9. Amendment of the Rules of Procedure in light of the Statute for Members (vote)
- Report: Friedrich
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, very briefly, this concerns the amendment of the Rules of Procedure in light of the new Statute from 2009. It strengthens the individual Member's right of initiative, creates more transparency, provides a clear definition of which files can be inspected, and offers what I believe to be an intelligent solution to the question of languages, so that the smaller languages will not be discriminated against. As we have not debated this issue, I think it is important that you should be informed about it. Thank you for your attention.


7. SOLVIT (


Closure of sitting
(The sitting was closed at 00.05 a.m.)


Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes


Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes


14. The business of electronic money institutions (


Explanations of vote
Written explanations of vote
in writing. - As a result of judgments by the Court of Justice in the Open Skies cases, the Commission allowed for the replacement of bilateral agreements that had been entered into between some Member States and third countries with Community agreements. The Commission has therefore negotiated an agreement that will replace the bilateral agreements between Mongolia and certain EU Member States.
This proposal is aimed at replacing certain provisions of bilateral air service agreements concluded in the past by EU Member States and the Government of Mongolia, and deals with aspects that I consider crucial, including technical issues, taxation of fuel, and pricing.
I particularly welcome the importance granted to compliance with Community competition law, since some provisions in earlier bilateral agreements were clearly anti-competitive. I therefore endorse Mr Simpson's report since it follows these general guidelines.
in writing. - When Romania and Bulgaria entered the EU, it was specified in their act of accession that a protocol would have to be drawn up amending the Agreement on Maritime Transport between the EU and its Member States and China. This vote is in favour of the conclusion of this protocol.
I voted in favour of the report on mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund in favour of France because I believe this fund helps countries to respond effectively and flexibly to situations created by natural disasters, in this case the storm last January which affected south-western France, causing severe damage. This financial instrument of solidarity is mobilised in cases where the damage caused by a disaster is so severe that national resources are insufficient to respond effectively to the crisis, the aim being to stimulate economic recovery and meet the needs of the Member State affected.
I voted in favour of the report by my esteemed German colleague and friend, Mr Böge, calling on the European Parliament to approve the proposal for a decision on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide approximately EUR 109 million in commitment and payment appropriations in 2009 to help France, the victim of a disaster caused by storm Klaus which, in January 2009, hit 31 departments in the south-west of the country, causing an estimated EUR 4 billion or so of serious damage. I will take advantage of this speech to congratulate Mr Lamassoure, the chairman of our Parliament's Committee on Budgets, on the speed with which he, together with the European Commission's services, has dealt with this matter.
in writing. - In January 2009, a storm took place in south-west France causing severe damage and enabling France to apply for funds from the European Union Solidarity Fund. I voted in favour of the mobilisation of these funds.
In my view, solidarity among Member States in the European Union and, in particular, European support for countries affected by disasters, are a clear sign that the EU is no longer just a free trade area. By adopting special aid instruments like the European Union Solidarity Fund, the Community that we seek to make 'united in diversity' demonstrates its ability to remain united in adversity, even in situations that place high demands on human and material resources. That is something I sincerely welcome.
I hope the Solidarity Fund is not used very often, as it will mean that Europe is not suffering from many serious emergencies, but I also hope that its structure and availability are increasingly improved and frequently reassessed so that it can meet any real demands swiftly and without red tape.
I must mention the fires that have ravaged my country, particularly in 2003, and I acknowledge how important and useful mechanisms like this fund have been. I believe the particularly serious times that France went through in January this year justify mobilisation of the fund. The overwhelmingly positive vote in the Committee on Budgets confirms that this is a good measure.
I welcome the intervention of the European Union Solidarity Fund - from which France will benefit - to help right the damage caused by the storm of January 2009, which hit the European and French forestry sector hard. The amounts granted should be available by October 2009; in other words, nine months after the storm. This intervention is quicker than the average time taken for the Fund to intervene, which is around one year from the time of the disaster to the payment of aid.
While it is right to welcome this progress, it is worth continuing to call for the fund to be made available more quickly. The current procedure for managing the Solidarity Fund makes this difficult. Nonetheless, a revised proposal for a regulation was tabled by the European Commission and supported by a large majority of Parliament in May 2006. I regret that the Council has still not taken up this matter and I would encourage it now to consider, as soon as possible, the possibility of bringing the European Union Solidarity Fund into operation more quickly.
I voted in favour of the report by my esteemed German colleague and friend, Mr Böge, calling on the European Parliament to approve the proposal for a decision on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to provide EUR 4.1 million in commitment and payment appropriations to help the Spanish and Portuguese textile sectors (Catalonia and Norte-Centro regions). The aim is to provide aid for the workers affected by the consequences of the significant changes in the structure of international trade and to help them re-enter the labour market. I share my colleagues' view about speeding up mobilisation of this fund and about assessing its complementarity with other existing instruments such as the Social Fund.
I voted in favour of the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to provide additional support to Portuguese workers affected by redundancies in the textile sector and who suffer the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns.
The mobilisation of EUR 832 800 from the fund is aimed at reintegrating workers into the labour market by means of personal employment plans, drawn up together with the workers, which include personal skill development and strategies for entering the labour market.
EU support, particularly from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, is fundamental in helping those who have lost their jobs due to the relocations that have occurred in a globalised market. In recent years, especially as a result of the world economic crisis, Portugal has been feeling the effects of the problem of how to reabsorb and reintegrate the unemployed into the labour market.
Countless firms have relocated to take advantage of the lower labour costs found in China and India, for example, with dire consequences for the entire national economy. The approval of EGF money to help these workers is vital not only for improving their personal and family situations, but also for the whole national economy, because the aim of these exceptional measures in the longer term is to help these workers to find and keep a new job.
I voted in favour because I believe this support is important for Portuguese workers. I feel, however, that Portugal's application was not ambitious enough. The Portuguese Government asked the EGF for EUR 833 for each worker made redundant in the textile sector, whereas Spain applied for EUR 3 006 per worker in the same sector.
I also find it somewhat surprising that, in the midst of an economic crisis with rising unemployment, in which the effects of globalisation can be felt, the EGF has received and accepted so few applications from the Member States. In fact, the EGF has EUR 500 million available for all the Member States this year, and to date only about EUR 60 million has been utilised.
We voted in favour of this report, since the European Parliament is giving the green light for Portugal to receive EUR 832 800 to help workers made redundant in the textile industry in Portugal's Norte and Centro regions. This is a tiny sum, however, and it is merely a palliative measure, given the severe unemployment experienced in Portugal today, particularly in those regions.
As we all know, Portugal applied to the European Commission for this money in January this year, and it relates to 1 588 redundancies reported between February and November 2008 in 49 textile companies in the northern and central regions of the country.
Approval has also been given, however, for EUR 3 306 750 to support 1 720 workers dismissed from 30 textile companies in Cataluña, Spain.
What was really needed, though, was a policy to support production, particularly in the textile sector, to prevent further company closures and further redundancies.
While I agree with the basic principle, I believe that the seriousness of the crisis calls for provisions on an altogether different scale, not least to allow SMEs access to credit and to have credit that is conducive to employment, territorial development and the development of human capabilities.
The motions submitted by Spain and Portugal to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) once again make clear the consequences of globalisation. In the countries of south-east Asia and, in particular, in the special economic zones, where people are exploited and employed without minimum social standards, textiles are being produced at dumping prices and then sold on the European market.
European companies, which respect the social rights of employees that have been established and acquired over decades, are left at a disadvantage because of the higher costs that they incur as a result. We must stop this development from going any further immediately. A ban must be imposed as soon as possible on the import of products into the EU which are not produced under specific minimum social standards. Until this has been achieved, we can only work to reduce the damage caused by globalisation in the relevant countries. Therefore, I have voted without reservations in favour of releasing aid from the fund.
In recognising the adverse impact of globalisation, which is all too evident in the industrial regions of Europe, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is grounded in the solidarity of the European project and brings it closer to the people by providing assistance for those workers who are worst affected by these changes. Portugal's Norte and Centro regions, where the economy was based on traditional sectors such as the textile industry, have been modernising since the early 1990s in an attempt to adapt to rapidly increasing competition.
The textile industry employs roughly 15% of the labour force in these areas of the country, and almost 98% of the unemployment in the sector across the country is concentrated in these two regions. The worsening economic climate that has harmed these regions, along with others - particularly the outermost regions such as Madeira, where tourism is very important - has had worrying consequences in terms of social cohesion, above all, because of the rise in unemployment. I therefore support the mobilisation of EUR 832 800 from the EGF in the wake of the 1 588 redundancies in the textile industry in Portugal's Norte and Centro regions. This sum must be used wisely for retraining these workers and reincorporating them quickly and sustainably into the labour market.
in writing. - This concerns the revision of Traditional Own Resources, VAT and GNI and provides for adjustments with reference to economic forecasts. The proposal is extremely technical, so I shall simply declare that my vote has been favourable to this proposal.
in writing. - During January 2009, the south-west of France was hit by a storm which caused severe damage and therefore allows France access to funds in the EUSF. I am in favour of following the point of view of the rapporteur in accepting the proposed Draft amending budget No 7/2009.
I consider it unacceptable to mix together in the same vote the appropriations to promote the bluetongue vaccination and the Europol and Eurojust appropriations. I am in favour of the appropriations to eradicate bluetongue disease, but am against the Europol and Eurojust appropriations.
In January 2009, France was hit by a severe storm. Storm Klaus caused devastation, in particular to the country's infrastructure. The objective of the Solidarity Fund is to cover part of the cost of damage which has to be paid for out of the public purse. This case meets all the requirements. For this reason, and particularly for reasons of cross-border solidarity with the French citizens who were and, in some cases, still are affected by storm Klaus, I have voted in favour of the Draft amending budget.
I welcome the adoption today of the report by our fellow Member, Mrs Haug, to which I gave my full support. With this vote, we are allowing the European Union Solidarity Fund to be mobilised for the second time this year. Indeed, having come to the aid of Romania, the European Union is now showing its solidarity with the French population which, in January 2009, felt the full force of the devastating and very violent storm Klaus, which was described as a 'major natural disaster' and, as such, was eligible for inclusion in the main scope of this Fund. In total, more than EUR 120 million have been made available in this way.
As you know, this aid is sorely needed for the departments in the south-west of my country, which have suffered considerable damage. I would like to thank my fellow Members for voting in favour of this report. It will, of course, be necessary now to ensure that the French Government involves the local authorities fairly in the process and that these authorities are not cheated as regards the way in which this money is used. Indeed, it would be unacceptable if only the private sector were to benefit from it.
in writing. - We acknowledge the very real need for a bluetongue vaccine, particularly for beef and sheep farmers in the South and East of England who, by wholesale vaccination on their own farms, have created a firewall against bluetongue that their fellow farmers in the North and West have benefited from. In order to vote for EU funding for this vaccine we are obliged (in the same vote) to vote for increased funding for Eurojust and Europol. These are two agencies that operate outside the boundaries acceptable to British law, severely increasing the power of the state at the expense of the liberty of the individual. It is contemptible that the EU attempts to bury such provisions in these types of reports, and then requires MEPs to vote on them as a whole and not individual parts. Thus, we could not in good conscience support such a report, which explains our voting abstention on the subject.
in writing. - This report concerned modifications in the budget creating fresh commitments amounting to EUR 51 640 000. These funds will go to the fighting of bluetongue, the creation of a high flux reactor in addition to funds directed to Europol and OLAF. My vote here is consistent with the opinion of the rapporteur.
in writing. - I acknowledge the very real need for a bluetongue vaccine, and deplore the refusal of the UK Government to assist its farming community on this important issue. This report contained provisions related to this situation. However, this report also contained provisions totally unrelated to farming, which would have had a disastrous impact on the UK. In particular, this report called for funding to Eurojust and Europol, agencies that operate outside of the boundaries acceptable to British law.
It is contemptible that the EU attempts to bury such provisions in these types of reports, and then requires MEPs to vote on them as a whole and not individual parts. Thus, I could not in good conscience support such a report, which explains my vote on the subject.
in writing. - I acknowledge the very real need for a bluetongue vaccine, and note the unhelpful attitude of the UK Government on this important issue. This report contained provisions related to this situation. However, this report also contained provisions totally unrelated to farming, which would have had a disastrous impact on the UK.
In particular, this report called for funding to Eurojust and Europol, agencies that operate outside of the boundaries acceptable to British law. It is contemptible that the EU attempts to bury such provisions in these types of reports, and then requires MEPs to vote on them as a whole and not individual parts. Thus, I could not in good conscience support such a report, which explains my vote on the subject.
in writing. - The Fine Gael members of the EPP Group voted in favour of Draft amending budget No 8/2009. We note that this vote includes the creation of a budget item to provide supplementary funding to the High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten, Netherlands. Originally, the facility was set up to evaluate materials used in fusion and fission reactors. It has become an indispensable facility for the production of radioisotopes for the medical sectors, covering some 60% of European demand. The report also provides support for, among other things, a strengthened budget to eradicate the bluetongue disease and assistance with European policing and anti-fraud. On balance, given the nature of the HFR and the mix of budget items covered, the Fine Gael delegation voted to support Draft amending budget No 8/2009.
in writing. - I voted in favour of the abovementioned report which includes an increase in loan commitments for programmes aiming at eradicating and tracking animal diseases as well as observing the physical well-being of animals which could present a threat to public health linked to external factors.
At the same time, I would like to emphasise my disagreement with the other issues raised in the report, which should not have been included in this report:
The creation of budget item 10 04 04 02 (Operation of the high-flux reactor (HFR));
The creation of budget item 18 05 02 03 (European Police);
A reinforcement of the Community subsidy to EUROJUST;
Modifications to the establishment plan of OLAF, without additional financial provisions.
The report on Draft amending budget No 8/2009 of the European Union for the financial year 2009 includes some contradictory points. It focuses on the increase in resources to eradicate bluetongue disease in sheep, the pursuit of a research programme on the use of a nuclear reactor installed in the Netherlands, the Europol and Eurojust programmes, and OLAF.
In voting against this draft report, I obviously did not wish to take a stand against provisions that are vitally important to sheep farmers.
I wished to take a stand against the ever-persistent use of nuclear power.
Above all, I wished to reaffirm my commitment to combating the construction of a fortress, security-driven and ineffective Europe to ensure the safety of our fellow citizens, via the Europol and Eurojust budgets.
There is a need to curb these policies which, in the name of the fight against insecurity and terrorism, are increasingly undermining the fundamental freedoms and rights of our fellow citizens, and to review and redefine the mandates of the various Community agencies and bodies involved in these policies.


Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes


Succession and wills (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, with recommendations to the Commission on succession and wills (2005/2148 (INI)).
rapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let me say straight away that, in relation to the measure before us, there are in the European Union between 50 000 and 100 000 cases of succession due to death, and this is a measure that is likely to become the reference in issues of international law.
Transnational succession is an extremely wide-ranging phenomenon, and it comes up against an increasing number of difficulties stemming from profound differences between the system of private international law and the substantive law systems of the Member States. That often results in obstacles to the freedom of movement and the enjoyment of the right to own property. The Committee on Legal Affairs, which I have the honour of chairing, has therefore decided to take the initiative to make successions in Europe simpler by using the power granted to it by Article 192 of the EC Treaty, and to call on the Commission to adopt a legislative proposal.
Since we, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately do not yet have the power to initiate legislation like all our counterparts in the national parliaments - that is an observation that I always make - I turn to you, Commissioner Frattini, and, with the strong backing that I am sure the qualified majority vote will give me, I call on you to carry forward an important request of ours in the interests of Europe's citizens.
You are aware that, for beneficiaries to take possession of an estate, they currently have to start proceedings in all the countries where the property is located. This is not only a costly and laborious process, but, since the transmission of property by inheritance is a special way of transferring ownership, it is associated with emotional and personal aspects - highly complex interpersonal relationships that even transcend legal arguments. I should like to mention a very personal recollection from my youth, when I was at university: Professor Cariota-Ferrara, who had done his thesis on inheritance law, used to say that inheritance law was a law about emotions, a law that often involved suffering. Hence, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that our proposal will make a real contribution to creating a Europe of the citizens.
I am grateful to the committee, which debated this issue at length and thoroughly examined all aspects of it. I truly believe that what we are putting before Parliament is a very important proposal that represents a step forwards for both political Europe and the citizens' Europe. I therefore call on you to adopt this report, and I also ask Commissioner Frattini to do so on behalf of the citizens of Europe.
The report we are proposing includes measures aimed at ensuring that there is one applicable law and one competent court. Applicable law and competent court should generally coincide, and the criterion for establishing them is also objective: the habitual place of residence of the deceased at the time of death. Individual freedom of choice is not ruled out, however: people making a will may choose which law should govern the whole succession, either the law of their own nationality or the law of the country in which they are habitually resident at the time the choice is made. Similarly, should disputes arise, the parties may choose the applicable law and the competent courts.
I should like to say a few words on a key point that I consider the cornerstone of our proposal. The report proposes the introduction of a legally binding European certificate of inheritance, which will set out the law applicable to the succession, the beneficiaries of the estate, the persons responsible for administering the estate and their powers, and the property comprising the estate. The certificate will be drawn up according to a standard model and will allow the property inherited to be recorded in the public registers of the Member State in which the property is located.
Mrs Berger has carried out a more thorough investigation than the others precisely on this proposal and has tabled five amendments. In this respect, I must say that I am particularly concerned that the certificate should be compulsory, consistent and legally certain. Indeed, if that is not established, I think the whole structure of the provision will be adversely affected, and it will become less effective and rather less of a reference. Not all the countries in the EU may take it into account, and it will end up being a consultative measure rather than a mandatory one. In any event, that is likely to diminish its force, which should lie precisely in its legal certainty and its ability to reach all citizens, so that they can have a real chance of receiving their inheritance by means of these instruments.
In my opinion, the other amendments should be rejected, and in that respect I should like to appeal particularly to Mrs Berger to think again and perhaps to withdraw or recast her amendment in order to make this proposal more incisive.
Madam President, Mr Gargani, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to sincerely congratulate Chairman Gargani and the Committee on Legal Affairs for having drawn up a proposal which, if it is approved by this House - as I hope it will be - I will not hesitate to transform into a legislative proposal.
I too would like to begin with an observation. We have worked for a long time to gauge the opinions of legal operators, of experts in the field, and, above all, of the citizens of the European Union, on the possibility of having an instrument clearly identifying the applicable law and therefore making it easier to create a real European area in the sector of succession and wills.
Well, from the results of a survey conducted by Eurobarometer in July 2006 on the various aspects of family law in Europe, it has emerged that, on average, 80% of Europeans believe that recognition of succession and wills within the whole European area is necessary. There are, obviously, countries in which the consensus on this matter is even stronger: in Germany, for example, one of the great founding countries, and in Latvia, a smaller country, 92% consensus was recorded in favour of this kind of legislation; in my own country, Italy, the figure was 88%, as in Hungary. There has therefore been a wide response, showing that, on average, four fifths of Europeans are in favour of facilitating European regulation on succession and wills.
In March 2005, the Commission published a Green Paper on the subject, which has enabled us to gather hundreds of responses of great interest from academics, the legal profession and operators in the field. We have also gathered many good ideas from the hearing on transnational successions, which Parliament had the excellent idea of organising. Among other things, I can inform you that the Commission has, in turn, organised a public hearing on the same topic, to be held on 30 November. It will give us an opportunity to collect further ideas, which, I believe, together with Mr Gargani's report, will enable us to submit a legislative proposal in the near future.
The last subject on which I would like to comment briefly is that already touched on by Chairman Gargani, namely that of a European Certificate of Inheritance. I share the rapporteur's view that, if we want a truly effective European instrument in this area, it must have binding effect within European territory. In this regard, many of you will remember other instruments of private international law on which we have reached an agreement. If a certain instrument, once adopted in one Member State, could be called into question every time in the other Member States in which it is to be applied - if it is not binding on them, in other words - one of the foundations of the area of free movement of decisions would be jeopardised.
Obviously, the objection could be made that a certificate of inheritance, as such, is always binding, since otherwise it would not be able to certify situations. However, I believe that in this case it would be appropriate to emphasise its binding nature, as we are creating, perhaps for the first time, a useful instrument for resolving the problem of movement among European citizens that is also shown through the recognition of wills, that is the problem of succession and wills. Allow me therefore to say in advance that I agree entirely with Mr Gargani.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Madam President, Mr Gargani has presented us with a report that expresses the Committee on Legal Affairs' desire for the European institutions to take action in the field of succession law.
Commissioner Frattini has stressed that 80% of European citizens believe that succession law must be regulated and recognised in a harmonised fashion throughout the European Union. We are not talking about theories, but about the realities affecting people who live in different countries or who have families in different countries and who, when succession takes place, find themselves in an absolutely desperate situation.
Unfortunately, the European Union's Treaties do not provide for the possibility of harmonising the substantive law on succession. This is something that will probably have to be put right in the future, since it makes very little sense that the consequences, the legal system and the rights of inheritors should change entirely as a result of moving a few kilometres and depending on whether a person is established in one country or another.
For the time being, the Committee on Legal Affairs, by means of the report by Mr Gargani, is restricting itself to telling the Commission that it is necessary to begin to propose actions of a legislative nature. Commissioner Frattini has indicated that the Commission is in favour of doing so. We will probably not be able to go much further at the moment.
We in the Committee on Legal Affairs have discussed the merits and the content of the proposals that Mr Frattini includes in the annex; there are certain amendments tabled by my Socialist colleague, Mrs Berger, which are intended to correct some of the defects noted in that annex, but the most important thing of all is that the Commission is prepared to make practical proposals, as Mr Frattini has indicated in this House. We cannot improvise on this issue, since we must work on the basis of our experience.
Anybody who has had to deal with an international succession issue within the European Union will have found themselves faced with huge difficulties, above all in terms of jurisdiction.
We should probably begin to deal with the issue from the point of view of jurisdiction, the competences of courts and the recognition and effectiveness of decisions, removing the exequatur procedure, as Mr Gargani recommends, which makes no sense in the European Union.
I therefore hope that Mr Gargani's efforts and Mr Frattini's contribution will make it possible for us soon to have practical proposals on the table for the development of Community law in this field.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, on behalf of my Group, I would like to welcome the Green Paper, and thank Mr Gargani very much for his report and all the work that has been done on it in terms of consultation. It really is welcome.
This is clearly an issue that affects an increasing number of our citizens and that we have to address, but it is not a simple issue. When one thinks about how terrible it is for any individual to have to deal with bereavement and then adds to that the difficulties of dealing with some sort of transnational legal situation, it is clearly an area that we have to try to tackle in order to make life easier for our citizens, having encouraged them to be mobile in the way that we have.
But the legal problems that this raises touch on subsidiarity. They touch the culture of our different legal systems very deeply. But it is clear that if we are to tackle the problem, we need, as Mr Gargani has said - and I think my group would also underline - to move towards a binding European certificate of inheritance. That has to be our first goal, to have free circulation of such a binding certificate, in the same way as we have free circulation of ordinary judgments. It is going to be difficult though because, as I have said, it touches matters of public policy within our various countries. It touches matters of taxation law. But I commend the report and hope that the Commissioner will be able to take it forward to a legislative instrument.
(DE) Madam President, the rapporteur - and chairman of our committee - deserves thanks for his report and also for having been willing to take on board a number of my amendments following the debates in committee.
I think today is a good day for a subject that is not exactly fun: death and inheritance. Having adopted the services directive at second reading, thank heaven there was no derogation for funeral services, which is what many had wanted. Tonight we are discussing European initiatives in the field of inheritance law.
Right at the outset, I would like to clear up a misunderstanding, since it is evident that a technical error has cropped up. I am not seeking to make the certificate of inheritance anything less than binding, but only to delete the words 'unless and until proven otherwise'; on the contrary, indeed, far from wishing to do away with the certificate of inheritance's binding effect, I want to reinforce it. Since I shall be clarifying this with the House services, it might perhaps be possible, under these circumstances, for the other groups to vote in favour too.
I hope that Amendment 3 is now acceptable. We are proposing as a starting point a residence period of at least two years, for people should not suffer unexpected legal consequences as a result of short-term relocation, while we do not want to make it easy for someone to evade his own country's inheritance law, to the detriment of his family members, simply by moving elsewhere.
I would now like to put the case for my other amendments, which provide for the certification of conformity. Since Recommendation 1 testifies to our desire not to interfere in Member States' procedural law, I see this examination of conformity as going against the principle of non-interference not only in the Member States' material law, but also in their procedural law.
I trust that these explanations will help the other groups to support our amendments after all.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.


9. Cloning of animals for food supply (vote)
(The sitting was suspended at 11.55 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon)


Import of poultry carcases (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the import of poultry carcases.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, on this issue I had exhaustive discussions with my colleagues on the authorisation of the use of AMT substances as a decontamination measure to clean the surface of poultry carcases, during the college meeting of 28 May. As you know, the possibility of removing surface contamination with substances other than potable water was approved by Council and Parliament in 2004 in the hygiene regulations.
In order to approve substances for use in decontamination of any meat, the applicable law requires a positive, evidence-based finding in comitology, indicating that the use of the substances does not pose risks to health or the environment.
Let me remind you that there was a long-standing request by the USA for approval of four AMT substances for use in decontamination of poultry carcases. Against this background, we have requested various scientific opinions which have assessed the risk of the use of the four AMT substances from the point of view of health, environment and anti-microbial resistance.
On the basis of the outcome of the various scientific opinions, we decided to present a proposal. The scientific opinions allow us to proceed with a proposal for authorisation, but not at any price. Pursuant to the scientific opinions, a number of risk-management conditions had to be formulated. In proposing this text, my bottom line is very clear: no matter which commercial partner is at stake, no international commitment can be allowed to undermine the principles of food safety and the health of EU consumers.
Hence the need to ensure that any use of such substances would not replace the obligation to comply with the hygiene conditions along the food chain as set by Community legislation, and that such use would not make up for prior poor hygiene conditions. In fact, in its opinion, EFSA has indicated that AMT could be considered as a useful tool to complement the hygiene practices already implemented in the European Union.
This is why I have imposed strict, yet proportional conditions. Under these conditions, we can assure a proposal which is defensible from the point of view of public health and safety. The conditions that we propose are the following. First, one single substance is applied. Time of exposure and concentration of the substances are defined. The poultry carcases are rinsed with potable water. No residue is left on the final product after the use of the substance. The efficacy of the rinsing is monitored to ensure the absence of residues. By setting these conditions, we ensure that the use of AMT substances will not make up for poor hygiene conditions, and that no residues are left in the end product.
I would also like to stress that the use of AMT only reduces the number of bacteria and does not replace good hygiene practices as a core requirement, equally applicable in third countries as in Europe and applicable from the flocks to the processing of poultry carcases. We will maintain a holistic approach to the reduction of salmonella at all stages of the production chain: feed, farms and slaughterhouses.
Moreover, the proposal provides for appropriate labelling. As with other approved substances such as additives, the consumer has the right to be informed. Thus we suggest two alternative descriptions. Appropriate environmental medication measures on waste water effluent quality standards, as proposed by DG Environment. These consist of conditions for collecting and treatment of wastewater in slaughterhouses.
Last but not least, the proposal foresees a review within two years of the date of application of the authorisation, allowing further collection of data from food business operators regarding the use of the substances so that scientific questions on antimicrobial resistance can be addressed. This review will place the burden of proof on the food operators rather than on the Commission's scientific bodies.
That said, when the proposal was presented to the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health on 2 June, 26 Member States expressed a negative opinion and one abstained. The Commission will now transmit the proposal to the Council of Ministers to decide.
You will ask why the Commission went ahead with this proposal despite the EU domestic opposition to it. Firstly, because the legislative framework foresees the possibility of approving such substances. Secondly, because there has been a request for approval which could not be left unanswered, considering also our international commitments. Finally, because there are scientific opinions which indicated that we could proceed with the authorisation provided it is flanked by a number of strict conditions, as we did. It was, therefore, for the Commission to stand up to its institutional responsibilities and make the proposal.
What happens next is part of the decision-making process. In this sense, I have taken good note of your strongly held position. The Council will now be asked to pronounce on the text. As you know, if a qualified majority of Member States is against this proposal, it will not be adopted, so we will see the end result under the French presidency.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Commissioner said that this chemical chlorine is not dangerous. If that is the case, why is it banned for use on chickens in the European Union?
Secondly, Commissioner, you said that we have obligations to the United States. We are part of the WTO negotiations and part of the WTO, but - correct me if I am wrong - there is no ban on chicken meat coming out of the United States, provided it meets EU standards. Why on earth are we putting in place legislation in the European Union when we are in effect wasting our time?
We have just adopted a report on a directive on safe water. We have taken a number of chemicals out of the text and yet here we are, bringing chlorine back in. You mentioned quite rightly on 2 June that there was a vote of 26 to 1 against. The one that abstained was the United Kingdom. You have to remember that the United Kingdom is governed by the greed of the supermarkets and I would suggest to you that the reason the United Kingdom abstained is that it was pressurised for cheap food from the supermarkets. I believe that in actual fact this is having a detrimental effect.
You say there will be no residue left on the products. Can you wholeheartedly put your hand on your heart, Commissioner, and say that you will be able to monitor this, because in the past we have had problems with products coming into the EU? I was responsible for the report on chemicals in food coming into the European Union and food within the European Union, and we are having real problems monitoring them.
I believe that you are laying yourself open to a real risk, and not just to public health. It is not a trade issue - it is about public health, public confidence in the product. The last thing we want to see is loss of public confidence in the European Union and in the food we produce.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to thank the Members who contributed to the drafting of this resolution. I would like to stress that this is supported by all the political groups. Why such unanimity? No doubt because it reflects our dissatisfaction with the attitude and approach of the Commission, which stems from a denial of democracy that the European Parliament has faced on this dossier for several weeks now.
The Commission's determination to disregard the opinion of MEPs and experts on the issue of importing chlorinated chicken is truly appalling. Yes, Mr Verheugen is in charge of negotiating with his US counterpart to promote trade between our two regions, but can he do it by sacrificing European health standards? How can the Commission have given the go-ahead for this kind of project, merely proposing compulsory labelling and a review of the provisions in 2 years' time etc.? Can the Commission explain why, after acknowledging that it lacked information about these substances, it is not adopting a precautionary approach? The absence of references to the conclusions of the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is also curious, since a few weeks ago it revealed an increase in contamination and infection from salmonella, listeria and other bacteria. Why should we import a method which has not already been tried and tested?
Another important point to remember is that the implementation of European food safety legislation required years of work and collaboration with industry professionals, who agreed to invest in order to meet the expectations of European citizens. This approach, which involves the entire food chain, is the most sustainable way of reducing the level of pathogens. This was the choice we made, and do you really think that a relationship of trust and a strong and reliable partnership can be built by failing to reaffirm our own principles and values to our US partners? I have one more question: would the imported products be subject to the same rules as European poultry?
Finally, I will finish by pointing out that this decision is all the more incomprehensible as the European Commission has decided to counterattack the WTO over the decision of its Dispute Settlement Body on hormone-treated beef. I find that there is enormous confusion and misunderstanding among consumers faced with this diametrically opposed position. It really calls into question the political line taken by the European Commission on food health and safety.
The European Council will shortly issue an opinion on the Commission's proposal. We ask it to take into account the position of Parliament and the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health: to put health before trade.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I can only endorse the words of Mr Sturdy and Mrs Ferreira. I do not actually understand why the Commission persisted in tabling these proposals on 28 May. The pressure from the United States must have been enormous. This pressure is of an economic nature. The United States is losing markets here in the European Union - including, perhaps, in the new Member States that joined in 2004.
What do I note from all the studies carried out? I note that the United States' approach to the use of antimicrobial agents is not really efficient. The number of cases of contamination with salmonella or campylobacter has not gone down. Our approach, on the other hand, is very effective. We have a 'farm to fork' approach, covering every stage from the farm to the consumer's table. Since the Commission White Paper in 2000, we have adopted strong legislation on foodstuffs. I do not now want to see this undermined.
Nor do farmers want this, as they have invested in this approach. They do not want unfair competition from competitors in other parts of the world. Besides, they do not stand alone; they have the support of the consumer and environmental movements. I would ask the Commissioner to have a rethink, therefore, and to withdraw this proposal: she has no support for it in the Council and no support for it in this Parliament.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, I fully support the draft resolution that has been put forward. I identify with the full content of the proposals contained in the draft resolution. A very important matter has been raised in this document. In our debates on the situation in agriculture, but also in international trade, we have called numerous times for respect for the principle that requirements must be identical for producers in the European Union and for those entities that export their products onto the European market. This principle is not generally observed, and in particular it is not observed in the sphere of agricultural production. We must make a firm demand for this principle to be observed. We cannot continue with a procedure in which certain standards are required of producers in the European Union and different standards of those who export their products onto the European market.
The situation in the poultry industry is very difficult in a number of European countries. My country, Poland, is one of them. I have personally had the opportunity to take part in many discussions on this subject. Poultry organisations have pointed out that competition conditions are unequal, and that the European market is exposed to unequal competition in relation to other countries of the world. I am pleased that this initiative was raised, because this is exactly the direction in which it is facing to make for equal competition conditions, that being what elementary justice demands. I therefore support this draft resolution.
Mr President, by lifting the ban on the import of chickens from the United States, the European Commission is once again showing that it places the interests of the food multinationals above the health of the people and workers.
For decades, the United States has been pushing for the import of hormone-treated meat. Now it is doing the same for its chickens. In previous years the ban was based on the danger posed by the chlorine and chicken dips. According to the scientific community, chlorinated chickens endanger the health of consumers and slaughterhouse workers and make for dangerous waste material with carcinogenic residues.
The substances used in the United States have obviously not stopped being carcinogenic, just as the scientific community has not changed its mind. The question is, then, what has led the Commission to give in to pressure from the United States and the multinationals, and what does it get in return for this change in position?
The food production chain is increasingly in the stranglehold of the food multinationals. Just a few days after the scandal of sunflower oil mixed with mineral oils, and the discovery that legislation allows the transportation of oil in the same tankers used to carry fluids dangerous to health, the European Commission did not bat an eyelid in announcing the lifting of the ban on chlorinated chickens.
One food scandal follows another. The EU is shifting the responsibility of inspection on to those who should be inspected; it is abdicating its own responsibilities, just like the governments of the Member States; it is transferring responsibility to consumers, on the grounds that they have the right to choose, provided the products are labelled.
The workers demand properly inspected, healthy foods at affordable prices. The opposition by the workers, their organisations and the scientific community to the lifting of the ban must oblige the Commission to revise its decision. The ban on chlorinated chickens for consumption must continue to pertain.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transatlantic trade is currently worth about EUR 600 billion a year. Now the Commission is suggesting that we open the market to poultry that has been disinfected in a chlorine solution. I say strongly: I greatly regret that the Commission has not managed to claim - and gain - access to the market in the United States for our unchlorinated poultry at last. However, I would like to say that I support the Commission's suggestions in principle, because the scientific experts' reports are conclusive. The European Food Safety Authority provided a very conclusive expert report; we do not require any further expert reports.
Here, as on the other side of the Atlantic, nobody wishes to see people's health put at risk by food, but if there really are misgivings about the substances used in the United States, then I ask myself why these substances are permitted here in the European Union as an additive to animal feedstuffs, potable water and other foods?
I know how much importance many EU Member States attach to food quality and food safety, and just as well. What would France be, for example, without its coq au vin? This product, exported from France and famous the world over, is also prepared for export to the United States with a chlorine treatment according to the American method. Apparently, this method is so good that it is considered suitable for the export of quality products from Europe.
From my point of view, then, this is a rather dishonest discussion. The Commission has made clear suggestions to guarantee the safety of European consumers. I believe that labelling, in particular, must be clear and visible, so that consumers really know what they are buying, but I know, too, that consumers will choose European poultry anyway.
However, I call on everyone to stop hiding behind supposed environmental or health arguments and clearly state what this is really about. It is a question of honesty and honesty in politics is vital, especially when it comes to discussing a topic with friends like the United States.
(PT) I understand the need to improve trade relations with the United States and in this regard, I would like to congratulate the Commission on the work it has done in this area. There are, however, 'red lines' and one of these is safeguarding the legitimate interests of European producers and consumers. I believe that in this specific case, we are faced with a situation where these lines are clearly being violated.
There are two different concepts here, perhaps even two contradictory concepts, relating to health protection and environmental protection. From the European perspective, there is a core concern, which is ensuring safety throughout the food chain. From the American perspective, the idea is merely to deal with this matter at the closing stages of the process.
We cannot renounce our convictions, customs or standards in this area, and we must not just seek to have them respected in Europe, but should rather try to project them on the international stage. The European Union will be standing on very shaky ground in terms of projecting its standards internationally if it gives up on ensuring that they are protected within Europe.
For this very reason, I believe it is essential to highlight the need to express clear opposition to the Commission's proposal in this area.
Crucial issues are at stake that have to do with environmental protection, public health and the fundamental rights of European consumers. Yet they also have to do with European producers, as European producers have been made to respect these standards and over the last few years have had to make significant investments to make sure they respect these requirements. Now, suddenly, they would be left completely unable to resist competition at this level.
This is why, in the name of healthy and fair competition, too, it is our view that the European Union must make the protection of European producers a major concern. With this in mind, and without calling into question the efforts to improve trade relations with the United States (which are vital for the European Union), I believe that this proposal is a bad one and I naturally would like to express my support for the motion for a resolution.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the decision to lift the veto towards almost everyone on the import into the European Union of chlorinated chicken is a real textbook case of what the Commission, which is supposed to protect the higher public interest of Europe's citizens, can no longer and should no longer do.
As with all food sectors, poultry farmers, and particularly chicken farmers, have made enormous efforts in recent decades. They have invested heavily in order to comply with standards and are subject to no fewer than 70 regulations, directives and other European decisions.
The sector is also subject, as we know, to fierce competition in Europe but also from Brazil and the US. Need we remind you, since no one has mentioned it yet, of the bird flu outbreak in Europe - this was only three years ago - when poultry meat consumption fell by more than 20%? Why should we now subject this sector to such a distortion of competition in relation to US farmers, who are not in any way subject to the same health and safety constraints?
The purpose of this brief review is to underline the essence of this matter. Perhaps this is not an environmental and health issue, or at least so I have heard people say. However, I would like more clarification and research on the subject.
Our refusal, Commissioner, is essentially an industrial and cultural decision, and ultimately a political one.
It is a cultural decision because Europeans have the right to choose their food model; as we know, they are very attached to their traditions and to diversity, as the French Agriculture Minister, Michel Barnier, recently reminded us.
Secondly, it is an industrial decision. I have already mentioned the production methods, laws and high standards observed in Europe. A good trade deal must also be fair. The Commission stands no chance of convincing us that importing 300 000 tonnes of chlorinated chicken, without any compensation, is good news for the European poultry industry.
Finally, it is a political decision. Now I am coming to the crux of the matter, as it is above all a question of confidence: confidence among producers and consumer confidence. Given the current climate, can the Commission really allow itself to scorn - and I am coming to an end, Mr President the opinion of the Council, of Parliament, of operators on the ground and of a good number of your own Members? I think that just asking the question is an answer in itself.
(SV) Thank you, Mr President. The job of the EFSA is to determine whether something is dangerous. The job of the Commission and Parliament is to determine whether something is in conformity with public policy principles such as good animal husbandry, not to mislead consumers, and to maintain a high-quality environment in accordance with the precautionary principle. Hence this proposal is unethical and inappropriate and is an undesirable method of treating chicken. Besides, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has come out almost unanimously against the method. I will add a further dimension: fraudsters have long applied chlorination to chicken in order to make it look pinker and fresher. Are we to favour fraudsters over farmers who have invested millions, not least in my own country, in order to improve the situation?
A few labelling rules will not work, especially in places such as restaurants.
Turn this into a victory now, withdraw the proposal and go forward on the basis of unanimity in Parliament and unanimity in the Council and say to the United States: no, we do not accept your methods.
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, in rising to speak in the debate on poultry imports into the EU market, I have three matters to bring to your attention.
Firstly, agricultural products produced within the European Union have to meet very stringent environmental, sanitary and health requirements, and meeting these requirements significantly increases production costs, thus making European agricultural products relatively uncompetitive in price terms on world markets. Secondly, given this situation, the European Commission's proposals to amend the regulations to allow the import of chlorinated poultrymeat from the United States should be seen as a completely unacceptable proposal, especially for European consumers. Thirdly and finally, it should be pointed out that the European Commission's proposal on this subject is supposed to be a sort of special gesture by the Union aimed at ensuring a good atmosphere for the talks and making for more friendly contacts prior to the June summit between the European Union and the United States.
I am in favour of having warmer relations, but I would rather this did not take place at the cost of the health of many EU citizens.
(EL) Mr President, experts in the EU Member States have come out almost unanimously against the Commission's proposal to lift the ban on the import of chlorinated poultry.
These imports, even under the conditions proposed by the Commission, run counter to the steady demand from European citizens for the distribution of safe, high-quality, high-nutrition products.
The European poultry-rearing sector has heavily invested in compliance with the Union's strict regulatory framework that applies to the entire food chain, from production to distribution. Quite apart from anything else, the matter of the European poultry-rearing sector's competitiveness is under scrutiny, and we know the Commission's proposal is an expression of support for US interests in the Transatlantic Economic Council.
As a member of the Committee on International Trade, I am basically in favour of smoothing out differences with our trading partners. However, I cannot under any circumstances accept solutions that endanger the health of citizens and adversely affect the European food model. This applies both to the case we are discussing and to the Euro-Atlantic dispute pending before the WTO regarding the import of genetically modified organisms.
The EU must comply with the strict rules on food quality, hygiene and safety. We are opposed to any relaxation of these rules. What we need is a strengthening of the international standards and production methods.
We therefore call on the Council to maintain the ban on the import of chlorinated poultry.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, European poultry farming, along with other animal production sectors, is going through a difficult period. In this context it is even more surprising that the Commission has been so quick to ask for Europe to allow poultry meat treated with chlorinated products to enter its territory, a request that appears to be solely and exclusively aimed at satisfying the commercial needs and aspirations of the United States of America.
I do not need to remind you that, in Europe, the poultry sector does not receive any direct support from the CAP, despite the fact that since 1997 our producers have been banned from using the very same substances that the Commission now wants to authorise, and moreover they are submitted to exhaustive controls throughout the production cycle to prevent the development of bacteria and to comply with the high Community hygiene standards.
However, in relation to third-country producers, the Commission considers that a chlorine wash alone is more than sufficient, and in my opinion this means that the efforts made by our producers are and have been completely futile.
If you will pardon my saying so, it is not possible for us to be so stupid and them to be so clever. In my opinion, we need to oppose this request from the Commission.
(NL) Mr President, we have already heard a very great deal in this debate and I certainly would not want to repeat it all, but I think that two fundamental issues are at stake here.
The first is fair competition - the level playing field - between European producers and producers from third countries. On the basis of European rules, the European poultry sector has invested millions of euros in the advanced control of salmonella and other contaminants throughout the production chain. Authorising products that do not meet these requirements threatens this fair competition, which should be a keystone in our trade policy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as they say. If we required it recently of meat from Brazil, we must also require it of chicken from the United States.
The second is the precautionary principle. After all, reports on the consequences of this technique for both health and the environment still cast the appropriate doubt. The Commission proposal to authorise this for two years, followed by a review on the basis of new data, is of course totally at variance with this precautionary principle. We need clarity on safety first and a debate second, not the other way round. Even the idea of labelling chlorinated poultry from the United States is unacceptable, as there remains a disparity between farmers here and farmers there and, furthermore, processed products are likely to escape this labelling. These processed products include the considerable amounts of chicken nuggets and drumsticks that will be consumed in front of the TV this evening by Dutch, Romanian, French and Italian football fans.
I should like to conclude, therefore, by calling on the Commission to remain committed to these two basic European principles - the level playing field and the precautionary principle - in order to respect the wishes of a large majority in the management committee and in this House by abandoning this unfortunate proposal.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, now the European Commission wants to allow chicken from the USA treated with bleach and, moreover, it wants us to accept it without complaining in order to improve trade relations with the United States.
The frivolousness of the European Commission in this matter is very much at odds with the seriousness with which it produces new texts on food safety, which at times impose so many restrictions on Community producers that it is sometimes no longer viable for them to continue to operate.
The Commission is losing credibility with consumers and public opinion with this type of proposal, and I do not think that we should succumb to pressure from the Member States, trade pressure from the United States, even if the European Commission asks us to.
In January 2008 a study published in the US magazine Consumer Report revealed a 70% increase in the incidence of zoonosis in chickens treated with antimicrobial processes in the United States, compared to 2003. There has also been an increase in antibiotic resistance in infected people.
At the time in the European Union there was a decrease in the incidence of zoonosis in chicken, without using the US methods.
The European Union is doing its duty, because it is controlling zoonosis from the start of the production chain, and because it applies the principle that 'prevention is better than cure', which it is following rigorously, at a very high cost to producers and to the industry in the European Union.
In the specific case of the fight against zoonosis, in 2003 a very strict regulation was launched, which took a great deal of time to get off the ground, that increases the monitoring of diseases communicable to humans.
The result of implementing this regulation is a reduction in the incidence of these diseases. European producers and the European industry in general have to comply with these rules, because if they do not they could be penalised.
Why not continue to strictly monitor the US producers?
(FR) Mr President, this chlorinated chicken affair illustrates the divide that unfortunately exists between the European Commission and citizens who expect to have confidence in Europe. It is a blow to our food policy with its high level of consumer protection. There is a complete lack of understanding.
It is unfair competition for our farmers, who have made enormous efforts to improve production, and our abattoirs, which must abide by strict rules. All of this costs money, and so this competition is unfair. This will allow cheap chicken to be brought into the European Union, which will unfortunately affect the most disadvantaged people who shop in discount supermarkets, and we will find this chlorinated chicken in processed products, catering trays and school canteens. None of this is acceptable. It is unthinkable that we can even allow it. Please do not tell us that labelling will solve the problem, because unfortunately the labelling on processed products does not give any information.
Therefore, in view of recent food scares, citizens need to be able to have confidence in the food chain. Consequently, we must say a categorical 'no' to chlorinated chicken imports.
(PL) Mr President, back in April I sent a written question to the Commissioner, in which I firmly objected to the planned admission into the EU market of chemically disinfected chickens from the United States. Fortunately this proposal has encountered resistance from the Member States.
Commissioner, our farmers and processors comply with standards that are among the most restrictive in the world. They look after the environment, animal wellbeing and the maintenance of biodiversity. Adapting to these standards increases costs and weakens their competitive position. This is why I am surprised by the Commission's proposal. The American way of producing chickens does not meet these standards. The European consumer has no wish to see such food on his plate. If we are interested in taking care of the safety of our EU consumers, we cannot allow low-quality foods to be imported.
Mr President, if we accept the chlorination of American chicken, how can we stop demands for the chlorination of other products in the future, for example other meat products - beef or pork - either imported or produced inside the EU? What about eggs, cheese, vegetables or fruit? All the conditions that the Commissioner has told us would apply, in exactly the same way, to all the products I have just mentioned.
What about the use of other antimicrobials? Perhaps in the future we will have demands from the Americans to be able to use penicillin or other antimicrobial agents on our imported chicken.
In any case, even if tests on the outside show that there are no microbes on the surface of the chicken, perhaps there are a lot of microbes inside the chicken and we will not be able to detect them because the surface would falsely show that the chicken is free from salmonella or other microbes.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to say at the outset that I respect the honourable Members' opinions and I wish to repeat that this decision has not been taken lightly. There has been an exhaustive discussion in the college.
Secondly, I want to clarify once again that we are not putting aside our hygiene regulations. As I think I mentioned, EFSA said that this decontamination with AMT substances can only be allowed if the hygiene regulations are applied, by whoever produces the chicken. So in conjunction with preventive measures at farm level, cleanliness of the animal sent to slaughter, hygiene measures and control procedures based on the HACCP principles at slaughterhouse level, all these have to be applied.
I must tell you when the Americans heard about all these conditions, they were very displeased but we told them that these conditions cannot possibly be withdrawn.
The second thing I want to clarify is that the proposed measures would not be applicable only for American chicken, but will be allowed for our producers as well, so we are not differentiating between foreign producers and our own.
As I said, this decision now lies with the Council and from my experience in the Agricultural Council, where I was present, it does not seem very likely that we shall have a positive reply.
I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 19 June 2008.