Agency for the management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (debate)
The next item is the report by Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing an agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice - C7-0046/2009 -.
We had expected Commissioner Malmström to be with us, but I understand there is a problem with her incoming flight. She is on her way but she will not be here at the beginning. Commissioner Barnier will stand in so long as is necessary.
Madam President, there are three underlying questions which I would like to highlight at the start of this debate. The first is legislative efficacy. Once more, and on subjects as sensitive as Schengen-related issues, Parliament has managed to come to an agreement at first reading.
We have worked well and quickly. For those who do not believe in codecision, we have once again given a conclusive response. If the decision were still made by unanimity in the Council, it would be adjourned for even longer. I thank the Hungarian Presidency for its efforts and competent performance.
My second point is the strengthening of Schengen. Notwithstanding the differing opinions on some issues, we have achieved broad consensus in this Parliament. This is because, essentially, we want to see Schengen strengthened and we do not condone attempts to weaken the free circulation of people. I thank the shadow rapporteurs for their collaboration and their support.
Thirdly, I would highlight the EU solution. Although initially it had little support in the Council, the creation of this agency corresponds to the preference shown by this Parliament, which has always fought for a European solution to the detriment of the intergovernmental one, which is still prevalent in the First Schengen Information System (SIS I). According to the impact assessment carried out by the Commission, the creation of an agency is without doubt the best solution from an economic, operational and institutional point of view.
I would like to ask Commissioner Barnier to pass on our thanks to Commissioner Malmström for her timely initiative and for her cooperation.
The regulation that we are going to adopt corresponds positively to the concerns of this Parliament. Allow me to emphasise seven points. Firstly, new systems clash with the legislative instrument; much is said about new systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. The regulation clearly ensures that new systems can only be added after they have been created by means of a legal instrument adopted by codecision with the European Parliament.
Secondly, interoperability between systems is rejected. It is expressly guaranteed that there can be no interoperability between the systems managed by the agency, unless this possibility is expressly established in the legal instruments which create each of these systems.
The third point is the location of the agency. Parliament's prerogatives have been respected and the decision has been taken in codecision between Parliament and the Council. The headquarters are to be in Tallinn, the technical site in Strasbourg and the back-up site in Austria. Pressure from Parliament led to our receiving two letters from the French and Estonian Ministers confirming the investment that each of the two countries would make so that the solution arrived at would be the most cost-efficient.
Fourthly, on communication infrastructure we managed to reach a compromise: any possibility of non-authorised access will be prohibited; all data circulating within the network has to be encrypted, and it is guaranteed that the encryption key cannot be transferred to the responsibility of a private company under an outsourcing agreement, exactly the opposite to what currently happens.
We have also regulated the members of the management board and voting rights in such a way as to guarantee that the Member States only participate in systems to which they are linked. The participation of the United Kingdom was safeguarded while Ireland decided not to be bound by this regulation. Finally, Madam President, diverse improvements were introduced with regard to the reinforcement of Parliament's role, the reinforcement of transparency and the improvement of data protection.
Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for your understanding. The arrival of Commissioner Malmström's flight was delayed, due to circumstances beyond her control. She has asked me to apologise to you on her behalf. She is currently making her way here to join us, and I will therefore pass your message on to her, Mr Coelho.
I believe she will be here in few moments to take over from me; however, while we wait, I would like to extend very warm thanks, on her behalf, to Mr Coelho, for the constructive approach he showed throughout the negotiations on this proposal involving - I think I can say this - fruitful cooperation between the three institutions. I believe we have thus reached our common objective.
This proposal, as you know better than anyone, is a response to the European Parliament's and the Council's explicit request, made in 2006, when the basic instruments for the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) and the Visa Information System (VIS) were adopted. Based on impact assessments, Eurodac is now also included in the proposal.
The main role of the future agency will be to ensure that these crucial IT systems operate properly 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that data exchange takes place in full compliance with data security and data protection regulations.
In the future, the purpose of the agency will be to develop other very large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, based on the legislative proposals which have been or which are due to be adopted by the co-legislator. With regard to the compromise proposal, Commissioner Malmström informed me that she was satisfied that Parliament's main amendments had been incorporated into the compromise text.
The Commission wishes however to emphasise and clarify its intention to make a statement, to be included in the Council's minutes, recalling that the principle of the European Union's institutional autonomy opposes the granting of voting rights in the agency to third countries, including associated countries.
As a result, the Commission's acceptance of the co-legislator's compromise is based on the principle that this compromise does not grant voting rights to associated countries or create expectation in that regard.
Mr Coelho, honourable Members, Madam President, that is what I wanted to say on behalf of Commissioner Malmström. Thank you for your understanding.
Madam President, the operational management of the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS), Eurodac and other large-scale information technology systems is crucial to the future of the European area of freedom, security and justice. As a result, setting up a single authority responsible for the operational management of these IT systems is an absolute must.
We are going through a time of budget constraints which must also be reflected in the European agencies' activities. I support the proposal for the agency's strategy to be based on a multiannual staff policy plan and a draft annual work programme, with clear objectives and performance indicators. I regret that the proposal tabled by the Committee on Budgetary Control for the number of members on the management board to be reduced was not accepted. I respect the right of Member States to be involved in the decision-making process at agency level. However, I think that a management board made up of 29 members is a costly, cumbersome structure which does not help operations run more efficiently. I think that the agency's number-one priority must be to clarify the situation with SIS II. An analysis needs to be carried out and a decision made about the programme and the costs involved in completing this system.
Madam President, I support Mr Coelho's thorough work and I congratulate him on his negotiating capacity, in Parliament and at first reading.
In terms of the need to create a new agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems, we should remember that the Commission itself has declared that it cannot assume the responsibility for managing large databases, and that creating a merely executive agency would not in any case give Parliament control, because it would still be embedded in the structure of the European Commission.
Considering the important work being entrusted to the new agency and the need for this work to be scrutinised by Parliament, however, the new body should take the form of a European agency with its own legal status.
Its objectives should be clearly defined, these being operational management of the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac. It could also take responsibility for the preparation, development and operational management of other large-scale information systems.
However, it should be noted that this must in all cases be done with the right legal instruments. The agency will not under any circumstances be able to take political decisions, such as creating new information systems or decisions on interoperability with different systems.
The important role that the agency is to play means it must have a reinforced administrative structure that will ensure data integrity and protection, and for this reason it is essential that it incorporate a post of data security manager and an independent data protection body, thereby complying with the legal provisions contained in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In conclusion, Mr Coelho, I am very much in agreement with your three initial points, and with the seven points made by Parliament on making a strong commitment to reaching an EU solution and taking a firm stand against any limitation of the Schengen Area.
Madam President, I too would like to commend our fellow Member Mr Coelho for the skills which he employed during this negotiation and which have enabled the European Parliament to achieve a number of excellent results.
Our objective, as he said, was to improve the operational effectiveness of data security systems in the area of justice and internal affairs, for the Schengen Information System (SIS), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac.
I would like to underline several points which the socialists consider to be truly positive steps forward. First of all, it has been guaranteed that the agency's remit will be limited to technical tasks which will not be allowed to exert any form of influence on the actual substance of the data held. Secondly, democratic transparency is to be employed throughout the whole process, allowing the European Parliament not only to be involved in the selection process for the agency's director, but also, and above all, assuring us that, if the agency's remit were to be extended to other systems and if there were an intention to make any of those systems interoperable with current systems, this could only be done through the ordinary legislative procedure. Thirdly, it is forbidden for private operators to undertake system maintenance and have access to security codes and data content and, finally, the European Parliament is participating in choosing the location for the agency's seat.
With regard to this final point, I would like to express my regret that in negotiating the regulations the naming of the seat was subject to such resistance from the Council. Its unilateral statement to the effect that this decision would not set a precedent has no legal value as such. Our institution adhered strictly to the Treaties, according to which Parliament must also give its consent in the naming of seats of European agencies.
In light of this, I would like the Council to at last consider the European Parliament as a full partner, that is to say a co-legislator, in the same capacity as itself. This form of institutional rivalry is also affecting work on the Schengen issue, particularly as regards the revision of the Schengen evaluation mechanism. I would in that regard like us to move our focus to debating the real issues rather than focusing on legal battles.
(Applause)
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, Mr Coelho is as usual a safe pair of hands - I am not sure what we would do without him - and he has safely overseen the co-legislation of this regulation.
The Commission has attempted to develop several large-scale systems over the last few years but we know, certainly in the case of SIS II, that there have been serious delays and even some apparent mismanagement. In some of our Member States it is not unknown to have these problems. So it is sensible to concentrate technical know-how in one place. But at the same time, as Mr Coelho said, it is important to ensure on sensitive issues, such as any proposal for system or data interoperability, that Parliament is very much involved in any such decision.
It is also important that this regulation provides for the European Data Protection Supervisor to have the power to obtain from the agency access to all information necessary to his work.
The Commission will shortly propose setting up yet more IT systems, for instance an entry/exit system for Schengen borders and a registered traveller programme. I do not know whether the Commissioner - I know he is standing in for a colleague - is able to tell us whether the Commission is already planning that the agency should be involved in designing those two new databases.
I am very pleased that the UK will be able to participate in the adoption of this regulation and in the management of the agency to a degree that reflects its participation in SIS and in Eurodac. This is perhaps a model for variable geometry in the Schengen evaluation mechanism.
Madam President, Commissioner Barnier, Mr Coelho, right now we are debating for the last time the framework for the IT agency that is to be created for the European Union. As Parliament we will agree a compromise with the Council that incorporates our key demands. This is partly because we have already had many debates on this, but it is also partly down to the good work carried out by the rapporteur, who I would like to thank both for his work and for such good cooperation. I would like to take this opportunity to assure him of the support of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.
Having said that, however, I should like to emphasise one substantive point regarding the IT agency. The framework planned quite clearly excludes any integration of various databases with personal data. We want to have an efficient and secure technical platform, but we do not want this expanded to include the capture of personal data for any purpose whatsoever. Parliament's vote should sound a note of warning to anyone who has other intentions. We are keeping an eye on this agency and will not tolerate anyone veering off on their own.
Madam President, in today's increasingly mobile world, personal data protection is an essential tool in ensuring the safety of citizens and an area of free and unrestricted movement in the European Union. Well-organised and reliable protection will increase activity, which will also contribute to economic and social development.
The plan to create a supervisory agency for all three information systems currently in force appears interesting, as managing large-scale information systems requires a responsible specialist institution. However, it is important to ensure that all Member States are represented on its board. For the data protection system to be effective, individual solutions must be obligatory for all Member States. An important task that the agency must perform is to guarantee the security of the network and data transmission by eliminating the threats that are becoming increasingly widespread. According to the model of the European Data Protection Inspector, the agency should achieve its aims while respecting the fundamental rights of citizens. I hope that this system will allow data to be exchanged more effectively and processed and made available more securely.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, yet another expensive, bureaucratic monster arises by combining VIS, SIS and Eurodac, whether or not any Member State currently participates in these agencies. It is meant to develop Schengen, which itself is under pressure due to the Libyan situation. What is the use of a system to allow free movement which has to be partially suspended because of the free movement it encourages?
I understand there will be a central agency to retain fingerprints and biometric records for five years, including material obtained under SIS - 'information regarding certain categories of persons and property'. So, under the guise of facilitating the free movement of people, we have a resurrection of the Stasi.
Of course, this is intended to lead to EU immigration control. In the case of the UK, many immigrants come from the Commonwealth, a unique voluntary association including every single one of our former colonies. Well, we have our own border controls for that purpose, and the EU does not have the right to interfere.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Coelho, in contrast to the previous speaker, I believe that it is important for us to in fact support the establishment of this agency. I have often been sceptical when it comes to establishing agencies. In this case I am happy to support it. Firstly, I know that Mr Coelho led the negotiations, so I know that the result will be positive. You can rely on that. Secondly, the European Commission's handling of the Schengen Information System has shown that the management of major IT systems cannot be entrusted to the Commission. Thirdly, I consider it sensible that we bring the management of three major information systems - these being the Schengen Information System, the Visa Information System and Eurodac - under one roof. This will undoubtedly have synergy benefits.
It is also important that we state what the agency is to do and what it is not to do; namely, that it is not to make political decisions, but that it is to provide a high standard of management for these three information systems.
Moreover, I believe that training should be provided to ensure that the same high standards apply in all countries in respect of the implementation and use of the systems.
Finally, I should like to reiterate that I hope that this agreement on the agency will start a new debate on how the information systems can be usefully linked together - but only where there is good reason for doing so. I would point out that this would be particularly useful in a crisis situation such as we currently have in North Africa. We know that criminals are exploiting this system to cross borders and apply for asylum here, using the asylum process as a means of slipping in drugs couriers or even terrorists. Allowing Europol to use these systems would have security benefits for Europe's citizens, and I would therefore welcome the start of a discussion along these lines.
(SK) Madam President, I too would like to thank Mr Coelho, because I believe that bringing the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac together under a single EU agency is the right way to go.
The problem is, however, that some Member States are not involved in the individual systems at all, while others have only a partial involvement. In these circumstances, I would like to ask about the extent to which the regulation before us will be binding on such Member States, and about the powers they will hold in the adoption of the legislation establishing the agency.
Despite the uncertainties, I am convinced that the creation of this agency is desirable. The agency will perform important tasks and should also be responsible for technical measures of a non-legislative nature required by these tasks. These responsibilities should be without prejudice to the legislative duties exclusively within the remit of the Commission. The agency ought to be a purely operational, rather than a political, institution. Its operations and decisions must be consistent with the legal basis adopted by the European Parliament for the three different databases.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioners, first of all I would like to commend the work of our colleague Mr Coelho on this very difficult issue, for which a high level of technical expertise and a tremendous amount of work and knowledge of the issue were required.
Controlling our common territory and our European borders is one of the most significant issues we must deal with, and technology, more than ever, helps to address this challenge. Over the last few years, we have indeed witnessed an unprecedented increase in European databases and the exchange of personal data. This trend which some are describing as a digital tsunami can certainly be expected to continue in coming years.
The Schengen Information System (SIS), Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac are today all essential instruments in ensuring the security of European citizens. Ensuring effective operational management of these databases is therefore a key issue to which it is our responsibility to provide an effective response. This response is of course a very sensitive matter, and Mr Coelho has had to cope with many legal, institutional, budgetary, political and technical hurdles and, in spite of them all, he has managed to draft a balanced text which satisfies all of the parties concerned.
The creation of this agency for the management of large-scale IT systems indeed seems to be the best way of ensuring Member States' internal security. No other institution or existing agency is currently capable of ensuring that these information systems are managed properly. The agency will help to improve the management of existing information systems, provide better synergy between databases and also enable instruments adopted in the future to be integrated.
Where to locate the seat of the agency was one of the very delicate questions which arose on this issue. Estonia and France are the only two countries to have put themselves forward as locations for the seat. France already hosts the Schengen Information System, in Strasbourg, and has been responsible for its operational management and administration since 1995; the country thus has full technical expertise.
Following the conclusions of the European Council of December 2003, which gave priority to new Member States for hosting new agencies, Estonia also wanted to welcome the seat of this future agency. I believe that a very good compromise has been reached: a sort of distribution of missions - and I will conclude here Madam President - has been achieved by transferring the seat of the agency to Tallinn. Tasks relating to governance, strategy and programme design will be carried out there, while system development and operation will take place in Strasbourg. This cost-effectiveness ratio is very well balanced, and this compromise solution in no way undermines the centralised management of IT systems.
(RO) Madam President, I too would like to begin by commending the exceptional efforts of Carlos Coelho who, once again, has shown the outstanding expertise he has in this area.
I would like to make two comments about setting up this new agency, which I also feel is very beneficial. First of all, in the current climate where cyber attacks have started to pose a danger of paramount global importance, we must ensure that the security of the databases administered by this agency is underpinned by the highest standards. Secondly, for the time being at least, the new agency, if it were to operate, would be unable to do part of its job as the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) is still a long way from being operational. This is why I am taking this opportunity to ask the Commission and the Commissioner to keep to their commitment to complete SIS II by the deadline.
(RO) Madam President, it makes natural sense to suggest setting up this agency as the Commission must not be responsible for managing these large-scale IT systems, precisely so that total transparency is ensured and any conflict of interest eliminated. Just think about the scope of this system comprising three parts - the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac - which need a single, well-structured agency to look after them, due to their considerable importance and the interconnecting links between them.
I think that fragmented, disjointed administration would put these systems out of kilter with each other, which could have a devastating impact on the protection of personal data, on visa-related information and on asylum applications. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the creation of this specific agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems, as a measure to protect security and integrity in the European Union.
Madam President, I was not intending to waste the plenary's time, but I was provoked by Mr Clark who said that another bureaucratic monster like the Stasi will be created.
I would like to remind Mr Clark that the future home of the IT agency, or whatever we call it, is Tallinn, which is not the place where the Stasi was invented. Indeed, on the contrary another 'S' word, Skype, was invented by Estonian boys and girls some years ago. Beyond that Estonia was the first country to be under real cyber-attacks in the modern age and we survived. I believe Schengen, with the free movement of European people, will survive with us as well.
(DE) Madam President, as we know, better cooperation and various IT systems are supposed to compensate for the removal of internal borders. So far, the only example of such a project - the Schengen Information System (SIS II) - is noteworthy only for its skyrocketing costs and repeated delays. As far as I am concerned, it is doubtful whether there is even any point in having our own IT agency. In theory, it will link together the visa databases and the digital information on asylum seekers and criminals more effectively than has been done in the past. The scale of such an IT project is made evident by the fact that the Schengen Information System (SIS) was originally designed to handle 15 million records and is now required to handle 100 million - not least because of national differences. If data cannot be coordinated within one system without problems (in other words, within SIS and SIS II), it is critical that we ask how a separate IT agency is suddenly supposed to be able to link together all the vastly different systems. It seems to me to be a very difficult task.
(SK) Madam President, it has been apparent for some time that an agency needs to be set up to manage the sprawling IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. This will be another step on the way towards the smoother processing and use of information within the European Union. Obviously, the agency must meet the highest EU standards of data protection in its operations, and Member States which are not part of the system should be denied access to the information. As for the agency's seat, I absolutely agree with the choice of a single centralised location, as this is the least costly solution and will make it easier for the agency's various units to work together.
Finally, I would like to say how pleased I am that the European Parliament has had an opportunity to make a major, direct contribution to the establishment of this agency, and I congratulate Mr Coelho.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, forgive me for arriving late, my plane departed very late, but I know you were in the capable hands of Commissioner Barnier. Let me thank you and the rapporteur for the debate, and let me quickly answer a few of the questions.
I think Baroness Ludford asked whether the agency would cover any other IT systems. The agency will initially take over operational management of VIS and Eurodac. SIS II will also be taken over as soon as it is operational, i.e. in the first quarter of 2013. In the communication that the Commission made a few weeks ago, we also referred to the European entry/exit system and a registered travel programme. We also announced that we would conduct further consultations in the coming weeks, and this is what we will do, together with the Parliament and with the Council, regarding the communication on smart borders.
The plan is to entrust these systems, once they are in place, to the IT agency, working on the basis of the relevant instruments. I can assure Mr Albrecht that no other system will be put in place without a specific legal act, and that interoperability will not be introduced without the consent of the two co-legislators.
With regard to Mr Enciu's question on security, all safeguards are in place both from a legal and logistical point of view; I can reassure him of that. We have achieved something very worthwhile with this compromise between the three institutions. I am looking forward to this new agency becoming operational and starting work.
Madam President, I too would like to welcome Commissioner Malmström. Before she arrived, I had occasion to remark that it is again proven that codecision is a powerful instrument, because if we still had the old system and this decision did not have codecision but was adopted unanimously by the Council, we would probably not have a decision because we would still be at a stalemate in the Council, awaiting a unanimous vote that we would never be able to attain.
I would like to say that I agree with the points made by Mr Marinescu. In fact, I would also have liked a management board with fewer members, but in these Schengen-related matters, which are based on mutual trust, it is very important that all Member States participate, and that is the only reason we have accepted a very large management board. However, it does not in fact make sense that all of our European agencies should have such large management boards.
Mrs Flašíková Beňová and Mr Mikolášik raised the question of Member State participation. The truth is that the United Kingdom decided to participate in this regulation and Ireland decided to remain outside, but what we have ensured is, first of all, that the chair of this agency can only be from a Member State that participates in all the systems managed by the agency. In other words, those Member States that participate partially are not eligible to hold the chair. Secondly, and I will end here Madam President, only Member States that participate in each of the areas have access to the information. I therefore believe that those concerns are being protected.
To end, Madam President, I would like to thank all of my fellow Members for their kind words. I think we have all been up to this challenge, and Parliament and the Council, with the help of the Commission, have demonstrated once more that we have managed to arrive at a first reading with great success in record time.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 5 July 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Mr Coelho's report has obtained my approval in this Chamber insofar as I am convinced of the need to establish an agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. As the Commission itself had already stated in 2009, the management of systems such as SIS II, VIS and Eurodac, which are so complex and at the same time so crucial within the EU, cannot continue on the same temporary basis that has characterised them until today. Temporary management by the Commission cannot ensure the technical and operational capacity that, by contrast, the creation of an appropriate agency will allow. An agency will carry out its work on a continuous and constant basis, its principal duties being: the adoption of security measures, reporting and publishing, monitoring and organising specific training. I therefore fully agree with what has been decided in the report and have complete confidence that this is a further step towards ensuring that Europe remains on course to establish an integrated network for the development of security and democracy.
in writing. - It has taken more than two years from the Commission's proposal to the first reading in the Parliament. The establishment of the EU IT agency is a long-awaited step towards ensuring streamlined operational management of large-scale European Union IT systems, namely SIS II, VIS and Eurodac.
However, from a long-term perspective, the agency ought also to become a centre of competence responsible for developing additional large-scale IT systems, should it be required to do so in the future and if the Parliament and the Council so decide. I am pleased that a compromise has been reached between Estonia and France to locate the seat of the agency in Tallinn, Estonia. This decision is in line with the European Council conclusions of 13 December 2003, which gave priority to the Member States that acceded to in 2004 and 2007 in the distribution of the seats of new EU offices and agencies. The agency is expected to begin work at the beginning of 2012. I therefore hope that the Parliament and the Council can adopt the regulation at first reading so that the agency can become operational on schedule.


Rosé wines and permitted oenological practices (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on:
the oral question by Astrid Lulling, Jean-Pierre Audy, Joseph Daul, Françoise Grossetête, Véronique Mathieu, Elisabeth Morin, Margie Sudre, Oldřich Vlasák and Dominique Vlasto, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, Patrick Louis, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Anne Laperrouze, Nathalie Griesbeck and Marielle De Sarnez, on behalf of the ALDE Group, Sergio Berlato, Cristiana Muscardini, Roberta Angelilli, Domenico Antonio Basile, Alessandro Foglietta, Antonio Mussa, Sebastiano (Nello) Musumeci, Giovanni Robusti, Umberto Pirilli and Salvatore Tatarella, on behalf of the UEN Group to the Commission: Rosé, wines and permitted oenological practices (B6-0228/2009) and
the oral question by Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Katerina Batzeli, Vincent Peillon, Vincenzo Lavarra, Stéphane Le Foll and Alessandro Battilocchio, on behalf of the PSE Group to the Commission: Rosé wines and permitted oenological practices (B6-0229/2009).
Madam President, Commissioner, producers of quality wines and informed consumers - the true connoisseurs of the products of our land - do not want to hear talk of blending.
It is understandable that wine-growers in numerous European regions fear the economic, social and environmental consequences of lifting the ban on the blending of red and white wine to produce rosé wine.
The inevitably unfair competition that will result from this risks penalising entire regions, which have specialised in the production of a quality rosé, tailored to a growing demand. The Commission has already taken action on the first request in our oral question by postponing the decision initially scheduled for the end of April, for which it has my warm thanks.
However, will it use this period to satisfy our second request, namely to undertake a broadly-based consultation of those working in the industry on the basis of a thorough study of the possible economic, social and environmental consequences of lifting the ban on blending?
Furthermore, what solutions does the Commission envisage, if it should not withdraw its proposal to lift the ban on blending, in order to prevent the collapse of this fragile market in rosé wine, which has a short shelf life, and the weakening of the economic fabric of a whole region, which offers a whole range of cultural and tourist activities based around the wine-growing industry?
Is the Commission aware that the recommended labelling solutions have already been rejected by the traditional producing regions, because the term 'rosé' will not be exclusively reserved for the wines which they produce from red grapes?
Madam President, Commissioner, the reform of the common market organisation (CMO) imposed by the united forces of the lobbyists and Eurocrats will cause three serious problems. It aims to eliminate the market regulation mechanisms, liberalise planting rights from 2015 and allow the cohabitation, under virtually identical labels, of very different categories of wine. These three heresies will be fatal to European wine-growing, particularly in France. Consumers will be misled in their choices, wine-growers will see their incomes collapse, and the industrialisation of the sector will lead to the loss of specialist know-how.
This systematic dismantling of the fundamental principles which define the specific nature of European wine-growing responds to a peculiar logic. Trapped between its submission to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the influence of the all-powerful European big business lobby, the CEEV, the Commission has since 2004 systematically devoted itself to opening the doors of the European henhouse to all the foxes roaming the planet. It increasingly seems to be acting as the shoehorn of globalisation. This incoherent logic becomes clearly apparent on examining two sets of figures.
In Europe, 170 000 hectares of vines have been uprooted, whereas in New Zealand the planted area has increased by 240%, in Australia by 169% and in China by 164%. In Europe, the reduction in supply to keep prices at a decent level is being undermined by the actions of large-scale wine manufacturers who are offloading their surplus products at low prices and thus grabbing the spare market. This sums up the racket in the rosé market. It reveals the contradictions that exist between the WTO principles and those needed to organise a sector in order to promote investment, quality and know-how. Yesterday we successfully discovered that quality would in the future turn to quantity. With the Commissioner's reforms, it is becoming clear that today's decisions will kill tomorrow's know-how.
Commissioner, it is vital to prohibit blending before 7 June. After that, the only weapon left to wine-growers in order to make their voices heard will be the vote.
Madam President, what are they trying to make us swallow? A mixture of red and white wine in the guise of rosé? Our citizens are reacting very negatively to this Commission initiative, which has the agreement of the Member States, including France.
I have noticed two types of reaction: firstly, our citizens are wondering why the European Union is meddling with rosé, when there are so many other issues to worry about, particularly the serious issue of the economic crisis. Secondly, producers of traditional rosé wines, which are produced by rapid maceration and delicate pressing, see this as a serious attack against the 'rosé' designation and against the image of quality, developed over so many years, of wines such as these rosés from Provence, which still retain the aroma of the land and which have ensured the success of rosé wines in general.
During the last meeting of the 'wine' intergroup, we finally understood the motivation of the European Commission and Member States. Consumption of rosé table wines is increasing throughout the world and accounts for nearly 30% of wine consumption. Third countries are producing blends. The European Union market is starting to be targeted by these third-country blends.
The UK market is particularly dominated by wines from the United States. It is well-known that traditional rosé has a short shelf life. It is so much easier to produce rosé wine on demand by using stocks of red and white wines. For the Member States, it is therefore a question of adapting the production of rosé table wines to the international market.
Unless other oenological practices for making rosé wine can be discovered, we might for example be inspired by Pierre Dac, who said: 'Graft roses onto vines to get natural rosé wine!' This cannot be. Like many of my fellow Members, I think that the European Commission and the Member States must go back to the drawing board, work on the 'rosé wine' designation, and ensure that the name 'rosé' is exclusively reserved for wines produced using traditional methods, whether in the European Union or in third countries.
In the meantime, Commissioner, I invite you to discover one of these little rosés from Gaillac, with a thousand colours of the Tarn, to be enjoyed responsibly, of course.
author. - (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wine is not simply an agricultural product for us, but also represents culture and tradition.
We have often heard in this Chamber that we must guarantee the European wine market a certain future. We can only ensure this if we focus on quality and we cannot achieve quality if we do not respect traditional production methods. For this reason, Commissioner, we can only oppose the introduction of new wine production practices that have been dreamed up and have nothing to do with the science of winemaking, because we believe that they can lead to a deterioration in the image of wine and detract from the relationship of trust between consumer and products, with severe consequences for quality and perhaps even for health.
European quality products enjoy their status because they are based on a respect for ingredients, small-scale production methods, tradition and characteristic flavours achieved using specific products and production methods. I am afraid that by making all these concessions, overturning our traditional winemaking practices, the Union will allow pieces of the wooden casks to be added to speed up the flavouring process, and this will lead to artificial flavouring, and before we know it, we will be adding water and making wine without grapes.
I do not think this is the right way, Commissioner, to relaunch and develop the internal and international market sector. International demand for rosé wine is not falling but rising, and in this case the right approach is not to produce more using winemaking practices that owe more to a chemistry set than anything else, but to invest in quality, in specialisation and in the characterisation of European wines, in the marketing and promotion of real wine in general in order to extend the market and finally make it easier for young people to enter the winemaking business.
Madam President, Commissioner, as it happens, I am not in the middle of an election campaign because I will not be here in the next Parliament. Commissioner, you can therefore do me the honour of not exaggerating. However, I am from Bordeaux. You have visited my region, which produces very little rosé wine, but which very much likes the rosé wine that it produces.
I wanted to say to you that I was particularly shocked when I learnt that the European Commission was intending to legalise the production of rosé by blending red and white. In my opinion, this is a counterfeit product, at a time when we are being invited to fight counterfeiting in industry. It would mean authorising or inventing a wine derivative, at a time when we are fighting financial derivatives.
In fact, all this stems from exactly the same aim, namely to find new products generating ever more profit. As long as the profit and competitiveness of the European Union are assured, then that is OK. Let me amuse myself by making a suggestion. Here we have a rosé wine. I have just produced this rosé wine, here in the European Parliament, by getting white wine and putting beetroot in it. I can promise you that it has exactly the same colour and, what is more, you can have the whole chromatic range, if you want, and probably a certain taste range. This would also allow us to solve the problems of the sugar industry and chaptalisation using a natural food product. What this quite simply means is that, if we allow this first step, then there will be no end. Other Members have said as much, that food counterfeiting will reign ever more. We therefore say to you: 'look at what is already happening in some countries'.
Today, one-fifth of rosé production involves blending. I would maintain that the Commission does not have to systematically bleed the other four-fifths. There are people who have strived to ensure that rosé exists, that it becomes a genuine wine, produced using genuine oenological methods. We are now pulling the rug from under them on the pretext that it might be more lucrative to surf the rosé market using red and white. I believe that this is profoundly amoral. Personally, I feel that labelling will not suffice or, if labelling is used, this type of blended wine must not be called 'rosé'. Call it 'dishwater' if you like, Commissioner, as that much better suits the quality of the product.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the world of rosé wine has a long, long history, but there is no definition of rosé wine within EU legislation or within the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV). They all remain silent.
In certain regions, wine-makers have invested a lot of effort to develop a high-quality rosé wine based on a precise product specification, and have limited the wine-making practices for rosé wine to traditional methods. However, other protected designations of origin (PDOs) do not impose restrictions on making rosé wine. The product specification of Champagne allows the blending of red and white to produce rosé Champagne. At EU level, the ban on blending red and white wine is today limited to the production of table wine.
The discussion on wine-making practices, including on blending, started back in 2006 during the negotiations on the wine reform. With the reform, the Commission gained competence to authorise new oenological practices and shall base itself on the OIV's recommendations.
Following wide-ranging discussions which took place last autumn with stakeholders and with all Member States, the Commission proposed the abolition of the ban on blending red and white wine. This was subject to an indicative vote in the Wine Regulatory Committee in January when a majority of Member States, including France, voted in favour.
The draft regulation has been notified to the World Trade Organisation under the procedure in the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and we have recently accepted further time for third countries to examine our proposal. Therefore, the regulation will be formally voted by the Wine Regulatory Committee later in June, most probably on 19 June, because further delay would prevent us from implementing the new oenological practices from 1 August this year, as foreseen by the Council Regulation.
You also asked for a specific impact assessment before the removal of the blending prohibition. In-depth impact assessments were carried out by the Commission's services when drafting the wine reform and we do not therefore intend to restart the work undertaken in 2006 and 2007 to prepare the wine reform, nor to make an in-depth impact assessment of all different individual wine-making practices, so we base ourselves on the work that is taking place in the OIV.
Already now, economists in the wine sector stress that this reform will not weaken traditional rosés as these rosés with an appellation are not in competition with table wines. It is clear that the traditional rosé is a quality product that is highly appreciated by consumers and associated with the place of origin of this product.
Allowing the blending of table wine will lead to fair competition between European countries and third countries since we have allowed third countries - as already mentioned here today - to do this blending. I completely agree with Mrs Laperrouze. Why should we put our wine producers in a worse competitive situation than those that can sell wine within the European Union?
Some weeks ago, I had a meeting here in Strasbourg with rosé wine producers from Provence in France and we had a very open and frank discussion on the state of play. Of course I understand their attempt to try to safeguard the traditional rosé and that is the reason why the Commission has been looking at various solutions on the labelling issue. We actually proposed two different labelling options: 'traditional rosé' and 'rosé by blending'. Member States can then decide whether they want to make either one or both of those labelling options compulsory for rosé wine produced in their territory. In this way, we provide the possibility for producers to get a more exact idea of what they are buying.
I heard the argument from those wine producers that 'traditional rosé' was a bit dusty and they consider rosé wine to be a modern way of producing wine. I clearly indicated that if other ideas came up, I would of course be prepared to listen to them, but I have not yet heard any suggestions on an alternative to rosé wine. As the Commissioner for agricultural products, I do care that we find the right solutions and give our wine producers a level playing field.
Madam President, Commissioner, I am delighted to see you here again today. In all my years of political activity - both in Austria and in almost 15 years in the European Parliament - debates on wine have always been very emotional ones. We can see that again here today.
In my opinion, wine is one of the most elegant products that agriculture can produce. It is in the interests of quality production by European - and especially Austrian - wine-growers, that priority be given to the quality and the distinctiveness of wine from different regions.
We believe that mixing wines is not an oenological procedure. Rosé wine is produced through a special, very traditional oenological procedure. Therefore, Commissioner, I support all my fellow Members who, like I, reject this mixing or blending of white with red wine. It is time there was a clear definition for the production of traditional rosé wines.
Commissioner, it must also be possible, as you have mentioned, for Member States to gain knowledge, so that they then see some decisions differently or amend them. I urge you to do this for the sake of the quality of European wine production.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, once again we meet in this Chamber to defend a food, cultural and rural heritage handed down to us from an age-old tradition; an estimable heritage that is the envy of the world, that represents incredible wealth for the economy and also for the identity of our Union.
Nowadays this heritage risks ending up in serious difficulty due to the intention of the Commission and the Council to overturn the ban on the production of rosé wine by blending. This intention came about as a result of strong pressure and will be ratified without the possibility of intervention by Parliament, the body that officially represents millions of citizens, including manufacturers and consumers, who will be affected by this initiative.
The Commission proposes to allow the production of rosé wines by simply mixing red wines and white wines as is done by countries who do not possess our skill and professionalism, and under the simple pretext of responding to international competition.
As cosignatory of this question, I emphasise that lowering the quality of production - which is the outcome of centuries of tradition and research, huge investments, passion and attention to detail - is not the answer we need, particularly at this time of economic crisis, when the average consumer is certainly paying more attention to price than to what is written on the label.
This decision could be offset by simply finding a name for the new product and informing consumers of the existence of two different types of rosé wine, with different product qualities, and of the importance of recognising the work and efforts of sector professionals. Who is going to pay for all this? Has the Commission allowed for some kind of support programme or will it be the manufacturers who pay for it, after asking them to fight the low-cost competition with unequal weapons in times that are already extremely tough?
I hope that the Commission and the Council will be able to make the right choice and, if necessary, review this entire procedure.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, we have chocolate without cocoa and a ban on cheese made with milk straight from the cow. Our Roquefort was subject to 300% customs duties and we nearly had chickens washed in bleach and even a lactation hormone, somatotropin.
Now we are considering the idea of colouring white wine with red wine to make rosé wine. If you will permit me, as we say in France, this has been the drop of water that has made the vase overflow, with this water having also been authorised for blending wine, just like the 'woodwork' wines made with wood chips rather than in barrels were previously authorised, and the wines made with imported musts were nearly authorised. Wine could even be made in Thailand.
The problem is the psychoanalytic reaction that this idea produces, as this is an attack on culture. What is the definition of wine? If it is an industrial product, then it can be blended, like a wine Coca-Cola. However, if it is an agricultural food product, then you cannot touch it, otherwise you cause a cultural shock. 'This is my blood; drink it in remembrance of me'. If you blend blood, then you make contaminated blood.
Can you understand this disproportionate reaction? With this rosé idea, you have questioned 2 500 years of heritage dating from the Roman empire, which had to tackle the barbarians. Madam President, this is what I wanted to say: 'It is a Freudian matter, not a wine-growing matter'.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, when I arrived here I was extremely annoyed. Having heard what you had to say, I am now angry. It is not acceptable for you to authorise, in this election period moreover, the blending of white wine and red wine.
Very recently I went to Provence and Corsica to speak to the wine growers of my constituency, who had chosen the quality path, but who now feel abandoned. I remember a speech by Mr Barroso, two years ago, when he said that wine growing is important and part of the economy. He said we need to export more, and in order to export more, we need quality. I remember that speech very clearly.
The European Commission therefore imposed grubbing up to achieve greater quality and less quantity. The wine growers in the south of France went along with this, but look where it has got them today. They have grubbed up to such an extent that soon they will have to import wine in order to satisfy local consumption.
With your policy, you have signed the death warrant of our wine growers. Now you are authorising the blending of white wine and red wine with the designation of rosé wine. This is an insult to our wine growers. You are now going to ask them to include an additional phrase: 'traditional wine', for wine made in the conventional way, because our Spanish friends need to sell their surplus of white wine, since they have not been grubbing up. Our wine growers, who opted for quality, should not have to justify the value of their wine. That would be the last straw, in any case.
Blended wine is not rosé; it is a mixed white. Let us call a spade a spade. We should no longer allow consumers to have the wool pulled over their eyes by wine merchants who have chosen to put profit before quality, a choice that you are supporting, Mrs Fischer Boel. I call on my fellow Members, those of you who will be back in the next term of office: we are going to have to redouble our efforts to ensure that this Commission measure is ruled out once and for all and not just provisionally. Watch out on 19 June.
(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wine has been produced in my country for three thousand years. I express my opposition, my regret and my concern about what we are going to do. Rosé wine is an artificial product. Wine is a fermented product, not a mixed product. If this is applied, the result will be unfair competition for our producers who produce these wonderful wines.
Secondly and importantly, the reputation of European wine will be damaged yet again. However, I can see that, if we take this slippery slope, there will be no end to it. Some time ago we debated and adopted the addition of bits of wood to wine. We cited as our grounds ageing and the economic cost. We also adopted the addition of sugar to wine. For reasons of economy, we said, and we did not have the courage to demand that these techniques be written on the label. Nor shall we have the courage to do so now.
Europe can only assert itself with the very high quality wines which it has. God help us if we believe that we can compete with cheap Australian or American wines - we must insist on this point. I said as much when we adopted the practice of adding sugar to wine. We, who take these decisions, shall go down in the history of European oenology as the people who undermined the foundations of excellent European wines. I therefore implore that we get off the slippery slope of these decisions.
(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must say that I agree with what has been said by Mrs Grossetête because I came here driven by the intention of bringing with me the pain, regret and discontent of the wine producing world in Italy and I found myself faced with indifference, like talking to a brick wall. I had hoped it was a by-product of the impersonal translation process but from what I have heard, it seems that there are no openings, that there are no hopes, that there is a gulf.
Not long ago, very recently, in my region - I am from the Veneto - an event was held known as Vinitaly, which is one of the most important events in the world of wine and a hugely successful petition was drawn up there in defence of rosé wines. It was signed by great Italian wineries, great wine producers, but signatures also came from other parts of Europe - signatures came from the public in Holland, France, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine. Passion for rosé wine, as you can see, is authentic and knows no borders except, so it seems, within the European Commission, even though we may talk about culture, local values and tradition.
Speaking as a woman, I would also like to give you something to think about: when we fight against the misuse of alcohol, do you think that we are giving new generations a good service by handing them a low quality drink that I will not even call wine, a cut-price alcoholic drink that has nothing whatsoever to do with any area, culture or quality? Will we succeed in educating them about the use of wine and alcohol as part of a general set of good habits and good practice?
I wanted to leave you with my thoughts, because you are taking on big responsibilities in many senses.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, in recent years you have seen how sensitive a product wine is. Here today we are mainly putting the case for the liberalisation of the wine market regulations. You talk about opening up to the world market. I sometimes wonder, who is guiding whom here?
Traditionally our wine-making has evolved in Europe. Our traditions and our regional identity are what characterises our wine, and that should also guide us in the deliberations we are now having on the wine market regulations. I was struck by the fact that here things have been incorporated into the wine market regulations through Committee, things which we have not debated at all in Parliament!
The question, Commissioner, is what national and regional regulation options still exist? What restrictions or bans can Member States impose for their regions involved in making the lowest grade of wine? That is what this is about, we are not talking about wines of origin and home wines, but about the lowest grade of wines. For example, would the ban on blending red and white wine be a regional or national ban? Would that be possible in future for these low-grade wines?
Or a ban on the indication of grape variety and vintage: this also causes us problems, as we want to be able to differentiate our wines, the lower wines from those described as home wines or wines of origin. So French Rosé or German Riesling, those are names which need a clear, unambiguous regulation. They are linked to our traditional producers and we set great store by this for the future. Therefore, we ask for your support.
Madam President, Mrs Fischer Boel, you gave a negative response to our second question, claiming that at the time of the wine CMO reform, you already carried out the assessment which we are asking for. I am surprised at this: during this reform, there was never a question of permitting an oenological practice consisting of blending white and red wine to make rosé.
I ask you, why do you not follow up our request, which, incidentally, is perfectly reasonable, for consultation with the industry? You wish to take a decision on 19 June, but there is no rush. Moreover, no one has ever asked you to authorise this oenological practice. I do not know what put the idea to table this proposal into your head, when no one in Europe is asking for it.
I would add, with regard to labelling, that you should recognise that producers of traditional rosé wine will never agree to calling this concoction - including the one which Mr Savary prepared - 'rosé'. You therefore need to make an effort in this respect. Commissioner, I truly urge you to give a positive response to our two requests.
Commissioner, earlier you said that you had not received any suggestions and that you were waiting for proposals, and so on.
On the contrary, suggestions have been put to you. You met our wine growers. They told you that they did not want this. They told you that they personally did not want to be forced to specify the designation 'traditional rosé wine' in order to distinguish it from the rosé wine which naturally will not state 'blended'. Therefore you cannot say that no one has suggested anything to you.
Above all, with regard to rosé Champagne, we are well aware that it is an oenological product which has nothing to do with the blending as proposed here: white wine and red wine. We are asking you to find the courage, Mrs Fischer Boel, not to call blended white and red wine 'rosé wine'. This is what we are asking you. This is our suggestion to you. Do not penalise real wine growers.
How do you expect our fellow citizens to understand such a stance on the part of the European Commission? You turn a deaf ear to all our arguments: this is absolutely incomprehensible.
Commissioner, allow me to take the floor once more to tell you that I have heard your arguments and I am sure that you did not come up with this idea yourself: it must have come from a number of lobbyists.
However, I do not think that it is in Europe's interest to constantly aim low, particularly when it comes to food. Countries which did not aim low on an industrial level are now among the global leaders when it comes to trade. The Germans, in particular, have always fought the temptation to level down. Well I believe that, with regard to the food sector, Europe should fight this constant temptation to level down, because this will take it far.
Therefore, what we are proposing is to avoid at all costs having two forms of designation for 'rosé': traditional or blended. There is rosé wine, and there is something else. Organise a European competition to name this something else if you think it should be legalised. Personally, I think that Europe would do well to fight the WTO on this type of product. You are always telling us that we 'capitulate' with respect to everything that comes from elsewhere.
Commissioner, indicating 'rosé wine' on the bottle is pointless, since good rosé wines, such as the Bandol that I have brought you, do not specify the word 'rosé'.
Moreover, indicating 'traditional rosé' on the label is stupid. Rosé is a wine which the young drink; it is a modern wine, even if its production requires traditional know-how. Therefore, there is too much ambiguity. There are not 36 different solutions, there is only one, since, as was explained very well earlier, rosé is a cultural wine, it is a product made by experts. We are not dealing with any old business here. What we need is a pure and simple ban on all blending and mixing in Europe, and in France in particular.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, it has been great to listen to you here tonight, because I still feel that you have got all the passion, you have got all the energy and you have got all the emotion that I experienced about the wine sector when we had our discussions on the wine reform. The cultural heritage and the traditions that are linked to wine are still alive here in the European Parliament.
However, some of the questions raised here tonight totally reopen the political compromise that we made on the wine reform, so I am not going into these issues but will just concentrate on the main problem discussed here tonight.
I completely agree with those of you who have said that quality must be the future for our European agricultural products. That was precisely the reason why during the wine reform - as I am sure you still remember - we reserved a huge amount of money for promoting our European wine on the Third World market: EUR 125 million every year was the figure mentioned when we had these discussions. This was because we know that we have a high-quality product that will be in demand in the new emerging developing countries. So we are on exactly the same wavelength here.
However, I have a certain sympathy as well for wine producers in Europe who have to compete with wine produced by other oenological practices that are allowed in Third World countries. An example is the blending of red and white wine to make a rosé. It is allowed, it is part of the OIV oenological practices, so the European Union today imports rosé wine produced in exactly this way. Why should we prevent our own wine producers from competing with imported wine within the European Union? I therefore think we have taken a balanced approach on this issue.
It was important that we found a way to label our wines to make sure that consumers knew what they bought, and with the PDOs you have the possibility today of putting information on the label to inform the consumer that this is a wine produced by the traditional method. I said in my first speech that I met some wine producers from Provence. They did not like 'traditional rosé' exactly for the reason you said - that it was a bit old fashioned. I then asked for new ideas on another way of labelling that it was the traditional method, but I have had no suggestions on this issue. The idea is to make it optional for Member States whether they make it compulsory within their territory for producers to put on the label whether it is a coupage or a traditional product.
We will have this discussion again in the Regulatory Committee. As I said, a vote will probably take place on 19 June 2009 and then we will look into the outcome of this vote, in which Member States will represent the opinions of their governments. That will be interesting, but I am still quite convinced that what we have proposed, which is in compliance with the OIV oenological practices, will be the way forward for our wine producers to stay competitive on the global market.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 142)
European rosé wine producers are today worried by the Commission's application project regarding lifting the ban on blending white and red table wine in order to make rosé wine.
This new practice undermines quality production and ignores the hard work that producers have put in over many years to create a rosé product which, having been discredited for a long time, has now found its true place on the market and on the tables of countless consumers. This is all the more true given that this practice could mislead consumers.
If the Commission's plan for blending is confirmed by the Member States over the coming weeks, we, together with my colleague Mr Savary, hope that compulsory labelling will be introduced, enabling true rosé wine to be distinguished from a new product made by blending, which consequently could not be called rosé.
Faced with the angry reaction of European wine growers, the European Commission has decided to postpone until 19 June its hasty decision to authorise the production of rosé wine by blending red and white wine.
For all that, this postponement cannot be considered satisfactory by any means. Nor can the decision to propose a distinction between 'traditional rosé' and 'blended rosé' on the label of marketed products, which would not go far enough to effectively counter the unfair competition which the producers will face should this decision be taken.
While for countless years the wine growers of the European Union have put in considerable effort and investment to produce high-quality rosé wine, the Commission's decision will undo these enormous efforts, which have nevertheless had a very positive effect on the economy and the regional development of our territories.
The question which my fellow Members and I asked the Commission today calls for the Commission to clarify its intentions and to ensure that the decision it takes will be based on full consultation with European producers of rosé wine.
Commissioner,
I will not hide from you my deep dissatisfaction faced with your attempts to explain away the blending of 'rosé' wine.
You offer no answers whatsoever to the wine producers with whom I have had the opportunity to talk at length in Provence, and who have depended upon the quality of their products. They dread seeing 30 years of efforts to establish a reputation for rosé - efforts crowned with real commercial success - completely undone today.
You offer no answers whatsoever to all those who regard the authorisation of blending as a major contradiction of the painful mass grubbing-up policies. It is not by seeking to lower our production costs to any old amount that we will emerge the victors of international competition. Rather, we will achieve this by further improving the reputation of our wines.
You offer no answers whatsoever to all those who tell you that labelling will not suffice, since it will have no effect on bottles of wine referred to as 'rosé by blending'.
By postponing the decision on authorisation until after the elections of 7 June, you are ultimately playing the Euroscepticism card.
That is why I solemnly ask you to withdraw this harmful draft, which threatens an economy and a culture alike.
Under the pretext of revising authorised oenological practices, the European Commission may be about to authorise the blending of red and white wine under the designation of 'rosé wine'.
I question calling a blend of different wines 'rosé wine'. It is not just the colour of the wine which should give it its name: it is the variety of grape, the soil and the wine growers' expertise which create a wine, not the final colour of this or that liquid.
In order to produce a blended rosé, the base - more than 95% - must be a white wine, which is tinted with red wine. The fact is, rosé wine is produced from the fermentation of predominantly red grapes or must. Therefore, by authorising the blending of wines, the European Commission would be authorising the outand-out counterfeiting of rosé wine: it would amount to consumer deception.
Besides the insult to wine growers who are pursuing a policy of quality, in particular in Provence, it would be unacceptable to legitimise a by-product resulting from the mixing of finished products and to permit misleading references to the rosé colour.
If another solution is not found, these drinks' labels should be required at least to reflect their true content: 'blended wine' or 'mixture of wines'.


7. Agreement between the EC and Uruguay on certain aspects of air services (vote)


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.35 p.m.)


7. The MDG contracts (


1. Draft general budget for the European Union - Financial year 2007 (vote)
Ladies and gentlemen, I would point out that, according to the Treaties, in order to be approved, draft amendments relating to what we call non-obligatory spending must be voted for by a majority of the members of the European Parliament, that is to say, 367 votes. In the case of proposed amendments relating to obligatory spending, a majority of the votes cast is sufficient.
Before the vote, Mr Elles wishes to propose certain technical amendments.
rapporteur. - Mr President, it is good to get the vote on the 2007 budget under way.
Before we start on the vote on Parliament's first reading, I should like to announce that a small number of technical adjustments need to be made. Rather than read out a very long list of numbers, the list of technical adjustments has been annexed to our voting lists. Following the vote those adjustments will be made by the relevant departments and included in the Minutes of the sitting.
(Parliament accepted the technical amendments proposed by Mr Elles)
(Before the vote on Section I)
rapporteur. - Mr President, I should like to inform you that the resolution will be adapted according to the result of the vote on the budgetary amendments. Therefore, any technical corrections needed will be made by the session services.
(Parliament agreed)


Voting time
The next item is voting time.


Regulation of trading in financial instruments - 'dark pools', etc. (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs Swinburne, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on regulation of trading in financial instruments - dark pools, etc. (2010/2075 (INI)).
rapporteur. - Mr President, I have difficulty explaining to those uninitiated in financial jargon precisely what my report on 'dark pools' refers to. The report formally refers to the trading of financial instruments, including dark pools, which are financial transactions and shares conducted without pre-trade transparency, otherwise referred to as non-displayed trades. The report, more broadly, is an assessment of the implementation of the Markets in the Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) of 2007 with respect to equities and seeks to address structural issues currently apparent in the equities markets.
Despite this being a highly technical report, I am encouraged by the high level of debate that has occurred in the committee. I am glad that the hard work of my colleagues has managed to establish a broad base of support across political groups, turning 194 amendments into 26 compromises, which most groups were able to sign up to.
Given the timing of this own-initiative report and its culmination in a plenary vote this week, I also believe that the European Parliament has added significantly to the Commission's recently released consultation on the MiFID II review (MiFID II), which takes into account many of the issues raised in deliberations in the committee. The European Parliament, through this report, has asked for a number of investigations into the different trading venues that are currently regulated under MiFID and seeks a closer analysis to ensure that venues providing equivalent services are regulated to an equivalent level.
I believe that the Commission, in their consultation document, may have gone a step further in widening its definition of organised trading facilities to include all venues that bring together buyers and sellers. This means a significant loophole may be closed. Yet this solution ensures that proportionality can be maintained in allowing for significant differentiation within the categories for regulated markets, MTFs, SIs, BCNs and derivative platforms.
The new level of scrutiny being suggested for operators of dark pools should be welcomed by investors as, while they currently provide protection from the wider market, they at least have the potential for abuse. Allowing regulators full access to business models should ensure that they can continue as a venue for the discretionary crossing of client orders without allowing them to expand to proportions that will affect price discovery or to provide a cover for market abuse.
As well as this, in terms of MiFID waivers, the European Parliament and the Commission agree that these need to be redefined and their implementation needs to be standardised across the EU. The possibility currently to arbitrage across EU Member States to find the best interpretation of the same rule should no longer be a possibility. During the compilation of this report and its amendment, it was clear that the biggest deficit in MiFID implementation has been the lack of a market version of a European consolidated tape. Investors in the US cannot understand how we in the EU operate without such a tool. There has been general industry acceptance, particularly among investor groups, of its necessity but, for the three years since MiFID implementation, the market participants have failed to come together to provide a European consolidated tape. Like the Commission, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is reticent to go beyond mandating the approved publication arrangements, but if a market solution is not found, then legislation should be supported.
The micro-structural issues currently affecting the equity markets have been a topic of heated debate in committee. There has been agreement that practices like flash orders, spoofing and pinging are unfair or even abusive. However, the committee found it much harder to come to agreement on the role of certain market participants, in particular, the benefits or not of high-frequency trading strategies. In the absence of clear data, it is difficult to draw any solid conclusions on their role - positive or negative - and so, before we propose legislative actions, we need to make sure that we have data so that we do not impose legislation that may be detrimental to the effective functioning of European markets.
Fundamentally, we must ensure the integrity of our financial markets. They are not there for intermediaries or the interlopers to interact with one another. They are there to provide a market place for investors to channel capital to businesses and corporates who act in our real economy. This fundamental function of the markets must be kept centre stage in all of our minds as we go through the legislative process of MiFID II.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Swinburne, of course, this text is extremely complex but, basically, what is it about? Once again, it is a matter of learning the lessons from the crisis. No, we must not do as we did before, yes, we must change the rules of the game, and we must put order back into the system.
There are those people in the different countries of the Union who are now taking advantage of the crisis and of people's anxiety in order to put all the blame on Europe. Everywhere you hear people saying, 'it is because of Europe that things are not working, it is because of the euro, and here is the solution, we must get out of Europe, we must put an end to the euro...' To all those people, we have to keep on repeating that yes, we do need common rules, we have to keep on saying that if the countries of Europe were not united, if they were isolated, they would now be dead. Yes, we need regulation, common policy, common rules, and an overhaul of our rules and better functioning of the system.
Ladies and gentlemen, ultimately, the matter is quite straightforward: together we are strong, in isolation we are dead!
(HU) Mr President, I would like to thank you for allotting time so generously. From now on, I will pay particular attention to which sittings are conducted by you, and I will attempt to attend all of them. Mrs Swinburne's report is very important in that we are finally discussing the regulation of trade in financial instruments. The first and most significant mistake in connection with the report is that the report and the call for further regulations is a belated step. Secondly, if the regulatory framework has been unclear so far, we must explore retrospectively and in depth everything that has happened. I believe that the exclusion of major investments from the scope of stricter supervision is a meaningless and outright mistaken step. Not only the nature of trading, but also the derivatives issued need to be investigated, and new issues must be subject to stricter regulation.
Inflation is actually stimulated by derivative financial market products. The burden of this is borne by the population, while the profits are cashed in by various international legal entities, whose background is not always clear. Moreover, it would not be favourable to redirect profits pocketed in this manner into the real economy, as this may lead to the entire planet gradually slipping into the pockets of the wealthiest.
(RO) Mr President, Mrs Swinburne's report focuses on ensuring that there is a level playing field between multilateral trading facilities. I think that it is also just as important to apply the same level of supervision to them. I would like to stress the need for more suitable legislation, with the aim of reducing systemic risk and ensuring fair competition on the market.
At the moment, there is a worrying lack of information available about trading strategies. The only way to really understand whether the market is operating properly is for the regulatory authorities to have sufficient information. ESMA should draw up common reporting standards and formats applicable to all data, both on organised trading venues and OTC.
I think it would be useful to carry out an investigation into the effects of setting a minimum order size for all dark transactions. It could therefore be established whether an adequate flow of trade is maintained.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, on behalf of the Commission and of Commissioner Barnier in particular, I will answer by saying that improving transparency in financial markets and ensuring that all relevant market actors are subject to appropriate levels of regulation are key aims of this Commission and of the G20.
I would like to congratulate Dr Swinburne and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the report on trading in financial instruments, 'dark pools', etc. The report marks an important step in the context of the ongoing review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID). Its recommendations are being closely integrated into the Commission's thinking as we prepare the proposal for amending the existing directive in 2011. The MiFID review is an important part of the Commission's agenda towards a more stable and transparent financial system working for society and the economy as a whole. Many pieces have already been put in place, not least, the launch of a new EU supervisory authority as of next month.
The Commission is committed to delivering proposals in the remaining areas by summer 2011. We count on the support of the European Parliament in moving swiftly to adopt the necessary reforms in order to ensure they are applied as soon as possible thereafter.
As you know, MiFID is a cornerstone of the EU regulatory framework for financial markets. It pre-dates the financial crisis but has, on the whole, proven to function well, even in the difficult and turbulent times of recent years.
Of course, some shortcomings have emerged. Technological progress and rapid developments in financial markets have also ensured that regulatory devices which were state-of-the-art some years ago are clearly outdated today.
On 8 December, the Commission published draft proposals for a consultation. We intend to be ambitious and comprehensive in tackling all challenges. While recognising that the original objectives of MiFID are still valid, the issues at stake are critical aspects of how our financial markets function, how open and transparent they need to be and how investors can gain access to financial instruments and investment opportunities.
Like the draft Economic Affairs Committee report, we perceive the need for improvements in the regulation of new types of trading platforms and trading methodologies. This should take proper account of the nature of the business with a view to ensuring a level playing field between actors and proper protection for investors as well as against disruptive market practices.
We also agree with the need to improve transparency rules applicable to trading in shares and to introduce new requirements for trading in other instruments. Another important area touched upon also in Dr Swinburne's report is to improve the functioning and regulation of commodity derivative markets in line with G20 principles.
Furthermore, we aim to introduce targeted improvements to the existing rules regarding investor protection. Ensuring all products and selling practices are suitably covered under equal rules is a vital component in restoring investor confidence.
Finally, this review will reinforce supervision and enforcement across financial markets with a key role foreseen for the new European Securities and Markets Authority. In taking the work forward, the Commission services are working closely with our international partners, notably with the responsible regulators in the United States who are looking at the same issues, to ensure international convergence and avoid any risk of regulatory arbitrage.
The report by Ms Swinburne comes at an important juncture in the process of regulatory reform. We are encouraged by the commitment shown by MEPs and by the fact that your analyses and recommendations coincide very closely with ours. This report reinforces the basis for our work ahead.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12:00.
The next sitting will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 14 December 2010, from 09:00 to 13:00, from 15:00 to 20:30 and from 21:00 to 24:00.
The agenda has been published and is available on the European Parliament website.
The sitting is closed.


Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes


Temporary Committee on Climate Change (extension of term of office): see Minutes


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