Rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway - Rights of passengers in bus and coach transport (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:
the report by Mr Teychenné, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws - C6-0476/2008 -, and
the report by Mr Albertini, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws - C6-0469/2008 -.
Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, the two principles that have guided my work since the start of this process have been ensuring that all modes of transport are on a more equal footing with regard to passengers' rights - which is an objective that the Commission and the European Parliament have set themselves - and ensuring that these rights are clearly enshrined in this text. In the latter instance, special attention was paid to people with restricted mobility, since the maritime transport sector was in fact lagging behind somewhat where these people were concerned.
The general spirit of the text is that people should be able to travel in Europe without being subjected to the whims of the companies concerned, and should be able to demand a minimum level of service and a minimum level of information and, lastly, that persons with restricted mobility should be able to benefit from the same quality of rights as other European citizens without their being penalised twice over.
The content of the version adopted in committee on 31 March would appear to be acceptable to everyone. This is, firstly, because the rights of persons with restricted mobility are being increased. Should this text be adopted, it will no longer be possible to refuse persons transport on the grounds of their disability, except, of course, for reasons linked to boarding conditions, to respect for their dignity and to the technical elements of the vessel. Furthermore, assistance must also be provided for persons with restricted mobility, and this, from the time of booking; today, thanks to the Internet, there is a need for return journeys and official information. This has therefore been dealt with in the text.
Lastly, information on passengers' rights must be standardised and provided in accessible formats, as happens today in the rail and the aviation sectors.
When it came to the rights of all passengers, we felt it was important for compensation in case of problems also to be harmonised at a higher level, on the basis of what is being done in the aviation sector. As a result, passengers subject to delays and cancellations will be able to receive as much as a full refund, with a scale of refunds calculated according to the problems encountered.
Information should be clear and accessible, which is often a problem in the transport sector. We see it all the time: people not having enough information, not knowing why the boat - in this case, but it could just as well be the train or plane - is not departing, or why there are delays, and we wanted to improve these methods of information provision.
Lastly, complaints management must be better organised. Indeed, making a complaint when problems arise is a complicated business, and this text is designed to simplify the procedure, both at Member State level and for individual citizens.
The role of the national bodies that will manage complaints has also been addressed, and it has been defined better.
Finally, urban and suburban transport services - I refer in this regard to Mr Albertini's beloved vaporettos in Italy, in Venice - shall be excluded from this text, since they do not fall within the scope of major transport services.
Moving on now to cruises, and their place in this text: I would remind you that cruises are an extremely important type of holiday today, and that their target group includes both elderly people and disabled people. This is why cruises are, of course, integrated into this text, not only with reference to the Package Travel Directive on which the text depends and which is a 1991 directive, but also with an assurance that consumers will receive the same level of treatment.
The definition of force majeure - which represents grounds for a possible refusal of transport - is put forward, and, on this issue, we have worked on a consensus amendment, which we have produced jointly. I would however remind you that in the aviation sector, today, the Court of Justice has often been obliged to take decisions due to cases of force majeure not being defined well enough. Thus in this text we have tried to address problems linked to maritime transport. I am referring to tides, winds and storms, which are also par for the course with maritime transport and which had to be considered.
To conclude, the responsibility of ports to provide assistance has also been the subject of debate. This is a text on passengers' rights; it is not a text ...
(The President asked the speaker to conclude)
... and so, with arbitration between the ports and the carriers having been carried out, this is the sum of the text. I know that Mr Jarzembowski is going to table his amendments, so I shall reply in the two minutes that I have left.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with the approval of the legislation on air and rail transport, Mr Teychenné's report on transport by sea and inland waterways, and this proposal on the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport, the European Union is completing the legislative framework for all modes of transport.
In drafting this regulation we found ourselves facing the need to strike a balance between two approaches: the first considers the 'level planning field' for all modes of transport, whereby different modes of transport can compete under the same conditions and with equal opportunities, while at the same time passengers enjoy a high level of protection regardless of the means of transport they have chosen.
The second approach reflects the different characteristics of each mode of transport and considers their particular features, for example, in the case of bus or coach transport we would look at the management of liability for delays, and in the case of road transport we would think about accidents, congestion and so forth, which would not apply to rail transport since it uses a dedicated route.
I would also like to talk about two contrasting points which we have tried, I think successfully, to balance. The real purpose of this regulation is to strengthen passenger rights, but in road transport the industry is largely made up of small and medium-sized enterprises, which will need time and resources to adapt to the new requirements and, like so many other industrial sectors, are experiencing difficulties due to the economic crisis.
We now come to the amendments before Parliament, and I would like to thank my fellow Members for the important contributions they have made to the text of the regulation and for their excellent cooperation. The bulk of the work for this first parliamentary reading has already been done by the Committee on Transport and Tourism, leaving the House to deal only with clarification concerning the legal language.
On behalf of my group I have tabled just three additional amendments for tomorrow's vote. Let me describe them briefly for you: Amendment 73 is a simple linguistic clarification, and Amendment 82 sets a ceiling for the strict liability set out in Article 6(3) of the proposed regulation. As regards the scope of the text of the amendment passed by the transport committee, all the political groups have agreed on the inclusion of regional transport. As for urban and suburban transport, two key texts will be put to the vote tomorrow.
As rapporteur I endorse Amendment 80 on the exclusion tout court of local transport, tabled by my group, but I have also indicated my support for Amendment 81, which gives Member States the power to exempt local transport, provided that they guarantee passengers a similar level of rights to that set out in the regulation.
I believe we have drafted a text that puts us in a good position from which to begin future tripartite discussions with the Council and Commission. I therefore wish the Czech Presidency and Sweden, the next country to hold the presidency of the European Council, success in their work on passenger rights and, of course, I hope to be able to contribute to the subsequent phases of the adoption of this regulation during the next parliamentary term.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, you will vote tomorrow on draft amendments to the two proposals from the Commission on protecting the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and also passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway.
These are important legal regulations which are of great interest both to consumers and to the transport sector. The EU recently adopted regulations of the same type for air and rail transport. The recently submitted Commission proposals will complete this legal framework. In practical terms this means greater protection for all travellers, especially disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, regardless of the means of transport. Moreover, it will create equal conditions for all areas of transport. The Czech Presidency of course welcomes these proposals and attaches great importance to them. I believe we all share the objective adopted by the EU in recent years of reinforcing passenger rights.
In connection with the draft amendments which you voted on in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I would like to mention two aspects in particular. The first is that you attach great importance to the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. We share your views in this area of course, which is highly important if we want to achieve second-reading approval over these two important legal regulations.
The second is that you have aimed for a precise harmonisation of the draft regulations with versions of existing regulations applying to the rights of persons travelling by different forms of transport, and you have proceeded very carefully in adapting the proposals to the specific requirements of bus and coach transport or transport by sea and inland waterway, without abandoning the aim of reinforcing passenger rights. We fully agree over the need to adapt legal regulations to the specific characteristics of the various forms of transport. As we all know, it is not possible to apply exactly the same approach to different kinds of transport. Rail and air transport have their own characteristics and the same applies to bus and coach transport and transport by sea and inland waterway. There are huge differences even within these individual branches. Large and small companies operate and journeys can take several days or just a few minutes. It is therefore necessary to find a solution acceptable to everyone that will ensure the protection of consumers without imposing an unnecessary administrative burden on the sector, and particularly the smaller firms on the market. This issue is of particular importance in the current economic situation of course.
We therefore appreciate your work on these issues. It provides an excellent starting point. At the same time it is also for the most part in line with our opinion on the proposals. I firmly believe that we will be able to cooperate constructively on legal arrangements which will protect the interests of all concerned and will at the same time take account of the EU objective of improving the process of lawmaking. In conclusion, I would like particularly to thank the rapporteurs Mr Albertini and Mr Teychenné for their excellent work and carefully drafted report.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it always gives me pleasure to recall my many years in this House as an MEP, and this enables me to appreciate all the more the work that the European Parliament has done on this debate.
That is why I would like to thank Mr Teychenné and Mr Albertini for the important contribution they are making to protect the rights of citizens as passengers in all transport sectors, because the need to intervene in the area of bus and coach transport and maritime transport represents an attempt to fill a gap that, as you have all pointed out, exists in European law.
We have many passengers with disabilities and many whose mobility is reduced for other reasons, and so we also have a duty to guarantee free movement, because first and foremost this is a question of freedom within the European Union. Of course, good law-making is not easy, but today we are taking a big step forward.
I was also pleased to hear what Mr Svoboda had to say. There are certainly still some doubts about the texts that the Commission and Parliament agree on adopting, but I also noted a general political openness on the part of the Council, which gives me hope for the future.
I am sure that, as was the case for road transport, we will come to a satisfactory compromise that guarantees European citizens the opportunity to travel freely and to be duly protected within the European Union.
So, I think that today we are discussing topics that affect the lives of all citizens, which is why I am persuaded that as far as the bus and coach proposal is concerned, support should be given - and the meeting of the Committee on Transport and Tourism of 30 March showed encouraging signs of this - to the Commission's approach for the widest possible scope, covering all regular passenger transport services whether international, national, regional, urban or suburban. This responds to the need to simplify legislation, but also to guarantee equal rights for all passengers without exceptions of principle.
However, Mr Albertini, given the specific nature of this sector, the proposal leaves Member States the option of exempting urban, suburban and regional transport covered by public service contracts if these contracts offer passengers a high level of protection comparable with that laid down by the regulation. This seems to me to be a reasonable solution that offers the required level of flexibility while safeguarding passengers' basic rights.
The liability of bus or coach companies vis-à-vis passengers in the event of death or injury represents another essential element of the proposal. There are too many disparities on this within the Community, which creates serious uncertainties for passengers. I would like to look at couple of points on this subject in more detail: firstly, this area does not deal with the issue of insurance, but is concerned exclusively with carriers' liability towards passengers. Secondly, the bus or coach company is not deemed solely liable for compensation for damages and its right to claim compensation from third parties is not questioned. Thirdly, this area concerns neither imports nor the procedures set out in the 2005 directive on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles; and fourthly, the Commission has not in fact developed a new liability model. What is being proposed today is a liability scheme that is inspired by other modes of transport, while taking account of the particular features of this sector.
As regards maritime transport, I believe that a single legislative instrument is needed, even if there are differences of opinion on this in both Parliament and the Council. Allow me to point out a key issue regarding scope: compared with road, rail and air transport, there are far fewer passengers who travel by sea or inland waterways. Among these, those who use inland waterways represent just a small minority. In my opinion, it seems neither logical nor realistic to have separate regulations for sea passengers and those who use inland waterways, even less so when one considers that they often use the same kind of vessel. I think that a single legislative instrument must be the answer.
On 30 March 2009, alongside the debate on the Teychenné report in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, a public debate was held between ministers within the framework of the EU transport council. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to observe from this debate a certain amount of dovetailing between the Commission, Member States and Parliament as regards the aim of giving European passengers a new and ambitious regulation as soon as possible.
In this context, the Commission is of course prepared to make any clarifications and improvements to the text that may be required to take account of the particular characteristics of each type of service and thereby provide the industry with the tools to apply the regulation with the necessary flexibility. Allow me to emphasise again the need to provide the resources to implement the future regulation effectively. To this end, it is important that the national authorities responsible for its application submit periodic reports on their activities. Each Member State will be able to organise its own national system as it sees fit, for example by choosing whether to have one or more competent authorities.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (EL) Mr President, the proposal for a regulation, as amended following input from the European Parliament, strengthens the rights of passengers in maritime transport in a satisfactory manner.
However, I believe that, in the next legislative initiative on this subject, a horizontal approach, a single legal instrument covering all means of transport, would be more correct, given the current need to use combined means of transport.
It would also be systematically preferable in future if separate proposals were tabled on the rights of passengers, on the one hand, and on persons with reduced mobility on the other. The reason for this is that the individual arrangements have a different purpose and different addressees.
Finally, I should like to highlight the repeatedly blinkered approach taken by the Commission, although not by Vice-President Tajani, to issues which require broader and multilateral study, such as maritime transport.
Maritime transport on the Mediterranean Sea takes place under different conditions from transport across straits.
Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, President-in-Office of the Council, I wish to say to the previous speaker that we have the Greek islands and Greek ferry companies in view at all times: he need have no worries on that score.
I can say that my group and I are pleased that, for the first time, we are to have statutory, citizen-focused passenger rights in the event of delays and cancellations also in maritime and inland waterway transport and regional bus and coach transport. We should like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Albertini and Mr Teychenné. We enjoyed constructive cooperation in the committees, which produced good results.
There are just a few points on which I should like to expand. I think that 25% compensation for maritime passengers for two to three hours' delay is perfectly appropriate, as is 50% for delays of over three hours - but I would say to Mr Teychenné that 100% compensation for delays in excess of this is simply excessive. If we bear in mind that shipping services are provided not only by colossal undertakings but also, particularly in the case of ferry operators, by small and medium-sized enterprises, we must take a reasonable approach to compensation.
As we have already discussed, we must also be careful not to place responsibility with the wrong people or institutions in maritime transport. All of us in this House are engaged in ensuring that both dossiers provide assistance for passengers with reduced mobility, in particular, but shipowners cannot deal with access difficulties at ports; ports themselves must do this. In other words, we must take great care.
As regards the rights of bus and coach passengers, I should like to point out that there are real differences between intercity and urban buses that must be taken into account. Therefore, my group is of the opinion that we are right to call for reasonable passenger rights in intercity bus and coach transport, but that urban and suburban buses operate under completely different conditions. These rules are out of place there, and this should be clearly recognised.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I want to congratulate both our rapporteurs. A couple of years ago I was the rapporteur for access for disabled passengers to aeroplanes. This legislation is another piece in the jigsaw to make transport as inclusive as possible or, as our colleague Mr Albertini put it, to consolidate passenger rights.
In an age when we are encouraging people to travel by public transport, it is so important that we add coaches and buses, as Mr Albertini has, to this field. Some Members, not necessarily those here today, have looked for ways to make exemptions to exclude certain sections, but I have always taken as my starting point the desire to include as much as possible in this so we move towards making Europe more of a common market for people. That is why Amendment 81 is so important.
The Commissioner in his remarks said we need the same rights for all passengers with no exceptions - and then he spoke about the exceptions, for example for regional transport. I do not think we should exempt regional transport, and I have done some research. In some of our Member States a regional coach journey can take up to six hours, which is longer than an international coach journey from, say, London to Brussels or Paris. So I think it should be included. I think it is right that, where local transport - as Mr Jarzembowski has referred to - is not included, there are public service contracts which mean that the companies will reach the same sort of standards.
I also think we need to persuade the construction industry to build more modern buses with the needs of disabled people more in mind. Just as we have campaigned for aeroplanes to be more accessible to disabled people, so we need, perhaps, coaches with wider gangways or more accessible toilets, and we need the operating companies to make their coach terminals more accessible and to train their staff in disability and disability awareness issues.
This is a good report. It is a good collection of reports, which takes us several steps forward, and I congratulate everyone who has been involved.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) I should like to thank the rapporteurs on behalf of our group. I think we have added another few elements to the rights of passengers. We have worked hard to get things on the right track for aviation and rail travel. In fact, I take the view that we gathered a great deal of experience when we compiled these reports, and I am pleased that Mr Albertini has aligned the various elements, so that there is hardly any need, if any, to distinguish between the different modes of transport, but only as and when necessary.
I believe that we are now also improving the quality of services, something that we should always keep in mind. We have learnt from our mistakes, the tightening of the definition of force majeure being a case in point. We need to revisit this aspect in aviation, for example, and I am pleased we have done this here for shipping.
As for Mr Albertini's report, an important question - one which Mr Evans and Mr Jarzembowski have also made reference to - is what is the scope of the regulation now? We, as a group, have withdrawn our support for the amendment which we originally submitted together with you, not because we feel it is an inferior amendment, but because the Socialists have found a better way of wording it, as Mr Evans described. We are, in any event, dropping regional transport from the regulation, but we are leaving open the option to include urban and suburban transport in it, should Member States so wish. I happen to believe that this approach better corresponds to what we are aiming for, and we will therefore support this proposal put forward by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.
Mr President, passenger rights must be put at the heart of transport policy as a whole - particularly here in the European Union. We have already managed this for rail and air transport, although there is considerable scope for improvement with regard to denied boarding. As I keep having to say, the problems are far too great.
One group is particularly dependent on clear rules. In the case of air transport, it has become apparent that the rules are not clear enough. By now, people with particular needs could write volumes about all the things that have happened to them on journeys. I myself have received some of their accounts. It is a disaster. Therefore, it is not only required by law but also morally imperative for the European Union to put these people on an equal footing.
In the field of bus, coach and maritime transport, for which we are now laying down rules, we may encounter problems assigning responsibilities when it comes to maritime transport and the ports - but this must be given a practice-based solution in future. My second point is that we should include as much as possible when it comes to bus and coach transport. If we make too many exceptions, we give operators the opportunity to circumvent the rules. We cannot continue to put the people who have to contend with particular needs at a disadvantage by allowing these difficulties to continue. It is our duty to take care of and ultimately also to enforce their right to mobility.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, during this part-session, two questions came up with regard to collective passenger transport.
The first question is: what should the government do, and what should we leave to the market through tendering? We have ultimately opted for freedom of choice with regard to urban and regional transport, at my proposal. New rules on the transport of people by bus should not adversely affect the freedom of lower-level authorities to organise their public transport themselves.
With regard to passenger rights, there have always been two alternatives to choose from. The focus in the first alternative is on maximum information about the continuation of the journey in other Member States, availability of cross-border transport tickets and good, long-distance connections, so that nasty surprises during the journey can be avoided.
With the other alternative, the focus is on financial compensation paid retrospectively for delays and cancellations of services. I always champion the former alternative, but the majority in Parliament opt for the latter, especially since this is also the choice that was picked for air travel.
Greater attention to the needs of the disabled is an important reason for endorsing the proposals, even if they do leave something to be desired.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by congratulating the rapporteurs on their substantial presentation and exceptionally cohesive work on the plethora of amendments which were tabled in the Committee on Transport and Tourism.
The European Union has been endeavouring, with the decisive contribution of the European Parliament, to improve the rights of passengers in all transport sectors over recent years. As you will remember, our institutions recently approved provisions on the rights of passengers in air and rail transport. Today a large step is being made towards strengthening equal rights for passengers on all means of transport, without exclusion and exception, as the Commissioner said.
I would remind you that, after difficult conciliation with the Council, we recently adopted a third package of seven legislative proposals on safety at sea, including compensation for passengers in the event of an accident.
I should like to point out in connection with the Teychenné report that it proposes a cohesive framework for the protection of consumers/passengers which also respects small transport companies and protects their business and competitiveness in the event of accidents due to circumstances beyond their control or in cases where maritime transport is affected by bad weather.
It is also significant that important sectors are covered, such as the rights of persons with disabilities, persons with reduced mobility, in the aim of safeguarding the principle of non-discrimination which governs all our policies. Similarly, it clearly sets out carriers' obligations in the event that services are delayed or cancelled, the time limits for delays and the amount payable in compensation.
At the end of this parliamentary term and before the European elections, our work on the rights of passengers is one of our most important achievements for the benefit of European citizens.
Mr President, I would like to thank both rapporteurs for their work in this important area and also the Commissioner for his support. Passenger rights have always been a priority of the Socialist Group, and this proposal completes the set, following on from passenger rights in aviation and rail transport.
It is vital that we all remember that the users of transport are the most important stakeholders - a fact often forgotten by some transport companies. Now, for the first time, we will have a set of basic rights for bus, coach and ferry users that will ensure proper liability for cancellation and delays, lost or damaged luggage, as well as death in the event of accidents.
Perhaps more importantly, we will have a series of fundamental rights for people with reduced mobility and special needs that will put an end to the victimisation endured by these people at the hands of transport companies over many years. No longer will transport operators be able to exclude people with reduced mobility from their vehicles; no longer will people with reduced mobility have fewer rights than able-bodied people; no longer should people with reduced mobility be excluded from the public transport network.
Who has delivered this? Not a national or regional parliament, but the European Parliament. It is the European Parliament that has put transport users at the top of our transport priorities. This is the European Parliament putting people first, and that is something that, as Socialists, we can strongly support.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the Commissioner for the work they have accomplished. The report provides a very balanced clarification of the rights of passengers and of all modes of transport, including in bus and coach transport, and clearly addresses all the relevant issues. Attention has been given to people with disabilities or reduced mobility; as Mr Albertini's report shows, we must be able to provide services that take account of the diverse requirements of such people.
In addition, all the concerns relating to this mode of transport - refunds, compensation, passenger information, strict liability and complaints - have been covered in a clear manner. Both I and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have worked willingly with the rapporteur to achieve the clearest possible text, taking account of passengers' interests on the one hand, and the requirements of the companies that manage and provide these services on the other, who need sufficient time to comply with the rules. I therefore hope this text will be approved by tomorrow's vote.
(DE) Mr President, service-providing enterprises are there for the users of these services and not primarily for the service providers themselves. In this light, it is important that we lay down the appropriate rules for the users of all means of transportation and ensure that the services they are using are also of suitable quality. In this context - and here I am only taking up something that is mentioned time and again - it is very important that we look after the rights of persons with reduced mobility in particular. As I see it, one issue is now almost in perpetual motion in this connection. Let me tell you, it is not only those with a disabled persons' identity card who are incapacitated. Parents - adults with young children - certainly also need support from our rules on all our modes of transport. I hope that this also gains acceptance in one form or another.
My second point is that even the best rules and safeguards are of no use if the information on them is hidden in the furthermost corner of the transport operator concerned. The place for information on passenger rights is at the ticket counters themselves, or on board the buses, coaches, aeroplanes and similar modes of transport themselves.
My third and final point is that we had started to lay down rules on air passengers' rights in the interests of passengers, but were too lenient. What airlines get up to, particularly in connection with delays, announcing that the last aircraft arrived late and so the next has been delayed, is no longer acceptable. We should have resolved the matter with high compensation payments at the time, which would have achieved an effect similar to that achieved for denied boarding. Now, unfortunately, this effect is not being achieved. It is not force majeure when an aircraft is cancelled because it is half-empty. There are many tasks for the next Commission in this regard. Vice-President, if you take on this portfolio again in the next Commission, I would urge a revision of air passengers' rights. This is urgently needed.
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner Tajani, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Teychenné on the quality of his report. With regard to the maritime package to be signed tomorrow, in an area in which I was rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament on flag State requirements and also on the responsibilities of passenger carriers, I said that, in the European Union, people should come first. In this Union, it is also essential that passengers come first.
The Teychenné report deserves my full support because it reinforces the regulatory framework not only for bus and coach passengers, but also for passengers in an area dear to me, namely sea and inland waterway passengers. In particular, it provides for compensation of 25% of the ticket price in the event of delays between one hour and two hours, 50% in the event of delays equal to or exceeding two hours and 100% if the carrier does not provide any alternative transport services or information.
I would point out that this compensation must be paid, in the event of cancellation or serious delays in journeys, within one month of the passenger's request. In the case of bus and coach transport, this report recognises the need for additional measures for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. For all passengers, the right to a refund of the current price in the event of cancellation, overbooking or serious delay in the journey of at least two hours will now be a reality.
Mr President, I tabled an amendment on the need for this regulatory framework to be applied in the outermost regions as well. I am sure that legislation of this quality cannot be called into question by anyone and must be appreciated by all European citizens, including in outlying regions such as the Azores, Madeira, the Canaries and the French overseas departments.
(RO) Maritime transport is governed by a number of international conventions which must be strictly complied with. However, it is vitally important to establish a set of minimum rules at Community level in these sensitive areas, particularly with regard to monitoring the enforcement of legislation. For this reason, the introduction of an independent mechanism for receiving complaints and the creation of a monitoring authority provide a clear benefit for passengers in relation to transport operators.
I think that a balance must be found between the rights of passengers and the obligations of transport operators because neither one group nor the other should slow down the long-term development of the maritime and inland waterway transport sector. We must also take into account the typical conditions in which transport operates in different maritime regions of Europe as they can have specific features which may actually restrict the possibility of establishing common rules.
In the wider context of the safety and security of maritime transport, I must mention some recent acts of piracy in the Gulf of Aden. The resurgence of these acts is concerning, especially with European citizens becoming victims during recent weeks, including five Romanians.
I would like to use this opportunity to call on the Commission and Council to make every effort for the EU to strengthen its cooperation with the other states in the Horn of Africa in order to prevent occurrences of piracy and to make transit journeys in the region safer.
(EL) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, we are today in the very fortunate position of being able to state that, with the decision by the European Parliament, passengers' rights are also protected in sectors which were not covered hitherto.
We are proud of the fact that leaflets are available in airports and railway stations setting out the decisions passed by the European Union in order to protect passengers' rights. If the same happens in the other two sectors, European citizens will understand that the European Union is truly useful in securing a better standard of living for them and in protecting their safe travel.
However, we need to remember that the protection achieved by legislation is not the same as that actually enjoyed by citizens, as we have seen from its application to date in the two sectors of air and rail travel. Those of us who use these means of transport, we MEPs and I personally, who travel between three different borders, can say that it is not applied effectively. That is why the Commission rightly spoke of a first step which needs to be improved, mainly in terms of the effectiveness of the contribution of the main undertakings responsible for granting rights to passengers.
We should not condemn small undertakings when they face the problem of providing transport services; I refer here to cabotage, about which I have questioned the Commissioner on other occasions. If they do not decide to take on the cabotage line, how could they undertake such a service when they will also have to take care of passengers' rights? We therefore need to give citizens the facility to enjoy the main right of transport and then to give them the additional advantages of passenger compensation in the event of delay. So first the service and then compensation for delayed services.
I am certain that Europe is moving towards a better future. That is the conclusion.
(DA) Mr President, if we were to examine how the population views disability, we would find that, nowadays, when it comes to holidays, disabled people prefer to go to the US. Legislation and rules are much better there and they receive much better treatment in the US. Europe is not the preferred destination amongst our own people. Our own European compatriots do not want to holiday in Europe if they are disabled. They travel to the US. I think that is a clear sign of how immensely important the dossier we are working on here is, as regards a number of points, including tourism.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the progress of the discussion so far means that I will not need the five minutes allotted to me, which is good news I'm sure. I note with pleasure that our interests coincide over the question of protecting passenger rights and the future of this sector. We look forward to close cooperation with the European Parliament, enabling us to achieve a final resolution which will again show citizens the benefits brought by the EU in the area of passenger rights.
Mr President, Mr Svoboda, honourable Members, I believe that citizens following this debate on passenger rights and the new laws we hope to adopt in order to strengthen a system of freedom that characterises the European Union, will realise today that the Commission, Council and Parliament, and their respective staff, are not ivory towers where issues are discussed that have nothing to do with citizens, or else invade their lives in a negative way, but institutions with citizens' interests at heart, seeking to defend their rights and, I would emphasise, to protect their fundamental freedoms: no one is free unless they can move around freely from one part of the Union to another.
That is why, when I asked for your confidence when my nomination was to be confirmed by Parliament, I stressed that one of my priorities during my term of office as Commissioner for Transport would be to protect passenger rights. I believe that today we have together sent a positive signal and we have demonstrated through clear evidence that progress can be made and that the European institutions are close to citizens and are on their side.
As has emerged over the course of the debate, there are no differences of substance between the members of the various political groups; everyone has emphasised, in agreement with the Commission and also the Council, a desire to truly build, as Vice-President Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou said, a Europe of citizens.
That is why I attach great importance to the key step we are taking today and will take with tomorrow's vote; of course, such complicated subjects as these, with complex transport systems and different regulation from one country to another, require an in-depth approach, as well as instances of compromise. Every rule adopted is the product of compromise, of protecting different interests.
I would argue that this time, however, the general interest should prevail, that is to say the protection of citizens' freedom and the freedom of passengers in all existing transport systems, because it would be inconsistent to protect only those who travel by air or by train, and not those who travel by boat, bus or coach. Of course, let me repeat, differences of opinion may exist, and there are differences between the Commission and the Council and also among certain Members of this House as regards the regulation of transport by water; there are those who would prefer separate legislation for river and sea transport.
The Commission has confirmed its position, I think the right thing to do is to have a single form of regulation, but it does not really matter, what matters today is that we grasp the good news of the strong political will of Parliament, Commission and Council to guarantee passengers rights, especially the rights of passengers with reduced mobility. It is not simply, I was pleased to hear, a question of rights and above all freedoms for people with disabilities; giving millions of passengers with reduced mobility the opportunity to move around freely within the European Union also means allowing these people to contribute towards the EU's growth, since the movement of these millions of people brings welfare, develops transport companies and creates opportunities for tourism in all sorts of places.
That is why I am pleased and I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, the Council and, of course, the Commission staff, whom I always thank, since they enable me to present proposals to Parliament and the Council.
This is a particularly warm thank-you, because I believe that today the European institutions as a whole are showing that they pay close attention to the 500 million European citizens, who can sometimes be suspicious of them; but I think that today those who have followed this debate will change their minds and have confidence in the European institutions, which seek to be ever closer to the people.
Mr President, first of all I should like to refer to the amendments tabled by Mr Jarzembowski, who was telling us just now that we need to be reasonable - I believe that the important thing about this text is that it is in fact reasonable.
Is it reasonable to want to do away with the obligation for carriers to train staff who are in contact with persons with reduced mobility?
Is it reasonable to abolish compensation for lost equipment, especially wheelchairs for persons with reduced mobility?
Is it reasonable - and Mr Rack, who was here just now, pointed this out, and I thank him for his speech - to avoid reimbursing passengers, a practice that happens everywhere, and especially in the United States, in particular when departures have been cancelled and when no information, or alternative transport, is provided?
Therefore those elements in your amendments do not seem reasonable to me, and I was anxious to say so.
For the rest, I believe that there is a consensus. It was evident from all of the debates. I should like to thank the Commission, the Council, and all of my fellow Members who have worked on these issues in an excellent frame of mind, because we understood that there was an extremely important issue at stake for the people of Europe.
I therefore believe that, tomorrow - and here I appeal to the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats: your amendments are not reasonable - we must vote in favour of this text, and we must send out a strong signal at a time when Europeans sometimes doubt Europe. As Mr Tajani was saying, we must send a strong message to these 500 million citizens telling them that their needs as Europeans are being taken into account. That is what I wished to say.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, having listened carefully to the debate and to Mr Swoboda and Mr Tajani, as well as my fellow Members, I feel I have all the more reason to extend my thanks for the help and valuable advice I have received in this House.
I do not have time to analyse and comment on the individual suggestions and facets of such a wide-ranging debate, rather, since I must sum up in the few seconds that remain of my speaking time, I will use two adjectives to encapsulate and bring together your thoughts and suggestions. As far as can be expected with such a complex regulation, you have deemed the work carried out to be reasonable.
This regulation takes account of the aims of extending passenger rights and granting the same conditions of protection for all modes of transport, while at the same time considering the specific nature of a number of smaller carriers that have difficulty in adapting to higher requirements at a time of economic crisis, hence my first adjective is 'reasonable'.
Then there is an idea of perfectibility, or room for improvement, which has been alluded to by Members who, although sympathetic to the circumstances to which we have adapted, want the area of rights to be further expanded, to cover urban transport and to protect passengers with reduced mobility. So then, we are on a journey towards perfection; human affairs are yet to be perfected, and this regulation, which is 'reasonable' and, I think, well drafted, is also 'perfectible'.
The rapporteur does not deny Member States the option of enlarging or extending the scheme to include urban transport, and it is already mandatory for regional transport. The level of coverage has already been outlined, and often approximates that of transnational or national journeys; and the same goes, of course, for the technologies used and the application of the scheme to people with disabilities.
To conclude, I would like to thank you all again, and I hope that today's work is not the end of the story, but that we may be able to achieve even greater goals.
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
In connection with the report on the rights of passengers when travelling I would like to point out something which does not apply to protecting the interests of consumers but rather to a violation of the principle of free movement of persons within the Schengen zone. It specifically concerns the movement of persons across the Czech-German border. Czech citizens are complaining ever more frequently - both to me personally and to regional and local authority representatives in the Czech-German border region - about harassment by the German police when they cross the Czech-German border, either in groups or in private vehicles. Citizens complain that they are being stopped for no reason by plainclothes policemen, checked and even interrogated about the aim and purpose of their trip to Germany. The behaviour of the German police is nothing less than harassment and it is in direct conflict with the principle of free movement of persons within the EU. I would like to emphasise that such cases are becoming more frequent and I call urgently on the EU authorities to put right this unacceptable state of affairs.
(The sitting was suspended at 6.15 p.m. pending Question Time and resumed at 6.30 p.m.)


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I should like to come back to a decision that was made yesterday afternoon. However, I must put on record that neither the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, nor the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, or any of the other groups were informed about the wish for us to adopt a resolution on Russia this time, even though this has been repeatedly rejected in the Conference of Presidents.
We must, of course, take note of the decision. However, I should like to record here - and we shall also inform the groups that have requested this, particularly the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - that we are not asking for this resolution to be adopted now, but at Parliament's next sitting instead. I should simply like to record this here.
We must, of course, formally abide by the rules. However, we do want to say here, out of fairness to the Greens and Liberals, that we are asking for this resolution to be adopted not this week, but at the next plenary session. The Socialist Group will be voting on it in any case and I believe the EPP has a similar idea.
Mr President, actually I totally support Mr Swoboda, since we were not told and therefore have not prepared anything for this resolution this week. Our group, like the PSE Group, did not know about this, and we ask you to postpone the vote to the next part-session.
Thank you, we take note of your request. It will be passed on to the other groups as appropriate and we will see how the matter can be resolved.


2. International Health Regulations (vote)
Ouzký report


5. Common system of value added tax (


Opening of the sitting


Statements by the President
Ladies and gentlemen, sad news has reached us of the recent shooting of French policeman Jean-Serge Nérin by ETA. This makes us aware that the problem of terrorism in Europe has not yet been solved. On behalf of Parliament, and for my own part, I would like to offer our condolences to the family of the murdered policeman. I hope the Spanish and French police will bring to justice not only the killers themselves, but also those who ordered the killing.
There is a second piece of disturbing news: the arrest in Cuba of 30 participants in a demonstration by the 'Ladies in White' group. The 'Ladies in White' are mothers and wives of imprisoned opposition activists. In 2005, the European Parliament awarded the 'Ladies in White' the Sakharov Prize. We join today with those heroic women, and we are thinking about them and their difficult situation.


8. Energy market integrity and transparency (


10. Special Measure 2007 for Iraq (vote)
- Motion for a resolution:


Appointments to the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (tabling deadlines): see Minutes


Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Sweden-Volvo; Austria-Steiermark; Netherlands-Heijmans (debate)
The next item is the report by Reimer Böge, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Sweden - Volvo; Austria - Steiermark; Netherlands - Heijmans - C7-0254/2009 -.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are, in fact, once again debating a proposal for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The periods between these reports are getting shorter and shorter. This time it relates to applications from Sweden and Austria in connection with redundancies in the automotive sector and from the Netherlands in connection with redundancies in the construction sector.
I would like to remind you once again that the purpose of this fund, with an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million, is solely to help workers who suffer the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to support them exclusively through further education and training and the opportunity to get appropriate work once again.
For us, it is once again important in this connection to emphasise on a general note that, in future, only single proposals or single reports should be submitted rather than multiple applications for the mobilisation of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund as in this case, which will hopefully be the last time this happens.
We would like to point out, once again, that the assistance provided by the Globalisation Adjustment Fund should not replace measures which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, or measures for restructuring companies or sectors. For us, there still remains one point of criticism - and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs will certainly not let up in this - and that is that payment appropriations are clearly being systematically transferred from the European Social Fund, but the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is ultimately a separate and specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines.
The total amount in question for these three applications that we are talking about today and on which we must take a decision this week is EUR 15.9 million. In this regard, the Swedish and Dutch applications are based on Article 2(a) of the legal basis, namely at least 500 redundancies over a period of four months in an enterprise in a Member State. The Austrian application is based on Article 2(b), namely at least 500 redundancies over a period of nine months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises. As I said, the Swedish application relates to a total of 4 687 redundancies at the car manufacturer Volvo and 23 of its suppliers and downstream producers. Sweden has applied for EUR 9.8 million from the Fund for this.
The Austrian application concerns 744 redundancies in nine enterprises, of which 400 are targeted for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. For this purpose, Austria has applied for EUR 5.7 million. The present Dutch application relates to 570 redundancies in one enterprise, Heijmans N.V., of which 435 are targeted for assistance with a total sum of around EUR 386 000.
In accordance with the Commission's assessment, which, after thorough examination, we are also able to support, the applications fulfil the eligibility criteria set. Without wanting to pre-empt my colleagues in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I would like to point out that this committee, as has also been agreed in the procedure here, will issue an opinion prior to the decision by the Committee on Budgets and it will also look at the details very closely. For example, it has pointed out that, in the Swedish case, of the 4 687 redundancies mentioned, only 1 500 are targeted to receive the assistance.
In the case of Heijmans, for example, it can be established that a further 400 redundancies have occurred, mainly involving workers with fixed-term contracts, which are not included in the application. In this regard, there are always individual questions that quite rightly need to be asked here, but which nevertheless should not prevent us from giving the green light in general for the authorisation of the funds that have been applied for.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the European Parliament, I would like to thank the rapporteur for supporting the proposal put forward by the Commission aimed at releasing resources from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in response to layoffs in the automobile sector in Sweden and Austria and the construction sector in the Netherlands.
Mr Böge, your support was accompanied by several comments, in particular, two points of a budgetary nature which I have already had an opportunity to discuss in the previous debate and which I would like to return to today.
The first budgetary point you raise relates to funding sources. You tell us that the European Social Fund cannot be the only source of funding. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is, from a budgetary perspective, a special instrument which does not have its own resources. Resources must be transferred before they can be released which firstly means identifying budget items that offer suitable opportunities and secondly, proposing to the budgetary authority that the sums identified in this way be released via a budget amendment. This activity is performed on a case-by-case basis, according to need.
It is true that the European Social Fund has been the main source of funding so far. This is not merely a result of the similar nature of this fund. It is largely down to the fact that the fund has significant resources at its disposal. In 2009, the European Social Fund has almost EUR 11 billion available in resources for payments. By the end of November, EUR 6 billion of this overall amount had been used. The total volume of payments to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund represents EUR 53 million in 2009, i.e. 0.5% of the allocated budgetary resources of the European Social Fund. Up until now, the method we have chosen and which was, from a certain viewpoint, logical and easier than other methods, did not delay or put at risk fulfilment of the objectives of the European Social Fund. Nevertheless, however, I agree that it is necessary to diversify the sources of payments and I can assure you that the Commission is addressing this issue. I hope therefore that we will be able to present a number of possible scenarios to you next time.
The second point you raise is not exclusively budget-related, but relates rather to decision making, since you ask that in future, the Commission submit its proposals for releasing resources from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in individual documents. The Commission is aware of the advantages of this case-by-case approach, which would completely eliminate the risk of secret agreements or guarantees, for example. It is true that the method originally used was an entirely normal approach which, to a certain extent, facilitated administrative handling of the problems, but in my opinion, the pragmatic and political fundamentals speak very strongly in favour of a case-by-case approach and the Commission will use this method from now on.
Mr President, unusual times call for unusual measures. With its Globalisation Adjustment Fund, a very special bespoke instrument, Europe is matching its words with deeds. The mass redundancy of more than 700 regular workers at Dutch construction company Heijmans N.V. - not to mention the numbers abroad, for example in Belgium and the United Kingdom - calls for targeted action. The construction sector occupies an important place in the Brabant region, which is also my home region, and the effects of this kind of mass redundancy are palpable far beyond the region itself.
Europe's action is rightly aimed at preserving expertise and skills. The crisis has meant people now losing their jobs even though experience has taught us that there is a great shortage of skilled professionals, particularly in construction. A mobility centre, along with the preservation of expertise and also of jobs where possible, is a good choice of instrument for Heijmans, therefore. The Dutch ministries and also the regional authorities, for example, those in the province of North Brabant, are now working to accelerate highly targeted investment in projects, infrastructure and construction. We are seeking thus to show the people losing their jobs that we are providing active input, including in financial terms.
I would again point out - this week in particular, against the backdrop of Copenhagen - that we are in particularly urgent need of energy supplies and energy measures in the fields of construction and also of transport. We have amended the rules in Parliament in other fields - I would draw your attention in this connection to the accelerated disbursements and advances from regional funds - and so an active contribution by Parliament must be supported. A company such as Heijmans, which always focuses on continuity and quality, would also profit from this. It is in that spirit that we give these three proposals, particularly the one concerning Heijmans, our wholehearted support.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, applications of this fund are becoming more and more frequent. The main reason for this is the economic crisis that our continent is experiencing.
The crisis affects fundamental sectors of European industry, as shown by these three latest requests in the automotive and construction fields, which have received a favourable response.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that, without the latest revision to the regulation governing the fund, during which the economic crisis was added to the eligibility criteria, many of the requests currently reaching us could not, legally speaking, have been given a favourable response.
This shows that, in the face of the crisis, within this institution of the European Parliament, when political goodwill is present, high-quality political instruments are made available to our fellow citizens. Political goodwill can still do its work, since, on reading the report by Mr Böge, I find that the essential points for improving the fund's operation are there: speeding up the handling of requests in order to be responsive in the face of the crisis, ceasing to present requests jointly, and using funding other than from the European Social Fund.
On this latter point, the best solution would be to allocate to the fund payment appropriations in its own right, as for other funds, but we know the Council's position on this subject and I fully understand what the Commissioner said.
I am pleased to note the convergence of goodwill. In this regard, I have no doubt that the undeniable usefulness of this fund, combined with the will of Parliament, will mean that our aims of strengthening this fund will be achieved.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a tangible expression of solidarity with workers who have lost their jobs due to major structural changes in world trade patterns.
As Members of this Parliament, it can give us some satisfaction that we can make a contribution to alleviating some of the more immediate effects of redundancy for these workers, indeed giving them some hope for the future.
However, our role should not just be to approve this Fund. We have a responsibility to do our best to ensure, first of all, that all criteria are met, but also to do what is in our power to ensure that the Globalisation Fund ensures added value.
One of the relevant issues raised by the Committee on Employment is that the measures proposed by Member States complement other actions cofinanced by the Structural Funds, and really we need more than a simple confirmation that this is the case. It needs to be demonstrated that this is the case, because this will help to ensure the added value I spoke of.
Also, the added value will come from the fact that the EGF will not replace actions that are the responsibility of companies, but are a valuable addition to measures taken at national level.
While we are evaluating the added value of the Fund within the process of the 2007-2013 multiannual framework budget review, this should, in my opinion, be an ongoing process, and we need to be vigilant in the area.
Another matter which is of some concern to me is the implementation of equality between men and women and non-discrimination within the framework of the Fund.
I have taken a quick look at the gender breakdown of the three programmes targeted for assistance and they run 91%, 72% and 79% male. I have looked at some of the other programmes that we have funded before this, and there seems to be an indication that there is a much greater percentage of the funding going towards male workers that have been made redundant. This may be a statistical aberration or it may be a situation where, for one reason or another, a greater number of the applications are for male workers.
Finally, we need to carefully evaluate all applications because it is crucial that assistance is made available as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Mr President, I should like to make clear from the outset that we can endorse the use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for these three applications. The applications meet the criteria, and therefore the workers made redundant are entitled to support from this fund.
Yet I should like to seize this opportunity to draw attention to a major shortcoming of the EGF. We are currently developing a shared vision of the future of the economy and the labour market in Europe. The various political groupings in this House may not fully agree on how exactly to do this or how far to go in this regard, but we are in reasonable agreement on the broad lines. More sustainability and more inclusiveness are required. If we wish to achieve these objectives, we must seize the opportunities now. At this very time, when tackling the crisis, we must take action that brings us closer to this sustainable economy.
In my opinion, we are letting some opportunities go to waste with the present mobilisation of the EGF. It is a crying shame that the fund, one of our instruments to confront the crisis, is not pointing the way forward. We must dare to make real choices. If we ensure that people who are now losing their jobs in polluting industries such as the car industry are retrained for work in sustainable sectors with a view to the future rather than remaining stuck in the past, this will make clear what direction we want to move in, and will also bring the innovative, inclusive and sustainable economy that bit closer.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are discussing further cases involving the release of funding from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. It is a question of whether money is available to meet requests from the governments of Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands in connection with layoffs in firms operating in the automobile and construction industries. We have approved a number of similar contributions in the past. In my opinion, however, this is an incorrect measure and the European Union should not continue with it. I would like to present two arguments in support of this position.
Firstly, this is an unjust measure. Globalisation, or rather competitive pressure, applies to almost all employees and employers in small businesses in the EU. As a result of this, many jobs are both lost and created every day in Europe. Support relating to job losses, however, is provided in the EU at a European level only in the case of large companies where the job losses are sufficiently high. People made redundant from small firms cannot access this form of support and it is therefore a selective and ultimately unjust measure.
Secondly, this is an issue which, in my opinion, ought to be resolved at a national level as there are sufficient resources, information and policies at that level.
Mr President, we shall vote in favour of support for the workers made redundant in Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands. Every request to mobilise this fund, however, leaves me even more baffled as to its fairness and effectiveness.
Firstly, as regards effectiveness, the fund supported 16 000 workers in 2009, a mere drop in the ocean of redundancies, and expended EUR 53 million out of a possible EUR 500 million. Secondly, as regards fairness, why is a Swedish car worker supported to the tune of EUR 6 500, while an Austrian car worker gets EUR 14 300?
How can I explain this to a Portuguese textile worker, whose support was a mere EUR 524, when her Catalan counterpart can receive EUR 2 000? Worse still, why is it that in the Dutch request fixed-term contract workers were left out of any support, when they are the hardest hit? This fund cannot continue to be used to widen differences in unemployment or to accentuate inequalities between rich countries and countries on the margins.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, the European Union has set up budgetary instruments to provide support to workers who are being made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns, many of which have been influenced directly or indirectly by the European Union.
However, this represents a piecemeal approach. Subsidising the training of those who have lost their jobs in certain industries will not resolve the situation of the said industries, nor will it help to create an alternative industry that will absorb this workforce. This is just a waste of taxpayers' money. If the European Union was really looking to help Europe out of the crisis, it should be investigating and working on the causes of the crisis, but it prefers to be seen as the charity that will come to rescue the poor.
Of course, this action will initially return support for the European Union from those affected. Moreover, the report and the motion for a resolution being proposed for vote do not indicate what the scope of this subsidy will be - i.e. how many industries it will cover and how many companies within a certain industry. What is most worrying is that the report emphasises the need to speed up the payments of the subsidies, without ever mentioning the need to provide evidence that the funds are reaching the right people for the right purpose. Worse still, the report does not call for regular monitoring of the effects of the subsidy, leaving this evaluation to the general assessment of the programmes within the process of the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework.
Colleagues, we are talking about taxpayers' money, many of whom have also lost their jobs and are getting no subsidies, many of whom are going through severe financial problems. How can we treat their money with such contempt? I will reject this resolution, and urge you to do the same.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, the European Union has a budgetary instrument that provides financial support to workers affected by major structural changes in world trade patterns. Now, the Globalisation Adjustment Fund is also providing direct assistance to people affected in my home country. I have pointed out on many occasions that the Globalisation Adjustment Fund must not be wrongly seen as a backup solution for multinational companies, but must go directly to help the citizens affected. For that reason, I am in favour of control mechanisms and would like to see regular progress reports from Steiermark. This fund is utilised precisely where society needs it most, namely to help the affected people themselves. That is something positive that the European Union does for its citizens.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I am pleased that we are today debating how we can tackle the global crisis and unemployment in particular. Of course, it is affecting very many innocent enterprises that quite simply have too few orders coming in and thus have no turnover. They therefore also suffer from a lack of liquidity and with that, lose their creditworthiness.
I am grateful that the focus here is on small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. I believe that transitional assistance is particularly important to allow them to continue working and to be able to take advantage of any appropriate new opportunities on the markets. We should carefully analyse the results of this funding to see where we have used best practice and where we were actually able to help secure jobs and, above all, where we have succeeded in reintegrating redundant workers into the labour market as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Now it is a question of providing help quickly and therefore I also support the mobilisation of the Fund as quickly as possible, particularly in Steiermark in Austria, where a whole region involved in car manufacture is affected and where there are many suppliers involved which, of course, are particularly important for the infrastructure. I think it is good that this EUR 5.7 million is being made available. However, in this regard I would like to ask that, for all cases that we take a positive decision on here today, an analysis be carried out and that the money does not merely flow out, but that proof is also provided that it is resulting in restoration or that new enterprises are being set up and that active economic activity will, in future, enable this region to regain the vigour that it has had up to now. Thank you, Commissioner.
(DE) Mr President, the Austrian application for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) concerns the former employees of a total of nine automotive suppliers in Steiermark. If we look closer at this case, we can immediately see that it is a classic case for the EGF, namely the provision of remedial assistance. The EGF can provide exactly that, and that is why it was set up, in other words to provide assistance to those directly affected by the negative effects of globalisation and who, through the abrupt loss of their jobs, have to suffer the consequences of the irresponsibility of financial market speculators.
Steiermark, unfortunately, is characterised by its large dependency on demand in the automotive industry. That means that the whole region has been badly affected by the current slump in the market and, in particular, in the demand for cars. Car sales have fallen by 59.4%. In this context, the EUR 5.7 million represents an excellent investment for the reintegration of redundant workers into the labour market. In other words, this investment will enable workers to attend local employment foundations, specifically for the automotive sector, while also facilitating the implementation of measures aimed at worker preparation and qualifications.
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, this week, we must express our opinion on a European Commission proposal to release financial resources from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in three cases: Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria. Again we have to decide, unfortunately, over three unconnected and very different cases.
I would like to point out that the European Parliament has already asked the Commission on one occasion for individual requests for the release of resources to be presented and discussed separately. The requests are again accompanied by a whole series of ambiguities. In the case of the Swedish request, for example, it is not clear what volume of resources will be used and, in the case of the Austrian request, the volume of resources requested for each person losing a job is startling. While in previous projects, sums of several hundred euros were requested per person, Austria is asking for EUR 14 300 for each unemployed person. We remain unconvinced that the proposals correspond to the aims for which the globalisation fund was created and we do not support the release of these resources.
(DE) Madam President, I would like to use the blue card simply to rectify one point. The support in Austria is not being granted to just one person.
(DE) Madam President, as you can see, this is clearly an Austrian issue, and Steiermark, one of our provinces that has been hard hit, is of great concern to us, with its above-average proportion of the population involved in the automotive industry on the one hand and, of course, a disproportionately high percentage of these products being exported on the other. The global fall in demand has resulted in a total of 744 redundancies, as has already been mentioned, and we are very pleased that 400 of the people affected will receive support through the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. That is very much to be welcomed.
In this case - and this needs to be clarified with regard to what the previous speaker said, too - it is not about subsidies for simple restructuring, it is about supporting individual workers by providing assistance with living costs and measures for further training. In this regard, I agree with Mrs Cornelissen, who said that this further training must be particularly geared to the future. We need to have better trained workers for the future and retraining in the areas of technology and renewable energy is certainly a worthwhile step. Steiermark will surely be in favour of that.
(SV) Madam President, in a debate such as this, it is worth remembering that it is globalisation that has made Europe rich, that has created jobs and generated investments. Exports have paved the way for new businesses and large enterprises to emerge. Imports have provided opportunities for citizens to live a good life with cheap products and services which, taken together, has resulted in regeneration.
Change on a broad scale is a constant presence, allowing new enterprises, new jobs and new opportunities to emerge. These wide-ranging changes leave their mark right through society and we should never try to prevent them from happening. However, we need to make the transition easier for those who are affected. Every Member State should have a duty to ensure that the transition takes place safely and in a way that provides plenty of opportunities.
The European Union cannot provide such opportunities from a single fund. The changes are too great and too significant. If we think this can be resolved by means of a globalisation fund, then we are not presenting an accurate picture of the situation. We were against the creation of such a fund. However, when it comes to the car industry, we realise that Europe is in a special situation at the moment, with a multitude of different kinds of support at European and national level, and we are at risk not only of the distortion that comes from giving public subsidies to individual players, but also of this distortion being increased if enterprises and industry in different regions are not able to obtain equivalent support. In view of this, we will be voting in favour of this proposal, because we have already come so far in the subsidy process that if support is not provided, then competition would be distorted. However, we would like to emphasise that we cannot carry on like this in the future.
(FR) Madam President, I would like to stress the fact that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund that we have set up is addressed to workers, to improve their employability. Therefore, it is on this point that we must truly take fundamental action. This is the approach that we adopt in examining the cases within the group on the Globalisation Adjustment Fund to ensure that workers can be included in the world of work, and stay in employment, because there is no social integration without professional integration.
The second point I would like to stress is that the automotive sector has been very seriously affected, and I call upon car manufacturers, which are being hit hard by the crisis, to adapt their products both to the new environmental objectives and to consumers' new needs. The future of the sector is at stake.
Finally, I call upon everyone to back the Committee on Budgets in its proposal - and I also thank Mr Böge for his proposal - and ask, as Mr Rübig did, for the effects of our policies to be monitored.
(RO) Last year, we approved a number of similar allocations of sums from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in order to provide additional support to workers who are suffering the consequences of major structural changes in global trade patterns. The economic crisis has had a drastic impact on global trade.
In the region I come from, I can tell you that during the last year, roughly 2 500 redundancies have been made in the iron and steel industry, approximately 700 in shipbuilding, and an announcement has been made about around 6 000 redundancies to follow in the rail transport sector. This is why I believe that it is important for us to be prepared in 2010 for many similar applications which will come about due to the economic crisis. The existing procedure must be simple so that states and beneficiaries can gain easy access to it. Sweden applied in June, Austria in July and the Netherlands in August, which shows that several months have passed since their applications. This is why I believe that the procedure must be simple.
Madam President, having sat here a few weeks ago when Parliament voted in favour of globalisation funding for my own constituents in Limerick, who were made redundant due to Dell relocating to Poland - and also in the springtime, the Waterford Crystal workers will be looking for a similar assistance - obviously I support what has been proposed here tonight for Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands.
A number of anomalies have been mentioned and I am going to repeat them very briefly. Firstly, I think the start date needs to be looked at. Secondly, the time span needs to reflect the length of the course, not just the particular two years, as it is at the moment. Thirdly, concerning administration, it is very important that it is not gobbled up, particularly by government agencies. Fourthly - and more importantly - as much help as possible should be given to entrepreneurs. Thirty-five per cent of start-up companies in the EU have been started by people who have been unemployed. If they are helped, they will deliver. Necessity is the mother of invention, and I think it is very important that we give them every assistance we can.
(DE) Madam President, if we assume that most jobs across Europe - not just in my country, Austria - are at risk due to the effects of globalisation, then we must consider, in particular, that younger workers - some of whom have not yet been registered as unemployed because they have just come from a training course or from school - are at risk as a result. We need to take particular care - and this applies to Austria, primarily - to ensure that we use these sorts of measures to support those workers who need to be integrated into the labour market for the first time, and give them the opportunity, including with assistance from the European Union, to enter the European labour market.
Ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, the debate has shown clearly that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is functioning and we are able to state that it has now been used several dozen times and it has always brought considerable benefit to the people making use of the fund. As a Commissioner, I have always tried to familiarise myself with results in the field, which is not proper analysis of course but merely direct experience, and I was delighted to see how positively the fund is rated in those areas where it has operated.
The debate has thrown up many questions of a serious nature which demand a response and which call for a clear and realistic opinion. First is the idea that the fund can be used only for big companies. Experience fortunately shows that the fund can be used by anyone, regardless of whether a large or small country or a large or small firm is involved and this was our original intention. The newly adjusted rules clearly provide the possibility for using this fund also in the case of employees of small and medium-sized enterprises which are in areas or fields affected by the crisis. The fund thus operates without discrimination and does not disadvantage anyone.
I would also like to emphasise a fundamental characteristic of the fund, which is to help people rather than companies and, from this perspective, we cannot therefore see it as a life support machine for companies that have no realistic hope of functioning in economic terms, but rather the contrary. The fund helps people who have been made redundant to find work quickly in those areas where it exists. It is therefore a fund which, in principle, implements and facilitates restructuring.
Concerns over gender inequality were expressed in one speech and I think it was the speech of Mrs Harkin. This inequality, which really does exist at the level of reports, merely proves that the crisis, especially in its first phase, has markedly affected the male-dominated industries. Today also, we are talking about the automobile industry and the construction industry, in other words, two male-dominated industries. In overall figures, therefore, the fund has provided more assistance to men. The crisis has changed the structure of the labour market in a specific way and I noted the statement of President Obama, who declared that at the end of this year, the majority of workers actively engaged on the labour market in the United States would be women. Also in the United States, therefore, the crisis has produced a very striking result in industries dominated by men. As far as the question is concerned, there is no gender inequality at all in the concept or the structure of the fund.
The debate also threw up a number of ideas, of course, on how it might be possible to amend and improve the fund. I have to say that the Commission does not of course regard the fund as something immutable which has emerged like Pallas Athena from the head of Zeus. It is a human institution, which can always be made better on the basis of experience and debate. Thus, in my opinion, there are no fundamental obstacles here.
Another question was raised on the issue of the specific method of financing, in other words, the integration of the fund within the budget as independent budget items. This is surely a question that will be discussed at a political level but from a financial perspective, it was not possible to achieve a result in this way and, in my opinion, the fact that we mobilised resources by a different but effective method is, in itself, valuable.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that it is undoubtedly true that the amended rules and the pressure of the crisis have led to a situation where there will be more individual cases but, as I have already stated, the Commission accepts the weight of the arguments on the side of adopting a case-by-case approach and we will therefore proceed under this method.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the MEPs from the Committee on Budgets and all of the MEPs involved in this issue because it has emerged clearly from the debate that consideration has been given to all of the contentious matters that are present in every decision of such complexity. In my opinion, it also emerged clearly from the debate and from the proposal of the Commission that all of these cases fall within the scope of the globalisation adjustment fund. I am delighted therefore that your debate has confirmed the view of the Commission and I expect that the vote will go in the same direction, or at least I hope it will.
Madam President, I do not need to add anything to what the Commissioner said. I support what he said, especially his concluding remarks about the question of the future development of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund in relation to the other programmes - in particular the European Social Fund - about which we will, of course, have another intensive joint debate.
It is absolutely clear that this Globalisation Adjustment Fund cannot neutralise the consequences of structural change, nor can it accept and overcome the challenges of globalisation, and that, of course, is not its intended purpose. However, it can certainly help the individuals affected, who find themselves in a difficult situation in terms of employment after being made redundant and it can give them the opportunity, through gaining qualifications, to have prospects once more and to find work. That is something that, in spite of the debate about subsidiarity, which of course also plays a part in this connection, we should support and welcome as a supplementary fund to all the measures under the European Social Fund, which we also have.
At this point, I would just like to say one more thing and that is that there are certainly programmes in the national, as well as the European, budgets where there are more grounds for calling into question the meaningfulness of the expenditure than there are for a fund that provides assistance directly to people who are in a difficult initial situation.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday.