Generalised tariff preferences (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Scholz, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 - C7-0135/2010 - 2010/140(COD)).
Mr President, Mrs Győri, Mr De Gucht, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing an important aspect of international trade policy very late in the day. Given its importance, I would have preferred the House to be full, with all the seats occupied. The European Union's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) is a major achievement of European trade policy. It opens up our market to the poorest countries in the world for all types of goods except arms. It also gives developing countries trade concessions on a whole range of products. GSP+ is a valuable incentive system which offers developing countries further concessions if they sign and put into practice important international agreements on human rights, labour standards and protecting the environment. However, the system does have weak points and it needs to be updated regularly.
Over the years, the European Parliament, partner countries, companies and non-governmental organisations have made important suggestions for improving the system. The whole world is now waiting for the Commission to issue its proposal on the much-needed revision of the system. The deadline for this proposal was 1 June 2010. The Commission has not delivered on time and its failure to do so has left the countries involved and companies both inside and outside the EU in a dangerous state of uncertainty. The existing regulation must now be revised.
You are attempting to rescue the situation by means of a transitional regulation and this is what we will be voting on tomorrow, that is on Thursday. The transitional regulation is simply an extension. It does not change anything, it does not improve anything and it does not implement the new requirements resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon. This has given rise to feelings not only of surprise but also of displeasure within the European Parliament and, as the rapporteur, I have felt the same. It is the obligation of the Members of this Parliament to ensure that the rights, the duties and also the powers granted to the elected representatives of the citizens of Europe by the Treaty of Lisbon are respected. It is also our obligation to make sure that the reduction in tariffs brings about a genuine improvement in the situation of the developing countries. In order to protect the EU's partners from the consequences of a long-drawn-out procedure, I suggested initially to the Committee on International Trade that only those elements of the regulation should be amended which are necessary to allow Parliament to fulfil its new role.
At the same time, I would like to emphasise that I also believe a general redrafting of the GSP and GSP+ schemes is needed. During the intensive meetings with the Council and the Commission on the legal issues resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon which affect the transitional regulation, Parliament finally decided to take a big leap of faith. At this point, I would like once again to express my sincere thanks to the chair of the Committee on International Trade, Professor Moreira, for his untiring efforts as mediator and also to you, Mr De Gucht, for the Commission's assurance that key amendments, in particular with regard to informing and involving Parliament, would be addressed in practice. Therefore, we decided to drop all our amendments, in order to enable the transitional regulation to come into force as quickly as possible. We did this primarily in the interests of our partners and of the companies which are affected.
The Commission's assurance includes a promise in future to inform the European Parliament in full, immediately and at the same time as the Council about work relating to essential aspects of the GSP and about all developments and to share all documents relating to the GSP. The Commission also guarantees that the European Parliament will be notified about any suspension of preferences, in accordance with Article 16(3), about withdrawals, including the corresponding investigation reports from the Commission, in accordance with Article 17, and about safeguard decisions, in accordance with Articles 20 and 21, before they come into force.
We welcome the tabling of Omnibus 1 and the Commission's readiness to enter into an in-depth discussion of the proposals which it has made in Omnibus 1. At the same time, we would like to remind the Commission that Omnibus 2 must be tabled urgently.
Finally, I would like to emphasise once again that Parliament has made a concession on the transitional regulation. We must not forget that we need to fight for the ongoing and fundamental implementation of Parliament's parliamentary rights.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Scholz, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr President, let me continue in English. Because of the terminology, I think that it is more appropriate to use English. Ever since the Commission presented its proposal to extend, for a limited period of time, the application of the current GSP regulation - the so-called roll-over proposal - the Council has been consistently reiterating before this House the importance of adopting this proposal in good time. This is to ensure that developing and less developed countries will continue to benefit from the EU's general system of preferences, which is a fundamental element of the EU's trade policy towards developing countries.
The Council is glad to see that the first step towards the adoption of this proposal at first reading is taking place today here in the European Parliament. We will take the necessary steps as quickly as possible to confirm the agreement between our institutions on the basis of your position adopted today. At the same time, the Council is looking forward to the forthcoming presentation by the Commission of its proposal for the comprehensive review of the EU's GSP.
We should tailor the scheme to better help those developing economies which most need the preferences, and ensure that it becomes an even more efficient development and foreign policy tool by providing incentives for good governance. With that in mind, the Council expresses its readiness to work together with Parliament in a spirit of good cooperation with a view to putting in place a modern, comprehensive and fully functional legal framework which will be conducive to developing countries' needs.
Let me conclude by taking this opportunity to fully acknowledge, on behalf of the Presidency, the positive and constructive efforts by both the Chair of the INTA Committee, Mr Moreira, and the rapporteur for this dossier, Mr Scholz, to reach an agreement on this proposal.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I warmly acknowledge the support within the Committee on International Trade for the proposal on the extension of the regulation applying the scheme of generalised tariff preferences. Our particular thanks go to the rapporteur, Mr Scholz and to the Chair of the INTA committee, Mr Moreira, for their willingness to find a pragmatic solution on how to address Parliament's concerns on the application to the existing GSP regulation of the new rules on delegated and implementing acts.
You will remember that the extension was proposed as a means to bridge the period necessary to adjust to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and to submit a new regulation on the future EU GSP scheme. The European Parliament's support as expressed in the INTA Committee's vote on 3 March paves the way for successful continuity of the current scheme to the benefit of developing countries and the EU. It also reinforces the EU's role and commitment to the objectives of EU development policy.
The Commission has heard Parliament's concerns on the decision-making aspects of the GSP regulation loud and clear. In this regard, we can reconfirm our full and active support for the European Parliament to play its role in relation to trade policy as foreseen in the Lisbon Treaty. For this reason, the Commission is committed to discussing in a constructive spirit Parliament's concern as expressed over the last few weeks. This discussion will continue in the context of the two Commission proposals for a regulation adjusting decision-making in the field of trade policy in the light of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty - Omnibus I and Omnibus II.
In parallel, the Commission will make every effort to act on Parliament's request to be kept fully informed about work related to essential aspects of GSP. This is indeed crucial in order for Parliament to be able play its role in trade policy effectively. For this reason, the Commission, building on existing requirements, will inform Parliament and the Council immediately of all important developments and share all GSP-relevant documents.
Finally we are looking forward to further discussions with you on the future scheme of generalised preferences further to the proposal for a new regulation which will come your way in May. I stand ready to discuss the main elements of the proposal at the earliest opportunity after it is adopted by the Commission.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - (HU) Mr President, I am very pleased that the rapporteur's willingness to compromise made the timely extension of the scheme of tariff preferences possible. The Hungarian Presidency of the European Council played a very important part in this process. Failure to extend the scheme of tariff preferences now would have an extremely adverse effect on the poorest countries of the world. It is regrettable, however, that the European Commission submitted this proposal to Parliament late, and we could not have a meaningful debate here, even though the GSP Regulation would deserve an amendment. That is because the tariff preferences we are granting to the richest oil exporting countries of the world, such as the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, are unjustifiable. It is worth considering whether Russia, which is not a member of the WTO because it did not wish to join it, and very often uses commercial policy to exert foreign policy pressure, is worthy of receiving commercial preferences.
It is also worth considering how we could integrate sustainability criteria into the scheme of tariff preferences. After all, today commercial preferences are also granted to countries which otherwise hinder the adoption of climate protection agreements on the international scene or, for that matter, export to the European Union goods produced in an unsustainable manner, often through the destruction of rainforests or tremendous CO2 emissions. I believe that the next tariff preference scheme will have to address these issues as well.
Mr President, if we are here debating how long the current scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP) will be in force, it is because the Commission has failed in its obligation to table the proposed substantive revision of this scheme within the proper timeframe.
Therefore a rollover period for the current regulation is expected in order to maintain the benefits of international trade enjoyed by developing countries, starting with the poorest, when accessing the European market. It is crucial that this proposal be adopted without further delay, in order for countries benefitting from the GSP to continue to benefit from it, and for the economic players that will, in this way, be able to develop their trade relations with the necessary predictability and legal security.
That is why I, as Chair of the Committee on International Trade and as shadow rapporteur, have advocated that the rollover should be a rollover and nothing more, with even the European Parliament giving up on an ad hoc adaptation of this regulation to the Commission's implementing acts, and giving us faith that it will be brought into line in the near future, using the so-called 'omnibus' regulations.
I would like to stress that, based on this understanding, the decision taken by the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs and the remaining members of the committee, influenced the European Commission's commitment - which was today reiterated by Commissioner De Gucht and I sincerely thank him for his care - to henceforth guarantee the European Parliament that there will be timely and complete information about every relevant act relating to the application of the current regulation, in line with the Treaty of Lisbon's provisions regarding the common commercial policy.
One final word to thank the rapporteur, to thank the Commission and also to thank the Council for this compromise, which will enable Parliament to properly look after the interests of Europe and of those who rely on us.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Generalised System of Preferences is one of the few methods of differentiation that works in favour of developing countries in international trade. It is a delicate instrument that must be used in the best way.
Tonight we are talking about an extension, which means that the Commission date will be postponed once the new final proposal has been submitted. In the meantime, however, we are saying that this is a tool to be handled with caution, and that also applies to inter-institutional relations. Until now, even on the basis of the pre-Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has not always been fully involved in decisions, as happened at the time of the discussions on Colombia or Sri Lanka that fired the enthusiasm of this House.
We must also consider the merits of an ex-post evaluation of the decision to implement the regulation. What is the impact of the effects of a tariff reduction, what about its suspension, what are its mechanisms, what is its procedure? Sometimes an on-the-spot examination of these issues may reveal surprises and suggest the most relevant criteria to make the impact of the regulation as effective as possible.
As far as the conditions are concerned, the world is changing and the instrument must show greater compliance with regard to those countries rewarded by the tariff concessions. The main concept of respect for human rights must be complemented by a broader vision in which, as noted by the rapporteur Mr Scholz - whom I thank for the excellent work he has done in this report - various indicators are taken into consideration: post-conflict rehabilitation, the specific situation of women, trade unions, the situation of recovery after natural disasters, environmental sustainability and compliance with international social agreements.
If we were to adopt a combination of these criteria, I would not be surprised if the list of beneficiary countries we came up with were different from the current list and perhaps more deserving, but we will be able to talk about this again once we have the final proposal for a regulation.
(PT) Mr President, given that the current scheme of generalised tariff preferences expires at the end of the year, it is important, as has already been said, for the Commission to table its new draft of the comprehensive revision of the system on time.
Now we are only just discussing the extension necessary to ensure legal certainty and guarantee mutual interests. However, the importance of this subject whether for developing countries or also EU Member States, above all for those with weaker economies whose industrial, agricultural or social interests are not always taken into consideration in the international trade agreements promoted by the Commission, makes a detailed discussion necessary in order to take account of all the potential aspects, consequences and impacts of this system on a future regulation, the draft of which must reach Parliament as quickly as possible.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this measure concerns the Generalised System of Preferences, in other words reductions on import duties for third countries which take on certain commitments to international treaties or agreements on sensitive issues such as employment rights and the environment. These requirements should be periodically reviewed and updated on the proposal of the European Commission, but unfortunately we are not here to vote for a revision but an extension of the old rules.
At this sensitive time of not only economic but also political international crisis, not to revise and update the conditions for access to or exclusion from the list is a choice that goes against the best interests of the European Union. Despite the non-linear behaviour of the European Commission, we will still nevertheless vote in favour, because we believe in this tool favouring third countries that particularly distinguish themselves compared with others over issues considered to be strategic.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I listened to the interventions. I understand that the groups agree that we should extend the existing system, but that they are waiting to have the new system on their desks as soon as possible. That is what we will do. We are working on it. As you know, before you can make a legislative proposal you need a public consultation, which takes time. You need an impact assessment, which takes time. Then, of course, you also have the internal decision-making process within the European Commission, on a subject which is far-reaching.
This is about a financial system which will apply for quite a period of time. We want the system to be much more selective than it was in the past, so that we can help those who really need it. At this moment in time, more than 150 countries are beneficiaries of the system. It is not at all selective. You could even ask yourself what the use of such a system is. We are thoroughly reviewing it.
We will come forward with our proposals within a couple of months. Parliament will then have the possibility to discuss them with us thoroughly. I would also like to repeat our pledge that we will keep Parliament fully informed.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, the reform of the GSP will be a focal point for the Council and for the Presidency. With the review of the current scheme, which is to start under our Presidency, Parliament and the Council will have a unique opportunity to reflect the profound changes in the global economy, particularly the vastly increased competitiveness of emerging partners.
The Presidency took careful note of the valid concerns emphasised by Mr Rinaldi on the effective implementation of the GSP. The Council is looking forward to considering that issue and many others on the basis of the Commission's forthcoming proposal for the new GSP.
Let me emphasise once again how grateful I am to the rapporteur and to the Committee Chair, Mr Moreira, for their cooperation. I think this is a victory for common sense, because they understood that it was an urgent and important issue. We really did not want to create any legal problems. For me this is a kind of model and I very much hope that, on other issues on which we have such legal disputes, this will serve as a very good example of smooth relations between the Council and Parliament.
Mr President, Mrs Győri, Mr De Gucht, I would first of all like to thank the shadow rapporteurs very much for working together so constructively. Now that we have finally agreed on the formal aspects of the transitional regulation, I would like to make use of this debate to explain briefly some of the requirements for the future regulation.
The new version of the regulation should have the following basic objectives: 1. To increase the efficiency of the system; 2. To develop rules that will provide for a better regulated reform process in which the involvement of the beneficiaries is guaranteed; 3. To ensure that the regulation gives due weight to the task of democratic control which Parliament is required to perform. This includes proposals from the Committee on Development.
The new Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) should be a clearer and more transparent system. I would like to make three points in this respect and the first concerns the rules of origin. The rules of origin and the administrative procedures that accompany them are one of the main reasons why the trade preferences granted by the GSP are being underused, particularly by the least developed countries. In the current version of the system, the rules of origin often prevent preferences that exist on paper from having a positive impact. I have just come back from the Parliamentary Conference on the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Geneva and this problem was very high up on the list of issues discussed there. In my opinion, the EU should campaign within the WTO for the preference system to be given priority as part of its work on harmonising the rules of origin.
My second point concerns the partner countries. Here I feel that it is particularly important for us to develop more straightforward criteria. The Gini coefficient is a good example of this type of criterion. As already mentioned, we need to be more flexible in order to be able to respond more effectively.
My third point is about technical assistance. Preferences alone are not enough. We need to increase the impact of the system and improve the rate of utilisation of the GSP by providing technical assistance.
This is all about a general improvement of the preference system as a whole. I would like to thank everyone involved once again for their constructive approach. I will be happy to continue working with the Commission on the basis of today's assurances.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30.
Written Statements (Rule 149)
I wish to stress that the proposal tabled by the European Commission is not the reform of the 'Generalised System of Preferences' requested by the European Parliament in its resolution of 5 June 2008, but merely an extension of the current set of rules. This is why I share the rapporteur's view about the need to review this regulation devised in 2008 immediately, and to adapt it to the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which subsequently came into force. Thanks to this treaty, the European Parliament enjoys new powers in the area of trade and must have its say on the eligibility criteria, the list of beneficiary countries and the temporary withdrawal of GSP arrangements. A general review of the regulation will need to be carried out in the future, aimed at increasing the involvement of beneficiary countries in the reform processes which affect them, granting technical assistance to help develop their institutional capacity, as well as reviewing and harmonising the rules of origin.
The Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) gives 176 developing countries preferential access to the EU market. Tariff reductions or duty-free access to the internal market enable trade to make a contribution to reducing poverty in these countries. Therefore, I support the transitional regulation which ensures the legal continuity of the GSP, so that this opportunity remains available to developing countries. Trade is also an important and efficient tool which gives the countries affected the chance to move closer towards the rule of law and democracy and to develop a well-functioning economy. Given the importance and the urgency of this issue, I am in favour of an extension and of making rapid progress with the regulation.


Restrictions on the marketing and use of perfluorooctane sulfonates (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Schlyter, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council C6-0418/2005 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of perfluorooctane sulfonates (amendment to Council Directive 76/769/EEC).
Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Schlyter, for his hard work on this proposal, which has made it possible to reach agreement with the Council at first reading.
This is an important directive. It is concerned with restricting the marketing and use of perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS) and related substances. These substances are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. They have the potential to cause unacceptable risks to human health and the state of the environment.
The proposed Directive is based on specific risk assessments and impact assessments of possible measures. It takes into account detailed discussions with all interested parties. The Directive prohibits in principle, with very limited derogation, the marketing and use of PFOS and related substances. Derogations are envisaged for essential applications in small quantities, which do not pose any unacceptable risks according to the opinion of the Commission's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks.
Large-scale uses - for example in the field of textiles and carpets - have already been discontinued by industry, and this Directive will reliably prevent the reintroduction of such uses.
The proposed Directive will not only ensure the protection of human health and of the environment, but also serve to strengthen the internal market, as it introduces Community-wide harmonised rules for the marketing and use of PFOS and related substances.
With regard to the derogations contained in the proposal, I agree that the use of PFOS and related substances should continue to be permitted in photoresists and photographic materials, when plating with hexavalent chromium and other metals, and in hydraulic fluids, as the risks connected with these uses are acceptable since there are no equivalent alternatives and it is not certain that the toxicological profiles of the alternatives are any better.
With regard to fire-fighting foams, I can agree that the marketing and use of new foams should be prohibited and that a period of 54 months should be granted for the continued use of existing stocks.
On the other hand, I am not prepared, at present, to support the extension of the envisaged restrictions to other perfluorinated alkyl compounds such as PFOA, as this would be premature given the absence of a completed risk assessment and of sufficient knowledge of current uses and alternatives, but we can return to this subject.
By way of conclusion, I should like to say that the transformation process has benefited greatly from the close cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The Commission can therefore endorse all the compromise amendments proposed by the rapporteur, Mr Schlyter.
rapporteur. - (SV) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking all the shadow rapporteurs for their very sound and constructive cooperation. It made it possible to find a solution at first reading together with the Council, which also did some good work on this issue.
This solution improves on the Commission's original proposal, and I am pleased to see that the Commission too is now backing the compromise. PFOS and PFOS-related substances are highly fluorinated and extremely difficult to break down. They are additionally very bioaccumulative. We have become aware that chloro-organic compounds are poisonous and cause problems in the environment and we have observed that bromo-organic compounds are hazardous. Fire retardants pose a bigger threat than the fires they were designed to prevent.
It is now the turn of fluoro-organic compounds. They are extremely stable, and the bond between the fluorine and carbon is the strongest in organic chemistry. The properties of stability and surface activity are what have made PFOS a much sought-after chemical. It has, as the Commissioner says, been used for many years in surface treatment for chemicals and textiles. The largest manufacturer realised the risks posed to its workers and to the consumers of its products. Its workers had high levels of the chemical in their bodies, and it decided to withdraw the PFOS product Scotchguard from the market.
The Commission's aim with this proposal was to prevent the re-introduction of PFOS, but the compromise goes further. We now have tougher concentration regulations and we are setting the limit for preparations at 0.005%. This is reasonable, given that its very properties as a surfactant mean that PFOS is used in low concentrations. If the limit were set at 0.1%, there would be a risk of more applications slipping through the legislative net. The definition of surfaces at 1 microgram per square metre shares the same purpose.
Under the compromise with the Council, PFOS is also prohibited in fire-fighting foams. This is entirely logical. There are already alternatives on the market that do not contain fluoro-organic compounds. It is also appropriate to phase out stocks, and, in the compromise, Parliament has extended this phasing-out period to 54 months. Everyone has a vested interest in hastening the phase-out. The large oil fire in the UK that resulted in millions of litres of water being contaminated with PFOS showed the costs of using PFOS. The only way to destroy PFOS is by high-temperature combustion. Everyone can see for themselves how much work is involved in burning millions of litres of water at high temperature.
Chromium plating is the other big area. In this field, the proposal restricts the use of non-decorative hard chromium-plating using hexavalent chromium as the process implement. This exception, moreover, is to be reviewed after an inventory of existing essential uses, which is to be carried out by the Member States within two years. In this area too there are alternatives, such as bigger, enclosed systems, better ventilation and in the future, I hope, also other processes. As far as other exceptions such as photolithography processes and anti-reflective coating and industrial treatments for photographic film are concerned, the quantities in question are very small. Even so, these exceptions too will cease to apply once alternatives are technically and financially feasible.
I would also like to speak about PFOA, which refers to the acids and salts of the same group of substances. In Germany, many people in the Ruhr area know what it is like to have contaminated water. People now have to take their drinking water from tanker vehicles, which is a costly and unsustainable solution. We can attempt to stop these contaminants by means of the codicil that has been added to the compromise on PFOA, according to which the Commission is to analyse and continuously take stock of progress on alternatives. Once there are reliable alternatives, these will replace PFOA. I believe that we are ahead of our time here. We must get to grips with this matter because the next great environmental issue may be fluoro-organic chemistry and the various forms thereof. This is a first step towards protecting people and the environment from a number of these substances.
I would also point out that this is a first reading agreement and that if Parliament were now to support this compromise, that would also mean that the Council would support it and that we should be ready before REACH enters into force. This agreement would then form an annex to REACH. If we were unable to succeed with this agreement tomorrow, the proposal would simply fall, as REACH would then take over.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I hope that we are on the way to a first reading agreement. I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Schlyter, for his excellent cooperative work on this report. I was delighted to hear that the Commission agrees with all our rapporteur's compromise amendments. It augurs well, indeed, for a first reading agreement.
Perfluorooctane sulfonates - PFOS - are chlorinated compounds with numerous applications in consumer products such as textiles and paper, are known for their repellent properties, amongst others, and are used daily in many consumer products. They also have some specific industrial applications in products as wide-ranging as microchips, fire-fighting foams, chromium plating and hydraulic fluids used in aviation. These chemical substances are known to be very toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative.
We have achieved several important changes to the draft proposal, which will bring greater protection for human health and the environment, especially in the area where the maximum threshold for the amount of PFOS that can be placed on the market as a substance or preparation has been substantially reduced from the Commission's original proposal.
I welcome the inclusion of PFOA - perfluorooctanic acid - in the scope of this directive. According to a recent OECD survey, the substance has a similar structure and toxicity to PFOS and thus should be phased out accordingly. Industry has voluntarily proposed to limit the use of PFOA by 2014, which in itself is a clear sign that our instincts were right to insist on its inclusion in the legislation.
The changes introduced by this House have improved the proposal, and Mr Schlyter's report is both balanced and objective. The report recognises that limited specific use derogations are needed for critical applications of substances for which no alternative currently exists, for example PFOS is essential in very small quantities in the semi-conductor sector and in hydraulic fluids used in aviation. The fact that the phasing-out of these will be based on a case-by-case review, taking into account new information on details of uses and on safer alternatives, is a constructive and realistic way to encourage the affected industries to actively seek alternatives.
In conclusion, it appears that this piece of legislation will go through under the Finnish Presidency and we can avoid tying these toxic chemicals up in the REACH queue.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) I welcome the compromise package drawn up by the Council and the European Parliament, which in many respects tightens the Commission's proposal. It is good to see that Parliament is so united on the question of banning or limiting a dangerous substance.
Health, the protection of the environment and the desire for a healthy life are more important than the narrow interests of industry. There is no longer any doubt as to the problem posed by chemical substances. Stricter regulation is necessary in the area of chemicals, and this is indeed the focus of REACH, which seeks to regulate not merely one particular substance but some 30 000 compounds. As regards today's proposal, it has been scientifically proven that perfluorooctane sulfonate is a hazardous substance. It endangers human health and is a persistent substance, one that does not biodegrade and is bio-accumulative, that is, it builds up in the body's cells. Its use must therefore be restricted.
I consider it an achievement that the substance is being banned in more areas than in the original proposal, and in other areas it can remain in use only during a period of transition. In the case of dangerous fires, fire-fighting foam may continue to be used for some time. If it is a question of saving human lives, then naturally we must use whatever is at hand. Over the longer term, however, it is vital that the chemical be replaced by substances that are not harmful to the human body. I consider it particularly forward-looking that the substitution principle has been built into this directive, which means - as everyone is no doubt aware - that the toxic chemical must be replaced by a different, harmless substance, and that research on and the introduction of such a substance is the responsibility of the manufacturer. Over the longer term, therefore, the use of PFOS will only be permitted where its replacement is impossible, and where it does not come into direct contact with the human body.
I hope that those who will now vote for the substitution principle in this directive will also vote for the substitution principle for other compounds as contained in the REACH directive.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Schlyter, for his constructive cooperation. It is well known that the two of us do not always see eye to eye, but I welcome the fact that a vote is to be held tomorrow on a compromise that will enable agreement at first reading.
I also welcome the fact that the compromise disregards a number of the demands made by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety such as the precipitate inclusion of PFOA without a prior risk assessment. The toxicity of PFOS is undisputed, including by industry. After all, industry took it upon itself to dispense with the use of PFOS in particularly critical applications such as consumer goods.
Some sectors at the top end of the value-added chain, such as the aviation, aerospace and semiconductor industries, cannot dispense with the use of PFOS at present, however. A ban on PFOS or a derogation involving strict time limits would deprive some high-technology sectors of planning security. The Commission proposal already lays down appropriate derogations for this, and it is essential that these be retained until there is a suitable substitute.
The problem with PFOS is not the use of the substance in these sectors, however, but the fact that it is still found in old textiles such as carpets and clothing and reaches the environment via these.
I should like to make some concluding remarks on EU chemicals policy with regard to the forthcoming REACH debate. EU chemicals legislation must strike a balance between the socio-economically appropriate use of certain substances and high environmental standards. As with PFOS, derogations must always be possible where there are no suitable alternatives. After all, the objective of chemicals policy must be the safe, risk-based handling of chemicals rather than the ideological policy of complete chemical bans.
I hope that the Commissioner will remain committed to a sound chemicals policy in future, too.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (SV) Mr President, Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we are about to decide on the restriction of the hazardous and harmful substances perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) and the closely-related perfluorooctanic acid (PFOA).
I am especially pleased that there is such broad support for the sterling work done by my compatriot Mr Schlyter. Good work, Carl!
I think that we need to remember this shared vision when, later this autumn, we take another extremely important decision - both for the environment and for our health - namely that relating to the chemicals legislation known as REACH. I hope that on that occasion we will again see great support across the political spectrum from left to right and from the Commission to the Council of Ministers.
As already mentioned, PFOS is a hazardous substance. It is bioaccumulative, which means that it stays in the environment and our bodies for a long time. A study of people from 17 countries by the World Wide Fund for Nature found that PFOS and six other perfluorinated compounds were present in people's bodies. It is thus high time that there was a restriction. I am therefore pleased to see that Mr Schlyter and an in principle unanimous Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety have tightened up the threshold value for how much PFOS may be in use in the market. I would also have liked to see the committee adding in clearer specifications of dates for when PFOS is to be phased out from the market. Apart from this reservation, this is, in my opinion, an excellent report that I and my group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, look forward to voting in favour of.
I would like to finish where I began. For Parliament to place restrictions on substances that are hazardous to health and to the environment is a good thing. It is also absolutely wonderful that there is such broad support for these measures. I hope, therefore, that we can keep this in mind when we decide on REACH later this autumn. Let us also, on that occasion, see broad support for powerful legislation on chemicals.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, should like to echo the previous speakers' thanks to the rapporteur.
Ladies and gentlemen, imagine you are the mother or father of a young child, and your district health authority tells you the drinking water that you yourself have been drinking for months, even years, is no longer to be used for preparing baby foods or for your children on account of very high concentrations of PFOS. Imagine you are the mayor of a medium-sized town and have to spend several million euro in public funds - taxpayers' and fee payers' money - on removing the PFOS from drinking-water supplies. Then you would certainly have a major problem.
This is what happened a few weeks ago in my electoral region, South Westphalia. We have major problems with PFOS, and the cause does not lie at local level. Instead, we have found that the trail of this massive contamination leads to other Member States - probably Belgium and the Netherlands.
There is a high likelihood, therefore, of problems of the kind currently faced by parents and local-government officials in my region occurring in many other regions of Europe, too, when one looks more closely. For this reason, we must now ascertain the exact cause in this specific case and, in the event that declarations have been altered illegally, we must investigate this. We must also tackle the root of the problem, however, as the concentration is particularly high in this case. This substance has even been found in Antarctica and at the source of the Rhine, where there is no industry whatsoever.
We have to look at this very carefully. That is why I am pleased that we have managed to elaborate and improve the Commission proposal, and that we have deleted a number of unjustified derogations - such as the one for fire-fighting foams, for which there are alternatives. We have now reached a good compromise, and should support it.
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Schlyter rightly deserves our congratulations for his excellent report, which I fully support. Arguably the most important aspect of this legislative proposal is that the story of PFOS is unfortunately one of shame for EU and international consumer protection, and one that should never be allowed to be repeated. Although PFOS were well known to be persistent bioaccumulative toxic compounds, they were extensively used in numerous consumer products and in various industrial applications for decades. This has resulted in the irreversible contamination of the environment and of both animals and humans.
Let us all hope that the directive under consideration here will be fully implemented as soon as possible, but let us at the same time remember that appropriate legislation will also be needed to deal with the hundreds of other perfluorinated compounds which are also very toxic and which today are more or less freely allowed to poison us and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by giving my sincere thanks to Mr Schlyter for his report, which shows great commitment. PFOS, a halogenated hydrocarbon, is toxic to humans, and also both carcinogenic and mutagenic.
There are no scientific limit values for this category of substances, only empirical threshold values. These substances are not biodegradable, they are fat soluble and, once produced, they persist almost indefinitely. In addition, once they have been absorbed by the human body, it is virtually impossible for it to eliminate them.
It is highly likely that PFOA has a very similar or identical effect in medical and toxicological terms, even though the body of scientific data on this does not yet have any conclusive evidential value. REACH will probably apply to this, and the substitution principle will play a decisive role, although, personally, I always have reservations about this. For all my enthusiasm for the economy and for value added, as a Christian I do not want to balance value added against human life.
I am alarmed by the values of these chemicals measured in both marine and freshwater fish. Now - rightly and with a clear conscience - we are going further than the original proposal of the Commission and the Council. The threshold value has been lowered massively by almost two powers of ten. The number of derogations for chromium plating has been reduced significantly. Logically, the derogation for fire-fighting foams has been deleted, as unlimited quantities of these can be released into the environment. The derogation for closed systems has been deleted, as it is scarcely possible to prove that these are sealed.
On the whole, I should like to express my thanks for the constructive cooperation I have enjoyed, and above all for the speed at which this issue has been dealt with, since we were able to reach a workable compromise in less than three months.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to discuss the issue of PFOA briefly, and then go on to make a very fundamental point.
The final decision has not yet been taken in the matter of PFOA. It was not possible to include a ban on these substances in the Directive, as we are not in possession of a satisfactory risk assessment or an impact assessment. An international risk assessment is being carried out at present at OECD level, however. Naturally, we shall look at the results carefully and make any necessary proposals.
I live in the same German Land as the honourable Member Mr Liese and have been following the case he described myself with great interest. All I can say today is that, although the investigations by the German authorities have not been concluded, I have the very strong impression that this is a case of environmental crime, plain and simple. Contrary to the law in force, toxic substances have been introduced into the environment. Whether these Directives could have prevented this is a different story. Nevertheless, I think it important that Mr Liese referred to this case, as it confirms explicitly once more the kind of risks he described.
In a modern industrial society, it is inevitable that we have to live with certain risks. The question as to which risks we consider acceptable and which we do not is one on which we have to keep deciding anew. There is a series of assessment benchmarks that can help us make this decision.
I should like to mention one risk that I do not accept - and here I am speaking as the Commissioner for Industry. I do not accept the argument that we must accept the risk of highly toxic substances in our environment because investments have been made. I do not accept the argument that we must accept such substances because they lead to revenue generation. I do not even accept the argument - even if this does not make me any friends - that we must use these substances so that jobs are not lost. I consider wholly inappropriate this comparison between jobs in industry and the use of toxic substances for which alternatives exist. In situations such as this, the decision can only be to protect human beings and the environment unconditionally from avoidable risks.
This is the line that underlies my policy, at least, on all these issues. The House will notice this when we come to discuss the most important, extensive and modern chemicals legislation in the world - namely REACH - shortly in plenary.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12.30 p.m.


3. Iran: execution of juvenile offenders (vote)


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


3. Sudan: Killing of African Union peace-keeping soldiers (vote)
- Resolution: Sudan: killing of African Union peacekeeping soldiers (RC


17. Electronic customs and trade (vote)
- Report: Christopher Heaton-Harris


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 08.30)


6. Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (vote)


Order of business
The final version of the draft agenda, as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday 16 April pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. The following amendments have been proposed:
Tuesday:
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has asked for the report by Mr Hökmark on a Community framework for nuclear safety to be taken off the agenda.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we should postpone the Hökmark report on a Community framework for nuclear safety for two reasons: the first is that the Committee on Legal Affairs has endorsed the suggestion that there is an essential procedural problem in the Commission's proposal because the Euratom rules stipulate that the Commission must obtain the opinion of a technical committee prior to working on the proposal, and that is something that it has failed to do on two occasions. The Committee on Legal Affairs has held that this is an essential defect: in other words, it is a defect which requires withdrawal of the proposal and its resubmission by the Commission in line with the rules in force. The second reason is that there are no grounds for rushing because these provisions will apply only to power stations that may be constructed after 2015. There is therefore no reason to rush, and we have no need to adopt a text affected by such a significant procedural defect as this.
(SV) Mr President, I definitely think that we should take a decision on this matter during this part-session. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, this is a proposal that Parliament has debated before and that has now come up again, and the Council has been discussing it since 2003. It is finally time to take a decision. As regards the legal situation, the group of experts to which Mrs Frassoni refers submitted its opinion on this proposal, whereupon adjustments were made. What separates the very large majority in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the representatives of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is the matter of whether this is a new proposal or a proposal that we have been working on since 2003. I think that everyone else agrees that this is a proposal that we have been working on for a long time. At some point we must be able to take a decision, particularly as many countries are actually now planning to build nuclear power plants. I therefore believe that it is extremely important for us to have strong and stable legislation in place for the European Union and so I suggest that, today, we vote in favour of having a vote on the Nuclear Safety Directive this week.
(Parliament rejected the motion)
Wednesday:
The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has requested that the vote on the motion for a resolution on the opening of international negotiations in view of adopting an international Treaty for the protection of the Arctic be postponed.
Mr President, we did have a brief discussion about this when we voted during the last plenary session.
The problem is this: when we had the debate with the Commission and Council, it became clear to many of us in the House that it was not appropriate for us to vote on the resolution, and we therefore asked for it, at that stage, to be postponed.
I think our view now is that there is no need for a resolution. Parliament expressed itself on this subject a couple of months ago; that is absolutely sufficient; there is no need to do it again at this stage. The debate that we had with the other institutions was valuable, but there is no need for a resolution.
(FR) Mr President, I admit that I am a little surprised, since no one thought that this resolution was pointless when we debated it. Absolutely no one, and least of all Mrs Wallis.
Moving on, it is true that the Commission referred to the fact that the European Union wished to join the Arctic Council, and so on. For my part, I believe that, in accordance with the wish expressed by the Commission, this new resolution, which states very clearly our desire for a moratorium on drilling and for a demilitarised zone in the Arctic, is indeed a particularly important one, coming as it does at a time when the border countries are flexing their muscles - including their military muscles - in this zone, in order to claim their property and their drilling opportunities.
Thus, from a political point of view, it is absolutely crucial that we vote for this text, and this about-turn by Mrs Wallis - and by part of the Chamber, too - is completely unjustifiable, given the debates that we have had.
(Parliament approved the motion)
Wednesday:
The Union for Europe of the Nations Group has requested that a Commission statement on the earthquake in the Italian region of Abruzzo be inserted into the agenda.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, having consulted the political groups and the heads of the Italian delegations, on behalf of my group, I am asking you to agree to add a debate on the earthquake in Abruzzo to tomorrow's agenda. I believe that the people who have been affected appreciate the solidarity shown by the European institutions and by you in person, with the condolences expressed and the minute of silence, and they will also appreciate any financial and legislative support for reconstruction. For these reasons, a debate in the presence of the European Commission could provide national and local institutions with a lot of useful information about how much the European Union will be able to do.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that the Socialist Group in the European Parliament agrees with the proposal made by Mrs Angelilli. I would like to thank Mr Pöttering for his words and the House as a whole for having shown the people affected its emotional solidarity. I also believe that tomorrow afternoon's debate could produce not only renewed declarations of solidarity, but also, and above all, specific proposals, because Europe can make a significant contribution to reconstruction, as well as to alleviating the situation of crisis that the citizens of Abruzzo are living through.
(FR) Mr President, it was with sadness and bitterness that I discovered that the oral question with debate on rosé wines and permitted oenological practices that I and my fellow Members from a large number of political groups submitted within the deadline was not on this week's agenda.
On behalf of all the signatories, I call for this situation to be remedied. I have in fact spoken to some of the political group chairmen, and it seems to me that either they have been misinformed regarding this request, or it has been passed over in silence.
I would therefore kindly ask you to add the oral question, which was submitted within the deadline, to this week's agenda.
Mrs Lulling, I have just been informed that rosé wine is scheduled to be discussed in May. There will be sufficient speaking time then, something which would not be the case today.
(EL) Mr President, I should like, if I may be so bold, to express my dissatisfaction and curiosity, because I tabled an oral question with debate which was supported by 48 MEPs, whose support - for your information - was mustered in zero time and even now there are members who have stated that they wish to support it, and yet, much to my surprise, no one has replied to me on this issue as to why, when and on the basis of what criteria it was decided not to accept the oral question with debate.
Have I now suddenly come up against another sort of earthquake? Is it a new earthquake, does it have a different cause? I repeat once again, taking as my starting point the last fatal earthquake and the victims you referred to and - I would add - the consequential cultural damage and destruction, that we should highlight the European dimension of this phenomenon. Given that I was also the rapporteur for the only report by a European institution on the subject of earthquakes, I know full well that a great deal can and must be done at European level. I thank you and I await a reply.
Mr Vakalis, that sort of request needs to be made an hour before the start of the sitting. I have been told that this was not the case. It relates to Rule 132. I would recommend that we deal with this in May, otherwise we will not be able to proceed on the basis of the Rules of Procedure.
(DE) Mr President, I would request that you ask the House whether that should be placed on the agenda. You cannot simply decide that yourself. At least ask whether the Members agree with that decision.
You can surely find a couple of minutes to discuss this important topic, which greatly affects many regions in our Union, and to discuss it in good time, as in May it will be too late.
Mrs Lulling, the President does not make this decision alone, I follow the Rules of Procedure. The decisive factor is Rule 132, by which we are bound. The request should have been made an hour before the sitting. I will recommend to the Conference of Presidents that we consider this matter in May.
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has requested that a Commission statement on genetically modified maize - MON 810 be inserted into the agenda.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the situation is really a surreal one, in the sense that we are truly among those who are left hanging: most of the Member States do not want to surrender the ability to declare moratoriums on GMOs, and the Commission, clearly, must take account of this negative outcome, although it may act, if it wishes. This is the point that we have reached!
I believe that on an issue as important as this it would be useful to understand what the Commission wants to do: to continue, to stop, to withdraw or to present a legislative proposal. The only thing we want is for the Commission to tell us what it wants to do, and to say so publicly, in a debate at Parliament.
(DE) Mr President, MON 810 was approved in the European Union in 1998. This approval is not mandatory for Member States and each Member State is free to decide whether to accept this approval, to apply it or to issue a ban on the cultivation of this maize.
I assume that this is the basis for the latest ruling in the Federal Republic of Germany on this issue. In this regard, may I say that MON 810 was approved in Germany in 2005, then in 2007 sowing of the seeds was stopped and in December 2007 Monsanto submitted a plan for the general monitoring of its cultivation. It was subsequently approved again in 2008 and then, a few days ago, it was prohibited.
Mrs Frassoni has stated that many Member States have rejected the cultivation of this maize. There are precisely four States - France, Austria, Hungary and Luxembourg - and now Germany has joined them, so there are five out of the 27 Member States. This is purely a national decision on the basis of subsidiarity and therefore we should not burden Parliament with it.
(DE) Thank you Mr President. We are not in favour of proceeding in the way in which Mrs Frassoni has requested, but for a different reason to that given by Mr Goepel, and therefore I am grateful to you for the opportunity to present it briefly.
We need to have a detailed debate, not only about this point, but also about the issue of how we want to deal with genetically modified food. However, we cannot manage this in the short time we have until the day after tomorrow. I therefore believe that we should ask the new Parliament after the elections to conduct a detailed debate on the use of genetically modified food. Thank you very much.