Prüm Treaty: cross-border cooperation in combating terrorism and cross-border crime - Visa Information System (VIS) - Consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) - Protection of personal data (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on
the report by Fausto Correira, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the initiative by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (Prüm Treaty) [06566/2007 - C6-0079/2007 -
the two reports by Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, one on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short stay-visas - C6-0004/2005 - and the other on the proposal for a Council decision concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by the authorities of Member States responsible for internal security and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences C6-0053/2006
the report by Martine Roure, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (renewed consultation) [07315/2007 C6-0115/2007.
President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing today with three matters that mark very significant progress in cross-border police cooperation in the realm of European home-affairs policy. The first of these matters is the Prüm Convention, an international agreement that was originally concluded by a small number of Member States - there were initially seven, but a further ten states have subsequently acceded to it. The Convention paved the way for Europe's first network of national DNA and fingerprint databases and vehicle registers.
In this way we laid the foundations for a modern information exchange for police forces in Europe while applying high standards of data protection. This Convention that was concluded by some of the Member States is now to become an EU-wide instrument. It is to be incorporated into the legislative framework of the European Union, and its core provisions will apply in all 27 Member States.
We are thereby contributing to the security of the people of Europe, because DNA-matching among a small number of countries has already resulted in the identification of criminals and in convictions for serious crimes. We are also helping to enhance the capacity of the European Union to act, for it is only right that this Convention should no longer be treated as an instrument of international law but as part of our common European legal framework.
I should like to thank all Member States, as well as the European Commission and the Members of the European Parliament, for having helped to clear the way for the replacement of the Convention in spite of a very tight time frame. In converting the Convention into a Council Decision and in implementing that Decision, we shall also take due account of the opinions of the European Parliament.
We shall decide next week on the visa-information system on which we reached political agreement with the European Parliament back in May. Now that an agreement has been reached in Coreper, there is a good chance that the Council will confirm the decision on access next week. A formal agreement will then be concluded once the wording has been checked by the lawyer-linguists.
The visa-information system is a particularly important means of consolidating the area of freedom, security and justice. It will mean that alphanumerical and biometric data can be stored and retrieved during visa procedures. This will help to ensure that we are able to combat multiple visa applications, identity frauds and other forms of deception more effectively than hitherto.
The decision on access to the VIS will also enable security authorities to search the VIS for the purpose of preventing, discovering and investigating terrorist crimes and other serious offences. These new research facilities for the security authorities will be a vital step forward in efforts to protect the public, especially from terrorism and organised crime. Let me stress that the agreement we reached with the European Parliament is a very balanced and sound agreement which reconciles the diverse arguments that have been advanced.
If we manage to improve police cooperation in Europe as these two measures are designed to do, thereby creating more security for our citizens, we must also ensure that data protection is given a high profile in the European Union and that the abuse of data transmitted between Member States is prevented and effectively combated.
For this reason I am delighted that major progress has been achieved in recent weeks on the assignment of the framework decision on data protection to the third pillar, that we were able, with the agreement of the rapporteur of the European Parliament, to deal with a new draft in two readings within the Council working group and that we have sharply reduced the number of the reservations which have been a barrier to rapid progress in the past. This new revised draft guarantees a high level of protection. The protection level prescribed by Council of Europe Convention No 108 of 1981 and by the additional protocol of 2001 will be fully guaranteed.
On the issues of the scope of the decision and the rules relating to non-EU countries, we shall also find sound solutions. The European Parliament has made a very important contribution in this respect, and I should like to thank you most sincerely again on behalf of the Presidency for your extraordinarily rapid treatment of the revised draft. Particularly with regard to the adequacy of the protection afforded by states outside the Union and the inclusion of a provision on the forwarding of data to non-public bodies, we are on the way to finding effective solutions.
I also believe that the evaluation clause proposed by the European Parliament with regard to the scope of the decision is a thoroughly constructive solution, and we shall use the remaining term of the German presidency to achieve further progress. With his fifteen principles for data protection, Commissioner Frattini helped to ensure that we were able to frame the key provisions in this area. At the Council meeting we shall propose a Council statement and press for due adherence to these principles in subsequent deliberations.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not have much to add after the considerations put forward by Mr Altmaier on behalf of the Council. Concerning the first of the topics being debated, we have from the outset supported the German Presidency's initiative to transfer most of the third-pillar provisions of the Prüm Treaty into European legislation.
That will facilitate and strengthen cross-border cooperation among police authorities and will certainly facilitate one factor that is absolutely essential if we want to enhance security in the European area, and that is the exchange of information needed to prevent and suppress crime. This exercise is of course also based on the fact that the provisions of the treaty have been shown to be useful where they have already been applied. We have had the opportunity to read an interesting report supplied by the Presidency on how application of the Prüm Treaty between Germany and Austria has produced some positive and surprising results. It has led to the detection of serious criminal acts precisely because certain provisions of this treaty have been used.
There is an important aspect to this: the application of the principle of availability - that is, the exchange of information, which promotes a flow of information - has to be accompanied by adequate protection of personal data. In the event of improper use, there need to be clear rules on prevention that can stop all that happening once and for all. In my view, it is vital that the Council's decision, already given by the Presidency, is confirmed, and I strongly hope it will be. I am confident that it can be adopted in Luxembourg next week. It contains a clear reference to personal data protection, because unfortunately we do not yet have a framework decision on data protection in this area. This Council decision transferring the articles of the Prüm Treaty into the European acquis therefore clearly has to deal with data protection, as a precondition for making the exchange of information compatible.
A final aspect of the decision concerns periodical assessment. This will be an important assessment of both operational effectiveness - in other words, how this series of measures will work - and the operation of the safeguard clauses. The assessment will also be useful for Parliament, which will of course receive a copy of it.
On the Visa Information System, I have to congratulate the rapporteur, Baroness Ludford, and the Presidency, and also commend them on their joint efforts to reach a good agreement. A good agreement may in any case be useful to ensure that both the security requirements demanded by many governments and the demands for personal data protection are met. These are non-negotiable rights for the European Union. In our consulates and at our border posts we will have better instruments that will work more effectively and will be made available to honest travellers, while they will also enable the police to detect serious infringements of the law. Data protection rules have been firmly incorporated into the VIS. These rules, including those on fingerprints, were absolutely crucial. Thanks to this agreement the Commission can now develop the technical application that will be needed, because, as you know, our aim is to have the VIS up and running by the spring of 2009 as planned.
There is a specific requirement regarding the operational management of the system, which is that the operational management should be entrusted to a technical body, after an impact assessment has been carried out. This technical body may be proposed operationally within the first two years of operation of the VIS, either because of the economic implications that are yet to be assessed or because of the technical impact assessment that is to be performed. I can give you my personal assessment now: if there is going to be an operational management body, it should not be limited just to the VIS, but there should be a single operational body managing both SIS II and VIS together, so as to make the best use of the resources and its capacity for work.
The third topic is the framework decision on data protection. Here again I must thank Mrs Roure for her report, which gives the Council some encouragement. I put forward the proposal way back in 2005; since then I have appealed to the ministers in Council on several occasions; and today we are getting close to a joint solution. On one aspect, I shall repeat my views, which are well known: I would have liked these data protection rules, which are under the third pillar, to apply to the Member States' internal legal systems and not just to cross-border exchanges of data and cross-border cooperation. I therefore agree with Mrs Roure's proposal that, no more than three years after the framework decision is adopted, we should re-examine the purpose and scope of these rules and therefore perhaps also the possibility of extending them to the countries' internal legal systems. Three years is a long enough time.
Mrs Roure mentions an assessment, precisely the one that we are talking about, in order to harmonise the rules on data protection even more. One thing does not rule out the other: both can be done if we use the report which, three years after the system enters into force, should say whether the mechanism is working, where it can be improved and where further harmonisation is possible. We all ought to agree on one thing, which is the need to rule out any use of the data for purposes not specified in advance; in other words, personal data may be used for police and security purposes only if the categories of purposes for which the security authorities may use them have been set out first. That is a key principle, on which we should stand firm.
A debate has yet to be held on the data protection supervisory authorities. Some very careful consideration will certainly be necessary, because the current authorities and the future European authority will have very different attributes, and so more thorough deliberation is probably needed. I have put forward an idea of 15 basic principles to help facilitate agreement. I am very pleased that the President-in-Office of the Council considers the exercise of examining the 15 basic principles that I have proposed to be useful. To conclude, we can make up for lost time, but on this topic we are a long way behind.
rapporteur. - (PT) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, if I may, to make a few brief personal observations on the Prüm Initiative, which Parliament is debating and scrutinising today and tomorrow, and on which I was rapporteur for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
The Council's proposal, presented by Parliament three months ago in almost forensic detail, was debated and analysed with bewildering speed by the committee. To this end - with the constant and total commitment, skill and dedication of the Committee's secretariat - the idea of a public hearing was proposed, involving all public and private actors, in order to gain a suitable understanding of their concerns. This is a process that seeks to strike the right balance between the demands of effective police cooperation and the defence and promotion of fundamental rights.
This exercise in reflection is extremely important given the nature of this proposal, which establishes mechanisms facilitating action on criminal matters and criminal investigations, but which is potentially damaging to the citizens' rights and freedoms, an aspect that cannot and must not be overlooked.
As rapporteur dealing with an initiative of such importance and visibility, my main concerns were, accordingly, to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the demands of effective policing in the fight against the main threats to the very foundations of the EU, namely terrorism and crime, and, on the other, the protection of people's fundamental rights.
Clearly, striking such a balance and transposing it into a text to be accepted by an overwhelming majority of MEPs represented in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, who come from a range of political backgrounds, was no easy task, but was certainly a rewarding one. I honestly believe that the proposals to be put before this Chamber substantially improve upon the draft submitted by the Council. I therefore welcome the fact that the amendments we agreed on, which were the result of a broad consensus among the various groups represented in Parliament and of close collaboration between the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs, were adopted almost unanimously by the committee, with just one abstention. I now hope that they will receive a similarly positive response from this Chamber.
Among the amendments that have been tabled, I should like to highlight the following amendments for their importance to the economy as distinct from what I feel should be subject to a formal framework decision: greater harmonisation of the conditions of access to biometric databases, ensuring that such access is limited to investigations, and, in the case of fingerprint data, to the prevention of serious criminal offences; clear definition of rules applying to joint operations; establishment of strict necessity criteria so that the transmission of personal data is legitimate, especially when it comes to the most delicate situations, major events and preventing terrorist attacks; extending the scope of the chapter on data protection to all forms of processing data, ensuring compliance with all recommendations put forward by the European data protection supervisor; implementation of a maximum period for keeping personal data; establishment of specific safeguards prohibiting the processing of sensitive data that may be used for the purpose of ethnic profiling; strengthening Parliament's role in following up the proposal for a decision, in particular when implementation and assessment measures are adopted; and lastly, clarification of the relationship between this proposal for a decision and the proposal for a framework decision on data protection under the third pillar, the latter always being a general regulatory framework in the matter, in any situation.
Lastly, I should like to acknowledge the importance of integrating intervention mechanisms introduced by the Prüm Treaty - undeniably important mechanisms in the fight against terrorism and organised crime - into the EU's body of law. I must say, however, that I am worried about how the Council will vote on Parliament's opinion.
I should like to conclude by saying that the adoption of the framework decision aimed at stepping up cross-border cooperation, in particular in the fight against terrorism and crime, will clearly lack democratic legitimacy if Parliament's role is either partially or totally ignored. That would do nothing to enhance the citizens' trust in the Union when it comes to the process of building the Community; in fact, it would have quite the opposite effect.


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


15. 2009 progress report on Turkey (
Before the vote on Amendment 13:
author. - Mr President, I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that Amendment 20 to paragraph 35 is withdrawn.


23. Creation of the European Return Fund (2008-2013) (vote)
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - (PL) Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to an outstanding controversy, which is the requirement announced since the beginning of this Parliament making the establishment of a Return Fund conditional on the need to adopt a returns directive by the end of next year.
It is essential for this House to link the Return Fund with a Return Directive, but it has not succeeded in doing so. I would therefore like to inform the Council that it is possible that if a Returns Directive is not adopted, Parliament may make use of its budgetary entitlements and suspend payments to the Return Fund in the 2008 budget. That is why this matter is so important.
I therefore call upon this House to vote in favour of the Return Fund, because previously the Council threatened us with a veto of the Integration Fund. I therefore urge you to vote together in this matter.
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council will continue its work, during which it will be in close contact with the European Parliament to ensure that consensus is reached soon on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally remaining third country nationals.
The Council would point out that agreement on this proposal is one of the priorities that the Council and the Commission set in the action plan on the implementation of the Hague Programme established to strengthen freedom, security and justice in the European Union. The Council will do all it can to promote the achievement of this objective and remind everyone of the European Parliament's role in any agreement on this proposal.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission will continue to encourage the Council in all appropriate fora to make progress on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third country nationals and to intensify negotiations with the European Parliament on this proposal, with a view to reaching an agreement by the end of 2007.
The Commission recalls that agreement on this proposal is one of the priorities set out in the Council and Commission's action plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union.
The European Commission is open to discussions on improvements to the proposal. In doing so, the Commission will, however, remain committed to maintaining the dual objective of the directive: to be an efficient instrument of return policy and, at the same time, an efficient protection instrument for the third country nationals involved. Moreover, the Commission will propose to include the implementation of legislation in the field of return, in particular this directive, as one of the priorities for the strategic guidelines, for the intervention of the Return Fund in the period 2008-13.


34. Food enzymes (vote)
Report: Avril Doyle


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes


2. 2007 discharge: Court of Justice (


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.05 p.m.)


Opening of the sitting


Rights of patients in the EU (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the rights of patients in the European Union.
Mr President, the issue of high-quality health services is of great importance to all European citizens. Moreover, the right to healthcare is a fundamental right recognised by the EU Charter.
Nevertheless, health services are primarily national in nature. There is, however, broad consensus that there is a clear added value in cooperation on health services at European level. Together with the Member States, the Commission has been conducting a mapping exercise on common principles and elements of healthcare in the European Union. Special attention was paid to patients' rights.
According to our preliminary results, there are indeed common elements of patients' rights shared by EU health systems. These include providing timely and appropriate healthcare, sufficient information to patients about different treatment options, respecting confidentiality of health data and compensation for harm from negligence in healthcare. However, the mechanisms in place across the Member States to implement these principles vary widely in practice. They range from patients' rights laws to non-binding patient charters, legal obligations for health professionals, patient ombudsmen, etc. Moreover, those mechanisms do not sufficiently take into account the situation of patients to or from other Member States. This is a particular area where Community on health services could help to improve the situation.
As Parliament is aware, we have recently launched a public consultation regarding Community action on health services. This public consultation explicitly addresses issues directly linked to patients' rights. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, issues relating to patients' rights could be addressed through proposals for Community action in 2007, whilst of course respecting subsidiarity. Whether this would be a legislative proposal or rather take the form of a charter on patients' rights will depend, as I have said, on the results of the consultation. I look forward to listening to the views of Members in today's debate.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Commissioner will not have long to listen to us, but very briefly, there are three rights: the right to treatment, the right to humane and effective treatment, and the right to be involved in decisions affecting one's treatment. I look forward to seeing the Commissioner's proposals being brought forward very soon, in particular where mental health is concerned.
With regard to the right to safe treatment and care, the fact that 10% of hospitalisations result in medical error; the fact that we have hospital bugs such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile; the fact that we have too many needlestick injuries: these are all areas involving patient safety. That is a right that patients should have.
As regards the right to safe patient mobility, the Commissioner has said that he is bringing forward proposals in that area which we look forward to receiving. Among the rights that he will include in that, I am sure, will be the rights to have proper checks on health professionals and on the facilities, hospitals and clinics to which people may be going.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Court of Justice is being asked more and more frequently to rule on matters concerning the rights of patients who receive treatment in Member States other than their own, and the resulting case law could take the place of the democratic decisions that our institutions should be taking on this matter. For this reason, I welcome the Commissioner's initiative. My fear, however, is that the rights established through the proposals you are able to make to us will not become effective in practice for want of adequate frameworks in the Member States.
I am therefore going to ask you a few questions. How do you intend to realise in practice the universal right to health care to which you referred and equality of access within the European Union, given the well-known gulfs between the health levels and between the health-care structures in individual Member States? We recently reviewed the breast-cancer situation and regrettably reached the collective conclusion that the recommendations made by the European Union on prevention had not been acted upon in some Member States, to the detriment of the patients concerned. As far as obesity is concerned, you indicated yourself a few days ago that, if self-regulation did not work, the European Union would take legislative action. There are also proposals from Members of this House on the question of mental health and on the possibility of legislation in that area.
Do you not think that the European Union should take the lead today on health matters? It must show greater ambition and, in particular, raise the general quality of health systems, though not neglecting, of course, the parallel issues, for we are well aware of the adverse effects that poor living conditions can have on people's health.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, we are truly delighted that this important debate is taking place so promptly after a question on patients' rights was tabled by several ALDE Group members, which was in fact initiated by Dr Parvanova, a Bulgarian Observer colleague. We are also very grateful to Commissioner Kyprianou for the genuine interest and concern he has shown in speedily and efficiently dealing with the question on patients' rights in the EU.
With regard to the Commission statement which is the subject of this debate, we take the view that it should cover areas like recognition that comparable standards of healthcare and a common set of patients' rights should be discussed at EU level in order to have the added value of the internal market on healthcare issues, and in order to empower patients to fully recognise and exercise their rights.
Furthermore, we have always believed that in the discussions on patients' rights in Europe, the Commission should take into account previous work done by civil society organisations in respect of drafting the European Charter of Patients' Rights.
(SK) I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue. In the European Union the very notion of 'patients' rights' is purely theoretical, as there is considerable legal uncertainty in this area. With regard to transborder healthcare provision, patients' rights have been shaped exclusively by the rulings of the European Court of Justice, and that only since 1998, when the ECJ ruled in the Kohll vs. Decker case. We cannot expect the public to be familiar with the fact that on 16 May 2006 the Court of Justice ruled in the case of Yvonne Watts, clearly stating that where waiting times are exceedingly long and the patient's life is at risk, the patient has the right to receive treatment abroad and to have treatment-related costs reimbursed in the home country. The average citizen is often unaware of such rulings. We need legislation which is binding on the Member States, and which will communicate to patients all they need to know about how to find a medical specialist abroad, as well as details of healthcare reimbursement procedures. We can derive some hope from the health services directive referred to in the Commission's communication, although it is still premature to talk about when this directive might be adopted. I would like to point out that members of the public may submit comments on this communication up until 31 January 2007. At the same time, the quality of healthcare and the availability of up-to-the-minute techniques and theories vary among the Member States. We must offer patients the opportunity to choose where they want to be treated, as unduly long waiting lists may keep people waiting until they die.
(DE) Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for this debate and to thank Mrs Parvanova, without whose question this debate would not have been possible.
Commissioner, you have instituted a public consultation process on the issues surrounding patient mobility. That is the perfect way to clear up questions such as: what gaps in the legislation are there in an internal market for health services that is, in fact, not a real internal market at all? What shape could common standards on patient rights in Europe take? What access do patients have to information, and not just information in relation to their rights, but also in relation to their medication? At present, information of this nature is restricted in Europe, as we all know, and represents a fundamental obstacle to good health. What arrangements would health tourism bring about when correctly implemented, and what aid opportunities and productivity would it bring the European Union?
We should think of Europe as a single health area. That should be our vision. Perhaps the public consultation process could be the first step in the right direction.
Mr President, I should like to thank the House for the debate. We have the opportunity to exchange views on different occasions, and this is a very important issue.
I will be able to offer more specific replies after the end of the consultation process which, as I have already mentioned, is taking place now. However, all the issues mentioned by Mr Bowis and other colleagues - the right to treatment, patient safety, patient mobility - are not only part of this consultation process but also in different initiatives as well. As you know, we have these on patient safety for example or to deal with inequalities.
Part of the debate in this consultation process will also deal with the issue of quality and standards and whether we should introduce European Union level standards on healthcare. Those are part of the questions that we will be discussing. This is also linked to the serious problem of inequalities that exist on health, not just between Member States, but even within Member States. To a certain extent, patient mobility can address some of these problems, but this is not always the solution. The target should always be to raise as much as possible the level and the standard in the Member States. Whatever we discuss we should always bear in mind that patients would rather be treated at home where their families and friends are and where they speak the language.
As to the tools, I believe we will be using all possible and available instruments. It is a complex issue that will require a comprehensive approach and there will be a package of measures, some of which will be legislation - when it comes to creating and offering legal certainty we need to resort to legislation.
As I have said, it is a big and complicated issue that will require a step-by-step approach, but I am optimistic enough to hope that we will be able to present the first proposal before the end of next year. That will be just the first step. Others will follow.
Finally, an important aspect of this process will be to create informed and empowered patients - informed as to treatment, medicine, the possibilities of cross-border healthcare and how to choose a physician. All these are important aspects, otherwise, all the other rights, unless we have an informed patient, will not be taken advantage of and will not be of benefit to the patient. This is also an important part of our initiative and effort.
As I have said, we are now in the middle of the consultation process. Today we have had our first ministerial reflection process specifically on this issue. We will continue the consultation process until the end of January and after that we will be able to discuss it in more detail with Parliament as well. I am also looking forward to receiving Parliament's views on this issue in the consultation process. I consider this to be just the beginning of the debate and I expect to be able to go into more detail next year.
The debate is closed.
Written statement (Rule 142)
(NL) Where patient rights within Europe are concerned, this House must try to retain, and strengthen, its leading role. Much progress remains to be made, though, in the area of information for patients. The European citizen has the right to be better informed; after all, the right to information for the patient is enshrined in the European Charter for hospital patient rights.
Patients should be better informed about possible medicines and other treatments. Why should doctors have a monopoly on this information? What the Liberals want to see is more information provided to the consumers, if I may call them that, and there have been major developments on the medicines front over recent years.
Patients' attitudes have undergone radical change. More and more of them believe they are entitled to more information, and more and more of them actively look for information about the treatment of their disorder. Patients want to shoulder some of the responsibility for their own treatment. In many cases, they seek contact with other patients suffering from the same illness in order to exchange information. When citizens are fully informed, they probably make other choices, which is something they have every right to do.


4. Tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers (


Freight transport in Europe (debate)
The next item is the report by Michael Cramer, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on freight transport in Europe.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs most sincerely in connection with the report on freight transport in Europe as well as the secretariat of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, particularly Mr Catot. Cooperation was fruitful, not least because it showed that the report had been unanimously accepted in committee without any negative votes or abstentions.
Europe's citizens are increasingly suffering under the burden of rising freight traffic, particularly on the roads. My report strives to bring the scourge of the lorry under control. The European Commission has clear objectives for its action plan on freight transport, which it wants to introduce soon.
The independent rail freight network in Europe is unequivocally rejected. Even if it is a pleasant dream, mixed traffic is in most countries comfortable on tracks, i.e. freight and passenger trains travel on the same tracks. The utilisation of existing infrastructure must therefore be improved at every technical and logistical opportunity and - of course - must also be extended when necessary.
The report on the Commission's idea of 'green corridors' has provided greater substance. Transport should be shifted on to environmentally friendly modes of transport in order to reduce not only accidents, congestion and noise, but also air pollution and encroachment on the countryside. Renewable energies ought to have an important role in this, whereupon wind and solar power are expressly mentioned in the report.
With the acceptance of the user and polluter pays principles for all modes of transport, the report also delivers a clear message in the debate on the Eurovignette: transport by heavily polluting lorries should no longer be subsidised, and external costs must be completely internalised.
(Heckling)
... and particularly for aircraft.
Shifting freight traffic from road to rail remains a central aim. For this reason the report is demanding a minimum investment of 40% of EU transport funds in the railways. Only around 17% of freight is transported by rail in Europe. In the highway country of the United States, however, the proportion is 40%. The EU will only be able to deal with the increase in freight traffic if it improves its rail infrastructure. The Member States' transport ministers are being asked as a matter of urgency to look beyond their national perspectives and make the investments necessary for Europe in their own countries.
Interconnection of transport modes is also important. A standard carriage document is also required for shipment by sea, rail, lorry and aircraft, a European maritime transport space without barriers, a not only European, but also worldwide standard for intermodal loading units and, in particular, a better connection between maritime and river ports and the hinterland's road and rail network.
Despite the unanimous vote, my group put forward amendments because some votes in committee were extremely close. The most important amendment concerns the challenge to the Commission to specify the areas of major congestion and problems in the European rail freight transport system. This kind of analysis is necessary in order to quickly eliminate the weak spots in the rail network and thus create greater capacity. The Commission itself, incidentally, has very much welcomed this idea and I hope that tomorrow - during the vote in plenary - a majority will be obtained on this.
Many thanks once again to all my fellow Members and for their attentiveness.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, in a set of four communications adopted in 2007 and 2008, the Commission has developed its strategy for improving the performance of the systems of freight transport in Europe. These communications are: firstly, the EU's freight transport agenda, boosting the efficiency, integration and sustainability of freight transport in Europe; secondly, the action plan for freight transport logistics; thirdly, towards a rail network giving priority to freight; and fourthly, the multiannual contract for rail infrastructure quality.
I am particularly pleased to see that all of these communications have now become the subject of a motion for a resolution in your assembly, which indicates the importance Parliament attaches to this matter.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Michael Cramer, for the work that he has done, and all the Members who have contributed to it.
In terms of tonnes per kilometre, the White Paper of 2001 foresaw a 50% growth in goods transport in Europe between 2000 and 2020. The Commission will update that estimate next year, but it is already clear that it was pretty accurate. The major challenges presented by this growth, the fight against congestion and climate change, reductions in pollutant emissions and guaranteed security of the energy supply are more topical now than ever they have been.
The choice of means of transport should, therefore, be directed towards the least pollutant ones, although each means of transport, including road transport, should be used where it is most efficient and most suitable.
There is also a need to improve the efficiency of the European transport system by implementing measures aimed at introducing information technology on a large scale, in administrative simplification as well as enhanced service quality.
I welcome the fact that the draft report is encouraging the Commission to pursue a goods transport policy that places a greater emphasis on sustainability. Our wish is to create a transport system that is reliable, effective and viable, both financially and environmentally. To this end I am convinced that co-modality - that is, the rational and optimum use of all modes of transport on their own and in combination - must become one of the guiding rules behind our thinking and action.
In addition, the various modes of transport must meet a number of performance criteria that are essential to competitiveness. In particular, punctuality, regularity, reliability, high quality, sufficient capacity, interoperability and transnational coordination on international corridors are some of the watchwords for an array of services that has the customer absolutely in mind. It is through specific, immediate action at a controlled cost such as those contained in the text of your resolution, together with other European initiatives such as the Green Paper on the future of the TEN-T, that we will be able to increase the efficiency of the European transport system.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my group supports the own-initiative report by the Committee on Transport and Tourism with its multifaceted proposals for freight transport in Europe. The framework conditions for environmentally friendly freight transport tailored to suit market needs are crucial for growth and employment in the European Union.
I must also say, however, that the European Union and the Member States are being called upon to increase their efforts considerably in developing and upgrading efficient transport structures. We shall be reminding the Commission of this when we carry out the mid-term review of finances. Making grand speeches does not help if the money is not made available to upgrade the trans-European networks. Upgrading the transport infrastructures applies in particular to rail transport. The priority here is to upgrade the most heavily used rail corridors and equip them with the ERTMS cross-border European rail traffic control system so that we quickly shift freight transport from road to rail. However, to tell you the truth, Commissioner, when you compiled the list of proposals for freight services - I still remember that Neil Kinnock had already had the idea of separate rail networks for freight transport - you were once again acting on the Commission's proposal 'Towards a rail network giving priority to freight'. Since that time nobody at the Commission has been talking about this because you and we know that there is not enough money to provide a second rail network alongside a normal, sensibly developed system tailored to suit market needs. As the Commission you should therefore be telling the truth: the idea of separate freight networks is dead. Let us develop sensible, dual-use networks: primarily passenger trains by day and primarily freight trains by night. We then have to resolve the problem of noise because in cities in Germany and elsewhere, and along the Rhine, the noise at night really gets on citizens' nerves and stops them sleeping. Therefore, let us talk about practical sound-proofing measures on the railways, on the trans-European networks and on the dual use of the rail network.
It is even more important, however, that we take sensible action on the logistics. That, Mr Cramer, is mentioned all too little in the report. It is important that the Member States and the EU work more effectively together with industry and the service enterprises in order to make better use of the freight logistics. The use of logistics is, of course, a primary task of the enterprises. They know best how logistics are used. However, the European Union and the Member States can help by lifting unnecessary national restrictions and - this I fully concede to Mr Cramer - by providing standard customs documents, for example, in order that better use can be made of the logistics. Let us therefore upgrade the infrastructure nationally and let us cooperate with the industry in determining the best use of transport logistics.
Madam President, I would first of all like to thank the Commission for the Logistics Action Plan, which has taken into account the majority of the European Parliament's previous proposals. I would also like to thank Mr Cramer, the rapporteur, for being open to constructive dialogue. This has achieved a more integrative text in which logistics should not only contribute to the sustainability of transport in general, and of freight transport in particular, but also to improving mobility by including logistical solutions for all modes of transport and support for green corridors as models of mobility and convenience.
I also welcome the fact that emphasis is placed on using the existing rail traffic networks which are being freed up as a result of the progress made with high-speed passenger trains, and can be specifically dedicated to freight transport.
I also think that the inclusion of the prominent role of internal logistical platforms and dry docks is important, as well as the promotion of urban logistics through determinedly enhancing the logistics aspect of the very interesting CIVITAS programme, which we welcome.
We would also like to thank Mr Cramer for the emphasis placed on the logistics factor in priority cross-border rail freight corridors, among which I must mention the line that includes the central Pyrenees crossing that will be a future link between the Spanish logistical platforms such as Plaza and those in the South of France.
To conclude I would like to draw the Commission's attention to the proposal to arrive at a programme for strengthening cooperation between the national logistics plans of the Member States by the end of this year, which would help to prepare more effective formulas for mitigating the current shortage of resources and dealing with the needs of what is a key sector at this time, in this economic climate, in which fuel prices, the demands of combating climate change, the peripherality caused by enlargement and the dangerous working conditions in the sector mean that it is more urgent that intelligent, innovative and attractive solutions are applied, which only an ambitious European logistics action plan can offer us.
My group therefore supports Mr Cramer's report and his Amendment 4 on multi-annual contracts.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Madam President, at various stages of the production process goods are hauled to a faraway place, subsequently ending up in a completely different place as finished products. They are often transported in the most environmentally unfriendly way: by lorry on the increasingly congested motorways. The enormous growth in freight transport, which is still continuing, has been caused by a steady decrease in the costs involved. This is bad news for the environment, for safety, for working conditions and also for animal welfare. My group therefore opts for restricting the growth in transport, and for transferring the necessary remaining transport to the railways and inland waterways as far as possible. This desire is reflected in toned-down form in the European Commission proposals and in the supplementary proposals by the rapporteur, Mr Cramer.
We object to the possibility of precedence being given to freight transport at the expense of passenger trains, however. The growth in freight transport may necessitate a supplementary infrastructure to prevent the two interfering with each other. In addition, I would draw attention to the problems with the launch of the uniform European safety system ERTMS. Investment in this will be beneficial for the future, but will cause problems in the short term.
Madam President, I should like to start by thanking Mr Cramer for his work as rapporteur. The report is a good one, and I should like to highlight the following aspects of it.
Freight traffic must be unrestricted, honest and clean, and we are working hard in this House to make this happen. Earlier this year, the end of cabotage restrictions came into view. That was a good start. This report continues in that vein, and that is excellent. The rapporteur rightly points out that urban freight logistics require a specific approach. It is of the utmost importance that European towns and cities be cleaned up. I think that computerised speed adjustment in towns and cities is an excellent instrument, therefore, and I hope that the European Commission will support measures and make proposals to ensure that freight transport in towns and cities is not constantly having to brake and accelerate. This is the way to make freight transport faster and cleaner.
(RO) The Union's economic development and competitiveness depend on efficient transport of goods. We have to develop the railway infrastructure, the maritime corridors, the ports infrastructure and co-modality. Improving the connections between seaports and river ports and the inland railway and road network is an important component of the logistic infrastructure.
Romania's and Bulgaria's accession provides the European Union with an exit to the Black Sea. The Danube is now almost entirely a waterway inside the Union. This means new opportunities for the European transport of goods. Nevertheless, I emphasize that the efficient transport of goods needs: balanced use of all types of transport, decongesting traffic, simplifying procedures, legislative stability, investments in logistics systems and intelligent transport systems, such as Galileo, but especially ensuring transportation safety.
Programmes such as Naiades and Marco Polo are not sufficiently used by Member States in order to improve the transport of goods. Nevertheless, I call the Commission's attention to the barriers met by some road carriers, and I refer to the Romanian ones, when transiting the territory of certain Member States.
Madam President, Commissioner, we also have to think of our own failings, of course. We cannot always be talking about sustainable transport on Sundays and doing the opposite from Monday to Friday. It does seem to be the case that in the Commission 60% of the money flowing into transport flows into roads as co-financing and only 20% of it into environmentally friendly railways.
It can be said that transport in Europe is too cheap and environmentally friendly transport too expensive. This is also to do with the framework conditions. We do, for example, have a compulsory rail toll system for each Member State. This applies to every engine, every kilometre of track, whereas the toll in environmentally damaging road transport is voluntary, its amount is limited and it applies only to motorways, and usually only to lorries of 12 tonnes or more. You need to change these unfair framework conditions, otherwise you will resolve neither problems to do with climate policy nor transport problems. The forecast is that traffic is on the increase. But why is it on the increase? Because it does not cost anything.
There are several examples that could be mentioned. I should like to mention one example from your home country. The United Kingdom exports 1.5 million tonnes of pork every year. If you look at the balance of imports, this shows that the United Kingdom also imports a further 1.5 million tonnes of pork. We could eliminate this. We could eliminate this transportation and use the capacity, which we definitely need, to do so. In Europe we therefore have to eliminate a lot of the nonsense over transport capacity and then we have to shift transport over to environmentally friendly modes and design it to be efficient so that we can guarantee mobility, while providing people with the goods, but also protecting the environment, because this is the order of the day.
Without a healthy environment, neither we nor our children and children's children have the future we all want.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 4 September.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - Sustainable and efficient freight transport must indeed seriously be improved as the transport sector is responsible for a large share of CO2 emissions in the Union. As the sector is expected to grow substantially, increasing its efficiency and sustainability should be seen as an opportunity to develop its economic competitiveness and to create numerous jobs.
The Union should therefore allocate resources sufficient to achieve the ambitious objectives of improved mobility, intermodality in transport modes, energy efficiency, reduced consumption of oil and reduced pollution. We welcome therefore the strategic approach of the proposed Freight Transport Action Plan and its objectives: to focus on freight corridors using a combination of the various modes of transport; to promote innovative technologies and infrastructures; more efficient freight transport management and to enhance the attractiveness of modes of transport other than road. To ensure the success of a sustainable European transport policy, we - of course - have to bear in mind the importance of fostering synergies and complementarities with other European policies such as energy and environment policies.
Cross-border harmonisation of national rules and synergy with the other related policies are necessary conditions for the achievement of the objectives of sustainable and efficient freight transport.


12. Housing and regional policy (vote)
- Report: Andria


Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes