is possible to circumvent the Waste Shipments Regulation by claiming that the articles being exported are second-hand goods rather than waste. The main problem is that the Member States are not implementing the inspection requirements properly. To remedy this, the Regulation needs to be supplemented by more detailed rules on national inspections. The legislative measures should be accompanied by adequate training for officials in charge of enforcing the rules, as I said.
Secondly, non-legally binding guidelines at EU level could support and facilitate the implementation and enforcement of the Waste Shipments Regulation, particularly by customs officers, and thus help to combat illegal activities. However, guidelines alone will not be enough. We also need binding rules to combat this problem.
Thirdly, waste production has increased or stabilised in recent years. Waste management is improving throughout the Union, and recycling has increased over the last five years. Yet what is remarkable today is the great disparities between the Member States with regard to the implementation of our waste requirements. The Commission, ladies and gentlemen, is conscious of the environmental, economic, social, human and public health consequences of illegal waste shipments, and the Probo Koala affair, in which several people died after being exposed to hazardous waste illegally dumped in Côte d'Ivoire, is one of the worst examples in living memory, and here too there are lessons to be learnt. The Commission has launched numerous studies on this issue, and the results of these investigations can be consulted on our website.
Once illegal shipments of waste have been detected, there are measures laid down in the regulation to remedy the situation. The waste must be sent back to its country of origin, pursuant to EU legislation and international law. If the companies responsible cannot be located, the country of origin in the Union must pay a fee to have the waste repatriated and treated. In some cases, Member States have to bear costs in excess of EUR 1 million. In the Probo Koala affair, which I mentioned a moment ago, the company Trafigura had to pay the equivalent of EUR 152 million in clean-up costs and EUR 33 million in compensation to the residents of the affected towns.
Lastly, I should like to say to Mr Seeber that, as far as I am aware, Mr Potočnik promised to present that communication on the implementation and enforcement of EU law and he is in the process of drafting it.
Mr President, many of us are outraged at the fact that, despite a comprehensive public debate on this, Europe is still dumping hazardous waste in poorer countries. As many here have already said, we are right to be outraged. Not only do we use products that exhaust and damage the environment and then also fail to deal with them properly once we no longer want them, we also dump the hazardous waste, which damages the health of innocent people, often children, and makes the land and water in other countries toxic for generations to come. That is absolutely unacceptable.
How can this be allowed to continue? We have legislation and we have a ban in place, but it is not working. Therefore, the Commission must now propose amendments. Of course, the best solution, as always, would be for there not to be any hazardous waste. The extensive work that we have carried out to identify and phase out hazardous chemicals, within REACH for example, is therefore important in this case, too. Since the ban on the export of hazardous waste is not working, I think that we should be especially pleased that we have strengthened the legislation concerning waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) by setting high collection targets. However, knowing how poor the Member States' compliance with the export ban is, there are good reasons for the Commission also to closely monitor the Member States' actions with regard to WEEE and other legislation stipulating how this type of product should be dealt with.
As many people have said, including the Commission, we need some form of clarification and simplification of what rules actually apply when it comes to the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries, so that it will be easier for the police and other border control officers to take measures to deal with the crimes against the environment that the export of hazardous waste actually entails. However, we just as surely need the Member States to give higher priority to this matter. I think the fact that the Member States are failing in their responsibility to check their compliance with EU legislation is a constantly recurring issue. It is very clear here that the Member States are not fulfilling their obligations.
The Member States must take greater responsibility, and we expect the Commission to ensure that they do. What you have presented here today, Mr Barnier, seems to me to be a definite step in the right direction. Once we are able to see the whole communication we will be able to decide whether or not we think the number of steps taken are sufficient. Thank you.
- (CS) Mr President, the exponential growth in the volume of waste from European manufacturing and consumption looks like a time bomb, both in the EU and in the developing countries to which hazardous waste is exported, much of it illegally. Commissioner, I welcomed your communication of the Commission's specific desire to remove the gaps in the legislation relatively soon. Along with the speakers who came before me, however, I believe there is little desire on the part of Member States, in particular, to invest in controls and to introduce sufficiently harsh penalties for breaches of the existing rules. As the Vice-Chair of the Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I believe we also need to establish a common strategy with the ACP countries for the fight against illegal imports of toxic waste to these countries, and in particular action plans for introducing a system for the safe management of waste in African countries, including support for recycling technology.
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the seemingly strict EU regulation concerning hazardous waste has many loopholes in practice, which can be eminently used by organised groups of criminals and the hazardous waste mafia.
Illegal disposal of toxic waste classed as hazardous has become one of the most lucrative businesses. One reason for this is the extremely high cost of legal disposal and recycling; another reason is the over-bureaucratisation of obtaining legal licences.
The solution has to be bi-directional: the administrative burdens of enterprises that recycle and dispose of hazardous waste legally has to be relieved, and of course in parallel, producers of hazardous waste should be encouraged to choose the legal course and made interested in restraining the hazardous waste mafia.
On the other hand, criminal law sanctions for environmental crimes must be radically tightened, and inspection must be uniformly increased at EU level.
- (SK) Mr President, it is a quarter to midnight and we are debating a serious matter: the exporting of toxic waste to developing countries.
It is scandalous that European countries in the modern age are engaging in the kind of activity we saw in the Oscar-winning film Erin Brockovich, which featured Julia Roberts, and where we saw that only in California could something like this happen, with factories exporting toxic waste and people then falling seriously ill and even dying. It is a very sad fact that EU Member States export their toxic waste to African countries that are almost powerless to prevent this, and it includes toxic elements such as lead, cadmium, mercury, asbestos and others. In my opinion it is good that the Commission wants to continue working on this. I would like to call on Commissioner Barnier, who promised us that the Commission would take a more energetic approach, to adopt measures to improve this situation.
Mr President, there is a problem in the European Union because our citizens are dumping on their own doorsteps. To do that in Europe is one thing but to do it to the developing world and to the poor is, as the authors of this question said, reprehensible.
I will listen carefully to the Commission's response about new legislation. I am always concerned that we layer legislation on top of existing laws without looking at the enforcement aspects, and I would ask the Commission to address the issue of enforcement. I think in many areas we do not have sufficient numbers in Member States to correctly keep control and account of the transportation issue, in this case of toxic waste. The consequences for the health and welfare of those who handle this waste in a very inappropriate way are extremely serious. This is a moral and ethical question. Perhaps if our citizens were aware of this - I think they are not - they might think twice about their purchasing and disposal methods.
Mr President, Mrs McGuinness made an important point just now, namely that there is a moral and ethical dimension to this issue, given all the public health, biodiversity and economic concerns we have raised.
That is why - and I say this to Mrs Westlund and Mrs Roithovà, as well as to other speakers - the Commission is determined to act. In order to support the impact assessment, which will demonstrate the justification for this initiative, the Commission will propose tightening up EU legislation, in particular so as to improve inspections and enforcement of the Waste Shipments Regulation. This should greatly reduce the considerable number of illegal shipments.
All possible solutions are being examined. Give Mr Potočnik the few weeks he needs to draft this legislation. I can say on his behalf that it will be before the end of this year, 2011, that the Commission, taking into consideration the very important debate that you have held, despite the late hour, presents its legislative proposals to step up the fight against these illegal shipments and all their consequences.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
, in writing. - Earlier this year I made some enquiries to the European Commission in response to press reports about shipments of toxic waste from Italy to Romania. Although no evidence was found for the shipments, what was clear from the outcome of my enquiries was that we could benefit from more regular inspections of cargo, as this would act as a deterrent to those involved in the illegal shipment of waste. Such measures may have an additional impact in the case of third countries because they may lack the capacity to properly monitor incoming shipments and therefore prevent the entry of toxic material into their territory. We should give serious consideration to the benefits of thorough, regular inspections, coordinated at EU level, especially in the case of shipments to developing countries.


4. Next steps in border management in the EU (


1. Zimbabwe
The next item is six motions for a resolution on Zimbabwe.
author. - (NL) Mr President, Zimbabwe's President Mugabe was once the hero of the liberation struggle. Thanks to him former Southern Rhodesia gave way to a new state of Zimbabwe which gave a democratic voice to the black majority population, after the end of British colonial rule and in the teeth of a white-led policy of apartheid which rebelled against that colonial authority.
For years Mugabe was an incredibly moderate ruler. He did not pursue the pressing imperative of redistributing land ownership. He was radical only in his objection to homosexuals. Only when he was in danger of losing power did he remember his earlier promises about land reform. Since then his ill-considered actions have reduced his country's economy to total ruin. The redistribution of agricultural land did not follow a proper plan, but was done entirely arbitrarily, with his most aggressive supporters grabbing the land for themselves.
Worse still is the way he has treated his political opponents. They have been relentlessly intimidated and attacked but have so far managed to survive. Last time elections were held there was already the suspicion that the results were rigged. This time the opposition won the parliamentary elections, but it seems that the proposed recount is designed to rob them of their victory. The result of the presidential election has been kept secret for a full month already, so the size of Mugabe's defeat remains unknown.
In the last few days he has declared enthusiastically that he will never change anything in his country. He can only make good that promise by violence and oppression. He will do it using a shipload of imported Chinese arms. Given these circumstances it is reasonable for the outside world to concern itself with this domestic conflict. Support for refugees, support for the opposition and pressure on the ruling party are essential ways of achieving what Mugabe himself always claimed to want, namely political power for the majority.
author. - Mr President, can I first of all express my disappointment that the Council is not represented for this important debate.
It is almost a month since elections were held in Zimbabwe. There can be little doubt that those elections were won by the Movement for Democratic Change. Mugabe and his henchmen should now be out of office, but we have heard virtually nothing about the election results except that Mugabe's people are once more reacting with violence and are desperately trying to fix the election outcome.
For years now, we have pointed to Zimbabwe as the great shame on the face of Africa, a testimony to the effects of tyranny, corruption and exploitation by one man's appalling regime. Mugabe has destroyed a once prosperous country. Yet, during this time, over all those years, other African leaders have stood by and either done nothing or else they have applauded the tyrant whenever they had the opportunity. What a disgrace! And what a scandal this has been. And what a tragedy - not just for the people of Zimbabwe, but for Africa.
For all those years, the first key to Zimbabwe's fate has been held by South Africa, yet Thabo Mbeki has not only failed properly to discharge his responsibilities as a mediator but he has blatantly sided with Mugabe. The world watched dumbstruck when Mbeki announced a few days ago that there was no crisis in Zimbabwe, just normal electoral politics.
While the EU has at least imposed targeted sanctions on the Mugabe regime, it went out of its way to ensure that no one took them seriously, even inviting Mugabe, banned from travel to EU countries, to its EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon last December for reasons that were wholly false. What diplomatic or economic effort has really been made to persuade other African countries to do the decent thing over Zimbabwe? The answer is very little.
Well, there is still time to do the right thing. Jacob Zuma, the ANC leader, has now called for action on Zimbabwe. In our motion for a resolution today we are calling on men of goodwill in the governing Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe to see the light and recognise that a transformation is on the way.
Now is the time for us to make our voice heard. Let us bring about that democratic change that at last is required for the sake of the people of Zimbabwe.
author. - (PL) Mr President, both the political situation and internal security in Zimbabwe took a sudden turn for the worse after the March parliamentary and presidential elections in that country. The very fact that the results of the elections have not yet been announced illustrates the breakdown of the rule of law and it also shows the totalitarian nature of authority in that African state.
Today, in Africa, democracy itself is under serious threat. The regime has again used force against the opposition and against the democratic aspirations of Zimbabwe's inhabitants. For this reason a decisive reaction is needed from the European Union and this should include our Parliament. We should react to the situation, but we should also condemn the action of China, which, by sending a cargo ship full of arms to the African coast, is trying to support the Mugabe regime.
For this reason I am pleased to support the clause in our joint motion for a resolution calling on China to stop sending arms to Zimbabwe. Only in this way will it be possible to reduce the number of victims of the state terror to which the citizens of that country are being subjected.
author. - Mr President, following many years of British colonial rule and a period of apartheid dictatorship by Ian Smith, the then Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, was led to independence by a group of freedom-fighting persons, including Mr Mugabe.
Nobody can deny the contribution of these people to achieving freedom for Zimbabwe but, as is so often the case, excessive and long-lasting power, along with opportunism and an uncontrolled appetite for personal materialistic gain, soon corrupted the altruistic spirit of freedom and democracy and turned the ruling regime of Mugabe into an oppressive governing body with no forward vision and with excessive totalitarian manifestations. The result has been the international isolation of Zimbabwe and the continuing slide of the state into poverty and corruption misery.
In the recent elections the people of Zimbabwe demonstrated their desire for a much-needed change, but the Mugabe regime does not want to relinquish power and it is now seriously risking throwing the country into anarchy and civil war.
Through this motion for a resolution we are sending the message that the wish of the people of Zimbabwe, expressed through the electoral process, must be respected. We are also making sure that those in Africa who say that they really care about the situation in Zimbabwe fully assume their responsibilities, view the reality of the situation, assess Mugabe, not as he was many years ago but as he is today, and act decisively to bring about democratic transition in Zimbabwe.
author. - (ES) Mr President, in the light of events, I feel that the situation in Zimbabwe certainly deserves our consideration at this urgent sitting. I therefore add my voice, how could I not, to the voices of those who have already condemned the violence on the part of government forces against opposition groups, journalists and human rights supporters
I also hope that this resolution will at least help to support those who are trying from inside and outside the country to restore democratic process to the situation.
However, there is one particular point to which I would like to draw attention and it concerns the famous case of the Chinese vessel An Yue Jiang, carrying 77 tonnes of arms and munitions destined for Zimbabwe, which was forced to leave the South African port of Durban after dockworkers refused to unload the cargo and a court ruled that the arms could not be transported through South Africa.
According to my information, the vessel is now seeking another port at which to offload its cargo, although it seems, in view of the opposition in the area to accepting the shipment, that the vessel might return to China without accomplishing its mission.
Once again, it is clear that the vessel should never have been allowed to sail and that all governments need to get together to devise an international treaty on arms transfers as soon as possible because, unfortunately, there are many places in the world like Zimbabwe, which should never be allowed to receive arms or munitions of any description.
Let this example act as a spur towards the negotiation of a forceful and legally binding ATT (Arms Trade Treaty), which so many NGOs in the IANSA network have been calling for for years, as indeed has this Parliament.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, it will shortly be a month since presidential elections took place in Zimbabwe. Surely this was ample time to count the vote and announce the result. Currently a recount continues in 23 constituencies at the request of the ruling Zanu-PF Party. There are serious concerns regarding how ballot boxes have been stored and it cannot be ruled out that ballot papers are being tampered with in the process of this recount. Exit polls suggested that a second round would be necessary in the presidential race. If Mr Mugabe now announces his victory, it must be questioned. Let us hope that a second round will indeed take place.
However, the international community must keep up the pressure to ensure that this round is as free and fair as possible. Election observers and foreign journalists must be allowed into the country. In the longer term, reforms - including the creation of an independent electoral commission - will be needed to ensure that such a farce can never be called a democratic election again.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, the Constitution of Zimbabwe states that 'no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other such treatment'.
The violations of national and international law are so numerous that there is simply no time even to count them here. I would like to address the following to two people: the Commissioner-General of Police, Augustine Chihuri, and army commander Constantine Chiwenga. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited absolutely under international law: for example, under Article 5 of the African Charter of Human and People's Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Zimbabwe is a state party of both instruments.
I call on you to bring an immediate end to human rights violations by police officers and soldiers, and I urge you to ensure that all allegations of police and military involvement in human rights abuses, including violent attacks on individuals, are promptly, independently and impartially investigated.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the dictatorial government of Mr Mugabe has transformed Zimbabwe from a country with a blossoming economy into a complete disaster. Inflation has reached 100 000% per annum. GNP has fallen by a third in the last few years and the decree on reducing prices by 50% has resulted in shops being empty. Recently every single company in the country has been nationalised. In addition, life expectancy in Zimbabwe is among the lowest in the world: 37 years for men and 34 for women. One quarter of the population is infected with HIV and about 80% live below the poverty line.
If we want changes in Zimbabwe to take place peacefully - and change is absolutely essential - then we have to ensure that this takes place through elections and not through bloody riots and revolution.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, on 29 March 2008 presidential and local elections took place in Zimbabwe. However, no results have yet been announced.
The blockade on the publication of the results of the presidential elections and the accompanying repression of the opposition are an unacceptable form of stifling the democratic aspirations of the people of Zimbabwe. The fact that on 14 April 2008 the High Court in Zimbabwe rejected an urgent application from the opposition group, the Movement for Democratic Change, for the electoral commission to release the results of the elections shows the dependence of the judiciary on the current incumbent of the presidential office, Robert Mugabe, who is afraid of losing power.
We roundly condemn the breaches of human rights and the use of force against the opposition.
To supply arms to this country at this time is to encourage the possibility of an outbreak of civil war and is equally deserving of condemnation. For this reason, too, special appreciation is due to the port employees in South Africa, who refused to unload the arms sent from China to the security forces in Zimbabwe.
(NL) Mr President, how many times is it now that the human rights situation in Zimbabwe has featured on our agenda here as a matter for urgent debate? How many times have we stood here impotently railing against the way in which Mugabe oppresses his people? We have not always been unanimous about everything, but on Zimbabwe we do have some kind of consensus.
The disgraceful spectacle of the recent elections is proof yet again that this unscrupulous dictator does not give a damn about democracy. The policy of ethnic cleansing against white farmers continues unabated. Mugabe holds the opposition, the international community, and his own people in contempt. The weakest in Zimbabwe are the first to suffer, but we have known that for years.
And yet the European Community rolled out the red carpet for this man last December at the EU-African summit in Lisbon. Only Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown stuck to his guns and boycotted this unsavoury little get-together. We all know it, but the nub of the lamentable situation is this. Mugabe knows that he has support. He knows he is backed by a number of fellow-heads of state, or shall we say fellow-dictators in Africa, who dismiss any criticism of his criminal policy as 'neo-colonialism'. South Africa's role is especially perfidious here. Until such time as the African Union unequivocally condemns him, Mugabe will carry on with impunity.
Mugabe knows he also has the backing of China, which wants to take over Europe's role in Africa and does it by telling corrupt heads of state that China will not give them any grief about human rights and good governance. The Chinese regime is showing its true colours not only in Tibet, but also in Darfur and Zimbabwe. That is the essence of today's debate and it is the shared culpability of China and Africa which we must condemn and highlight more forcefully.
Mr President, events in Zimbabwe would be ridiculous if they were not so dramatic and could in fact become quite tragic.
What is the purpose of elections? The purpose is the democratic election of a government. This means the voting process must be free and fair, the votes must be counted, the results published and the people's choice respected. That is not the case in Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
The non-publication of results and the recount in the way it has been ordered are completely absurd. The international community must follow this attentively. We must listen to the warnings of religious leaders who appeal to our sense of responsibility since they are afraid that this could result in a very violent crisis of genocidal dimensions. This is also a test for international bodies and we must put pressure there - the SADC, the African Union and the UN.
Finally, concerning the Chinese vessel: there are reports that it may be going back to China, as Commissioner Michel informed us on Tuesday. However, we need confirmation, and I urge the Commission to put pressure on China - it must be a political decision and not just a decision of the shipping company.
(DE) Mr President, in the old Rhodesia there used to be a tourism poster urging people to 'Come to Rhodesia and see the ruins of Zimbabwe'. In later years, the slogan was turned around to make a double-edged joke: 'Come to Zimbabwe and see the ruins of Rhodesia'. Today the poster might well read: 'Come to Zimbabwe and see the ruins of Zimbabwe' - referring not to the famous stonework, but to ruined hopes of prosperity and democracy.
I believe the European Union has a duty to use the current situation - in which, despite manipulation of various kinds, the Zimbabwean Opposition's courage has, after all, won it a major victory - to advance democracy and the rule of law in this important African state. The people there have suffered enough. We must, however, find ways of supporting them that are not liable to be interpreted as neo-colonialism. So it is important that what we do should also have the backing of neighbouring countries and of the Zimbabwean people themselves.
That is why I welcome the first positive steps on the part of the African National Congress - although it needs to do more! That is why I particularly welcome the brave example set by the dockworkers. We need to state very clearly that it is the shared task of the European Union, the African Union and the various powers of southern Africa to ensure that the opportunity now created, following the elections, is properly used. Mr Mugabe already has his place in history; each day that passes merely makes it a less impressive one.
(SK) The opposition's fears that Robert Mugabe would decide to use force to cover up the defeat of his ruling party in the elections of 29 March have come to pass: 36 demonstrators were arrested during a peaceful march to protest against the delay in the announcement of the election results.
China's interest in Africa's oil is another problem facing the country, which is in a deep economic crisis, with hundreds of thousands of people leaving to find a better life elsewhere. In exchange for weapons, China supports corruption and a dictatorial regime, and is one of the largest trading partners of, and providers of aid to, Robert Mugabe's regime.
I agree with the European Parliament's resolution on Zimbabwe, which supports the opposition, condemns the frequent shows of racism by Robert Mugabe's supporters and calls on China to make amends.
Mr President, the people of Zimbabwe deserve justice and the rule of law. Last month's elections indicate the possible end of tyranny. I think the very fact that Mugabe's government has delayed acknowledging the result and is trying to recount the votes indicates - and is proof - that they feel themselves defeated.
I am especially worried about the widespread violence in the meantime, directed against supposed supporters of the opposition - people having been beaten up and killed just for differing in their views from the government positions. I would also like to mention the fact that this regime cannot survive without outside support, so the Chinese factor is very symbolic - the ships with armaments landing in African ports.
In theory, speaking time should be 'not more than two minutes' according to the Rules of Procedure, but I have a third speaker and I am quite willing for him to speak.
(PL) Mr President, I would like to add to what my fellow Members have said today about the issue of Zimbabwe being one that we cannot ignore. Europe has invested and continues to invest considerable funds in Africa with the good intention of establishing democracy there and raising the average person's standard of living. The example of Mugabe and Zimbabwe could infect other jumped-up bureaucrats in Africa and, even in those places where there is democracy but the opposition is armed with weapons from China or from some other representatives of the Socialist world, this poses a threat to these democracies and our task is to defend them. For this reason we cannot just let Zimbabwe get away with it and I believe these voices are right and should be heard throughout Africa.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I have followed with interest the debate in this House and I welcome the resolution that will be voted upon shortly.
First of all I would like to recall the Commission's continued commitment to the people of Zimbabwe. In this sense, I also would like to emphasise that the European Union remains the most important donor to Zimbabwe and we are willing to continue playing this role.
The situation in Zimbabwe, notably following the 29 March elections, is a major preoccupation and, like the European Parliament, the Commission follows events very closely. We are working closely with Member States, both in Zimbabwe and here in Europe, to coordinate action at the level of the European Union.
We believe that Zimbabweans and the neighbouring States are the main players in finding a solution to the crisis and consequently we encourage the regional peers of Zimbabwe to play a crucial role. Therefore the Commission supports ongoing regional efforts and the conclusions of the SADC summit, held on 13 April in Lusaka, calling for the release of the presidential election results and, in the event of a run-off, the appeal made to the Government of Zimbabwe to ensure a secure environment.
We also welcome the redeployment by the SADC of an electoral observation mission to cover the ongoing electoral process immediately and until its completion, while regretting that the EU has not been invited to deploy its own election observation mission.
In the framework of his participation in the SADC summit on poverty, held in Mauritius on 19 April, Commissioner Michel took the opportunity to meet most Presidents or Prime Ministers from SADC Member States to discuss the crisis in Zimbabwe. He thanked them for their efforts and encouraged them to strengthen their engagement to find acceptable solutions.
I would like to confirm the Commission's willingness to continue to make use of any opportunity for dialogue in order to find a solution to the Zimbabwe crisis. In the meantime, the Commission and Member States continue to provide unprecedented levels of humanitarian aid to Zimbabweans.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place after the debates.


Adjournment of the session
I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.
(The sitting was closed at 4.25 p.m.)


Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes