Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 13.00 and resumed at 15.00.)


Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


Community action on the provision of cross-border health care (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on Community action on the provision of cross-border health care, by Karl-Heinz Florenz, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety B6-0013/2007).
deputising for the author. - Mr President, I very much welcome this debate and the progress that is going to be made following the ECJ judgments, and I know that the Commission has this in its sights.
When I was in Potsdam in January for the German Presidency's first health conference, I very much welcomed the German Government's encouragement and its determination to see progress on the issue of patient mobility. We now look forward to the Commission taking that ship into the seas and bringing it safely to harbour for the benefit of our citizens.
In Potsdam, I quoted Jean Giraudoux, because we have a problem, and his quotation, I thought, symbolised it. He said '
Jamais poète n'a interprété la nature aussi librement qu'un juriste la réalité'.
Mr President, no poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth. And, with apologies to any lawyers who may be listening, it is a fact that the lawyers of Europe are deciding policy on patient mobility. Why? Because the politicians of Europe have failed to do so.
If you are happy with unelected lawyers deciding national and European Union health policy, then you do not need to do anything. Just wait and the bills will come in. But if, like me, you believe that it should be the job of parliamentarians, then we need to get on and give legal certainty and guidance without further delay in this whole area for patients.
But we need not panic. We are not talking about vast numbers. Most of our citizens prefer local options and, of course, language may be a deterrent to travelling very far. Only if we have waited too long are most of us interested in cross-border healthcare. Our preference is that local provision will improve and make patient mobility unnecessary and that, in a way, would be a good outcome of the ECJ judgments in itself. But we want to know how the new system will work in practice in case we need it.
We are not talking about a pan-European health service. We are talking about new powers for the patient to bypass sluggish and inadequate services locally and nationally. But, without clarity, without systems, without guidance, we are going to see major concerns as patients and their medical advisers seek to find their way through the complexities of the system, and health budget holders are in chaos as they try to cope with totally unpredictable demand for service funding.
So, as patients, as doctors, as managers, we need answers to some basic questions. The questions the patient asks are: Do I qualify? What is undue delay? Are there differences between conditions and between individuals, including the age of the individual? How do I apply if I need to? How do I or my GP decide what my options are? What country, what hospital, what specialist? What aftercare? Can I top up if the price is higher than in my home Member State? Who decides if the type of treatment complies with the new criteria? And I need to know before I go, not find out later. And how do I appeal if I disagree with the decision? Or do I have to go to court each time? Who will have access to checks on professionals? How will patient records be exchanged? Who pays for my travel, and for that of an accompanying person if I am a child? What channel for complaints is there if something goes wrong? How will reimbursement be affected? What will be the international interface between different systems, Beveridge/Bismarck, euro/non-euro zones? Do we need a central clearing house for claims and payments, nationally or for Europe? And lastly, is my mental illness also covered?
We shall need European legislation for some of these answers and national legislation for others. But above all we shall need guidance to provide clarity for patient and practitioner alike. We shall need to test the water and adapt to experience, such as with centres of excellence. We need to speed ahead with our frameworks for health professionals and patient safety and sort out the E121 system for people retiring abroad.
People have voted with their challenges to the courts and the ECJ has responded and confirmed their rights. Now we need political action to put in place a system which will be welcomed by people as a benefit coming from Europe.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I am not sure whether I can say that we have come a long way since we first discussed this issue, but I can certainly say that we are on the right track. You will remember that our first discussion on this issue was even before the final outcome of the Services Directive. Parliament requested that a proposal on healthcare and health services should be brought forward and I promised that, as soon as the Services Directive was sorted out, I would do so. That is what I did last September in bringing forward this proposal.
Many issues have been described already and I will try not to repeat them. However, we tried to maintain, firstly, the special character of health, healthcare and health services in the European Union and to meet the challenge not only of achieving the social objectives, but also of benefiting from the internal market. It is true that the Court set out the parameters and the rights in its judgment, but I believe that those rights should be seen not as a problem, but as an opportunity and I tend to agree with that part of the motion for a resolution.
We have the realities before us, as described by the European Court of Justice. The point now is how to make them work for the benefit of patients, the Member States, national health systems and providers. We can do this not only for patient mobility, but also for all other aspects of cross-border healthcare.
I agree that the ultimate target must be that a European citizen should be able to receive the best healthcare where he or she lives. We should meet our aim of ensuring equality of health in the European Union. However, we know that this is a long-term objective and also that, under certain circumstances, it may not be possible, feasible or even desirable, depending on the financial, as well as - most importantly - the scientific aspects. Sometimes, we will still need to make use of the cross-border possibilities of healthcare.
As I have said, we launched the initiative in September 2006. The idea was to have a broad consultation, which ended on 31 January 2007. In the communication we described and analysed all the problems and issues, which are complicated. We have to follow a step-by-step approach. We will need a package to sort out and deal with all the aspects of cross-border healthcare, but that does not mean that we have to wait until they are all resolved before we present a proposal: we can do that in phases.
We are now in the process of analysing the contributions. We have had more than 270 from the Member States, from regional and local authorities, and from European national and regional organisations, representing patients, healthcare providers, health professionals, social security institutions, health insurance, universities, and hospitals, and even from individual citizens. Although I do not want to prejudice the results of the in-depth analysis, it must be said that the first assessment confirms the need for Community action to address the range of issues set out in the consultation paper, for example, legal certainty and support for cooperation between health systems. In addition, even though there are many different views on the details of specific aspects, the overall picture is clear: there seems to be potential added value for patients, professionals and health systems overall from some form of Community action on health services.
The Commission is in the process of analysing a summary of the report on all the contributions already published on our website. A summary report of the contributions will be drafted to provide an idea of the views and ideas sent in and should be available this spring.
However, the views and the input of the European Parliament are extremely important to us and will be a determining factor.
We will ensure that any future proposals on health services under this initiative are consistent with ongoing work on services of general interest and, of course, on the ongoing modernisation of the regulations on the coordination of social security systems. There has to be coherence and coordination among all these initiatives.
On the basis of the consultation and its outcome, the Commission plans to bring forward practical proposals later in 2007. Our aim is to find a solution which provides real added value without creating more red tape and which respects the principle of subsidiarity.
Mr President, Commissioner, we remember all of the debates that we had in our Parliament, during the debate on the Services Directive, to exclude health services. We felt that health was not a service like any other and that it was absolutely crucial to talk about it in a different way and, above all, not to regard health services merely as being an internal market.
Through its policies, the European Union is encouraging people to move around, and that inevitably has consequences for healthcare. It obviously has consequences for health professionals, who have demands in relation to legal certainty, and, of course, for patients, who are anxious to receive quality care. Hence there are a number of problems, as my colleague, Mr Bowis, has pointed out: language problems, the problem of monitoring care, the problem of the accountability of health professionals and of the quality of care. I think it important to say that patient mobility must not under any circumstances lead to the dumping of health systems, or make health care less secure. That is absolutely crucial.
Nor must the mobility of patients and health professionals create two categories of patient: those who can access other types of health care on the other side of the border and those who cannot. It would therefore be interesting to further develop harmonised health indicators at European level. The same goes for the completion of more exhaustive studies, which would enable us to better understand local needs and to do more to target those members of the public who are likely to seek treatment in another Member State, so that we can provide the most suitable legislative solution. To do that, we need a mechanism for gathering data and for exchanging information among national authorities.
Finally, we need to keep a close eye on the current excesses with regard to self-diagnosis and self-medication via the Internet, which knows no bounds. It is vital that we concern ourselves with patient information and have a genuine European label so that patients using the Internet can be provided with a viable form of security and information. Commissioner, rest assured that you will have our full support and trust for the proposal that you will submit to us shortly.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, Commissioner, you know from our discussion in committee that this issue is extremely important for myself and for the PSE Group. We see health services as one of the pillars of the European social model, and the underlying values of that model - universality, access to good quality care, equity and solidarity, to ensure that services are provided on the basis of need and not the ability to pay - are fundamental to us and to that model. We feel that any initiative you take on cross-border healthcare should be built on these principles. It should be about healthcare for all and not about market opportunity for some providers. I think many other colleagues from different groups have already said this.
Mr Bowis talked about the legal certainty that is needed in a range of areas. These are the questions that people write and ask me about. They have heard about their rights, they are not sure how they can exercise them, so yes, we want a clear legal framework for patient mobility and for the movement of professionals, not just to give them rights, but so that citizens know that those healthcare professionals are properly qualified, are fit to practise and that information is shared between Member States.
Finally, Commissioner, you said that you recognised that healthcare has a special character. The health ministers agreed a set of values and principles in June last year, and I wonder whether you will be taking that on board when you draw up your proposals later this year?
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, we strongly support the Commission's consultation efforts and the European Parliament resolution outlining the main priorities for public health in the future Community framework. But we should think and plan more broadly: the final goal of future legislation should be better health for European citizens, not only when they cross the border, because by then it might be too late.
In addition to the resolution, I would like to call for your support on the following: basic standards for healthcare should be agreed in order to guarantee patients' safety and the quality of healthcare; the introduction of a common classification of health services, without interfering with Member States' competences on organisation, will create transparency for both patients and the financial institutions; and the 'one-stop shop' approach to be introduced in the Member States' health administrations will facilitate patients' choice and the right to complain.
The last issue I wish to emphasise is crucial for the full functioning of any new legislative framework on patients' rights: a common charter on patients' rights should be included in the future Community framework. Patients should be able to exercise their rights in the European Union regardless of the ownership of medical facilities, national social security schemes, organisational management of the national health systems or whether medical treatment is provided in the home country or in another Member State. All this is needed for a new European regulatory healthcare framework that would contribute to improving access to the best quality healthcare and to ensuring the safety and rights of all public and private patients in Europe, with particular consideration given to ethnic minorities - for example the Roma population - as well as refugees, migrants and the homeless.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Commissioner, the fact that thought is being given to cross-border patient mobility is, in itself, a good thing, but patient mobility, however, is entirely different from the mobility of commercial health services. These terms are too often mixed up.
Discussion of patient mobility should not in any event lead to the national healthcare systems being undermined or to Member States passing the buck in an attempt to make their own health care systems reliable, whether in terms of quality or quantity. Nor should it lead to the liberalisation of the healthcare market or force patients out of their own countries to seek care.
Patient mobility is a patient right and should certainly not become the excuse for applying the Services Directive to healthcare services. This House has taken a clear stand against this and would be robbed of its credibility if it were now to take a different line.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, as I have only been allocated one minute's speaking time on the subject of cross-border healthcare, I shall be brief. I simply wanted to point out that, although this brings real benefits to a specific group of patients who are in a position to choose treatment in different Union countries, there are also unfortunately very negative consequences for certain healthcare systems, as well as for many patients from the poorer Member States. These patients' access to health services is restricted because of doctors' migration or for financial reasons.
For the wealthy old Member States of the Union, the priority is to improve the development, competitiveness and security of their own healthcare systems, which are described as European. The aforementioned countries take no account of the resulting costs to be borne by other far poorer countries. One cannot fail to notice in particular that the rich are becoming richer and safer, whilst the poor are becoming ever poorer. In addition, all this is being described in terms of sustainable development, equal rights and opportunities or as part of the principle of subsidiarity. The latter has had a regrettable consequence for European citizens, namely that the lot of the rich and strong is improving at the expense of the poor and weak.
(SK) I regret to say that I regard the Commission's communication on healthcare services as unsatisfactory. The Commission has failed to come up with adequate and specific proposals for coordinating healthcare provision, since such service provision falls under the purview of national authorities. Furthermore, the communication unequivocally defends the notion that healthcare services should be regulated by the principle of free movement of goods.
In this regard I would like to emphasise that patients are not goods and healthcare professionals are not the same as other service providers. The European Parliament subscribed to that principle some time ago, as it excluded healthcare provision from the Services Directive. Despite the fact that cross-border health services only account for about 1% of healthcare provision, the Commission's communication focuses on patient mobility, cost refunds, etc. One should realise, however, that patients are not small-time traders and that patients do not seek healthcare abroad in order to generate savings but because such care is not available at home. It is therefore, quite unacceptable that Article 95, which regulates the free movement of goods, should be the sole legal basis of the future directive.
The Commission should focus on other pressing problems in the European Union. For instance, on why the mortality rate due to colon cancer is 40% higher in Slovakia than in Sweden or on how the EU could contribute to improving healthcare quality, for example through the use of structural fund allocations more efficiently for healthcare purposes.
I only wish patients could join forces with health professionals to bring about change as effectively as farmers can. Perhaps then we would see benefits going not only to farmers and cattle but also to human beings - in other words patients.
The Commission also draws our attention to recipient countries. In this respect I would like to highlight the countries of departure. In Eastern Europe we are beginning to see so-called white holes, or areas where there is a shortage of healthcare professionals.
(SV) Mr President, I want firstly to thank the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for having put this excellent question to the Commission and providing the opportunity to hear the Commission's reaction to important questions put to it. It also gives those of us in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection the chance to put forward what we think is important. Health is an area in which the Member States have competence and in which the principle of subsidiarity applies. That does not, however, mean that people should not be entitled to health care and medical treatment in other Member States. We cannot maintain that we defend the patient's right to safe, high-quality care if we do not allow those who need, for one reason or another, to seek health care in another Member State actually to do so. We must do our utmost to preserve these rights, in spite of the various problems of which all Members are so well aware - problems, yes, but also positive aspects, especially on the information side.
It is also obvious - or, in any case, it should be - that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice cannot be weakened by secondary legislation. There is such a thing as established practice, and the Treaty gives everyone who wants to do so the right to make services available in another Member State, in full accordance, mind you, with the laws of that Member State. As I see it, the Commission should withdraw all legislation in which the Member States and the governments try to limit existing primary law for patients or service providers. It is important that the proposal produced by the Commission should be a step forward, rather than backward, and we have high hopes of Commissioner Kyprianou in this regard.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, health services, which have been excluded from the Services Directive, constitute a crucial pillar of the European social model. They contribute to social, territorial and economic cohesion, are a mission of general interest, and are also consistent with the Lisbon Strategy.
The Commission consultation must not be reduced to the free movement of health services, or aim at simply implementing an internal market in these services, as this would lead to a two-speed system, from which only the well-off and best informed patients would benefit.
The consultation must provide an opportunity to clearly define the role and added value of the Union, in order to guarantee a high level of health protection while respecting the national characteristics and powers of the Member States.
The mobility of patients and professionals must be guaranteed, with respect shown for the following fundamental values and principles: universality, solidarity, quality, security and durability.
It is imperative that a European legislative framework and, more specifically, a directive on health services, be adopted in order to increase the legal protection of patients, health professionals and health insurance systems and thus to restore the confidence of all Europeans in all Member States.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, health knows no frontiers, or at least, one hopes that that is the case. In exactly the same way health services should not stop at borders either, in other words, they should be of high quality and available to every citizen of the EU wherever he or she may be. We are now at the beginning of a debate rather than the end of one, so a vigorous debate is desirable and will get us where we want to go; health is not a commodity, and the internal market is, after all, no more than the space within which these services are provided.
These services need to be subject to special rules, with questions relating to the guarantee of quality provided, patients' safety, the safety of medicines and of medical products, to redress in the event of faulty or failed procedures, and to centres of excellence being examined in depth. The patient, who is to be protected, is the subject of particular concern, being, in cases of doubt, the weaker party, and often, indeed, the one who is at the mercy of others.
We are, as matter of principle, in favour of patient mobility and of the mobility of service providers, but reimbursement, which is a quite essential element in the cross-border trade in medical services, is subsidiary, and this has to be made plain right now, even though things are only at an early stage.
I do not, at present, see any chance of a European health insurance fund, and do not indeed think one is germane to our purpose, on the grounds that all the 27 national systems have their own problems, and, here too, where reimbursement is concerned, we are talking not about an open market, but rather about state-run and dirigiste systems.
In my own country, which has an extraordinarily complex system of payment to beneficiaries, such an opening-up would raise at once the discrimination against the country's own nationals, since the benefits paid are capped rather than open-ended.
It think it still appropriate that primary responsibility for this dossier should remain with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rather than with the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to thank Members for a very interesting debate, which will be very useful and will provide guidance for us in the next steps of drafting a proposal, along with the outcome of contributions from the other stakeholders, from consultations and from the Member States.
Just to cover a few issues: first of all, we will certainly be taking into account the health objectives and social values adopted by the health ministers last June, and this will be one of the considerations in our proposal.
At the same time, we will also be looking at the important issue of patients' rights, which is part of our consultation on Community action. It is clear that we will look at these issues; what tools will be used will, of course, be decided after proper analysis of the consultation and based on the responses provided.
I would like to confirm that what we plan to do is to take a step forward and not to reduce or undermine patients' rights as recognised by the Court, but to improve them and make them work, make them more concrete, and to make it possible to apply them equally among all European citizens. Information is an important factor in this respect.
As we have already stated, we will take subsidiarity into account. However, I have to remind you first of all that we do not propose harmonisation of national health assistance - this is not the intention. But, at the same time, I have to remind you of the European Court of Justice judgment on the Watts case, which provided that there are situations where Member States, based on other Treaty provisions, will have to apply to amend and adjust their national healthcare systems.
Finally, I think there is a misunderstanding here. First of all, there are no proposals in the communication because it is precisely a consultation document. We did not want to pre-empt the positions of Parliament, the Member States and the stakeholders, so it is intentional that there is no proposal at this stage. It is just a description of the problems. Freedom of movement and patient mobility is not something which is being introduced by the European Commission - I think we discussed that in the past as well - it is something which has been recognised, whether we like it or not - and I hope we like it! - by the European Court of Justice, which has established that the internal market rules apply also to health, even if this is publicly funded.
So this is not a question of a Commission initiative introducing a new concept but how we in the Commission, together with Parliament and the Member States, can make this concept, this reality, work for the benefit of patients without being to the detriment of the national healthcare systems, their viability and their operation.
This is a big challenge for us but I think it is a big opportunity as well, and we can make it work for the benefit of citizens.
To conclude the debate, I have received one motion for a resolution pursuant to Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.


14. An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union (


11. Financial, economic and social crisis: measures and initiatives to be taken (


3. Information on medicinal products (Community code relating to medicinal products) (


3. European Training Foundation (recast) (
- Before the vote on the Commission proposal
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, we have had a great many conversations with the Commission and the Council with a view to reaching an agreement at first reading. The vote on this amendment calls that agreement into question. We will be forced to go to a second reading as it is evident, and the Council has so informed us, that it will not accept this position.
I regret this situation and in face of this problem, which is not to disown a considerable part of the text we adopted with the first amendment but to keep our word to the Council, I recommend abstention.
We duly note what you have said but will nonetheless continue with the vote.


Voting time


Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and interfaces with other transport modes (debate)
The next item is the recommendation for second reading on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the common position adopted by the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and interfaces with other modes of transport (06103/4/2010 - C7-0119/2010 - (rapporteur: Anne E. Jensen).
Mr President, what are intelligent transport systems exactly? Well, they comprise any information systems that could make road transport safer, more efficient and more environmentally sound. They include the GPS that we are familiar with when we are driving around our towns, and can include road tax systems or road toll systems. We are already familiar with some intelligent transport systems, but there are many more on the way. There are systems that will be able to provide us with much better information on the situation on the roads. Are there slippery roads ahead? Has there been an accident that is causing queues to build up? We also have the eCall system, which is a system that automatically calls an emergency call centre when an accident happens so that help can arrive faster.
I would like to say that, right from the outset, I found working on this report frustrating in a number of respects. At first I found it quite difficult to determine what intelligent transport systems actually are, because they include so many different things. Once I had discovered the possibilities that they held, I was actually frustrated by the fact that we did not already have these intelligent transport systems. When you sit in a traffic queue and do not know when, or if, you will be able to reach your destination and, for example, catch your flight, it would actually be nice to already have those systems in place now. We could obtain much better information.
Therefore, it has to be asked: why then do we not have these intelligent transport systems? The answer provided by the Commission and by experts has been that it is due to the lack of standards and specifications that can promote the use of our common transport systems, promote the production of them and also ensure that it becomes easier to drive across borders, so that, for example, a lorry can drive from Gothenburg to Palermo and communicate with all manner of different information systems, including different road tax systems, without needing to have various different gadgets plastered all over the windscreen to communicate with different systems.
According to the agreement that has now been concluded with the Council, we are to define specifications for intelligent transport systems within four areas, and in association with six actions for which deadlines have been set. It is about ensuring that safety-related information is provided, ensuring that general traffic information is provided, ensuring that eCall is in place, and it is about ensuring something that I personally feel is very important, and that is that lorry drivers can receive information on where to find safe rest areas and have the opportunity to book a rest area in advance so that compliance with the regulations on driving times and rest periods is less stressful for them.
The greatest sticking point in our work was the question of the practical implementation of all this. The Council agreed with Parliament that we definitely should define the areas where work should be done on common specifications and standards. The area where the Council shied away from our proposals was in connection with establishing when the agreed specifications should be in place in practice. We have therefore divided the implementation into two timescales: first, we will agree on the specifications and then we will determine how it is to be put into practice.
I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation in achieving this outcome, especially Mr Koch, Mrs Ţicău and Mrs Brepoels. I think we worked together in an unparalleled manner. I would also like to offer my sincere thanks to the Swedish Presidency, which made an enormous effort to ensure that many of Parliament's proposals were implemented in the final text. Finally, I would like to thank the Commission, which really has been the facilitator in this matter, and made a huge contribution to enabling us to reach a joint agreement.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the European Parliament and especially Ms Jensen, rapporteur on intelligent transport systems, and all the shadow rapporteurs, for their excellent work and continuous commitment in supporting the Commission in the legislative process leading to the ITS Directive.
At the end of the European Parliament's second reading of this legislative proposal, I would like to reaffirm once again, and in the strongest possible terms, its political importance. ITS applications such as dynamic traffic and freight management, lane-keeping support and electronic tolling (e-Toll) bring clear benefits to transport users in terms of reducing travel times and increasing safety.
Over the past 20 years, the European Commission has used various instruments to support the uptake of ITS solutions. However, the deployment of intelligent transport systems in road transport has been much slower than in other modes of transport, and ITS services have often been deployed on a fragmented basis. Voluntary agreements and standardisation have failed to deliver significant progress in terms of deployment and use of such systems.
Therefore, the Commission has put forward an action plan and a proposal for a framework directive on the deployment of intelligent transport systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport modes.
Concerning this directive, the Commission considers that the compromise obtained during the negotiations with the Council is balanced, and that the general objectives of the Commission's proposal are duly taken into account. In this context, I am particularly happy with the recommendation of Ms Jensen adopted by the TRAN Committee vote on 22 June and I look forward to a positive vote and to the adoption by the European Parliament of the ITS Directive during tomorrow's sitting.
The Commission is fully committed to the important work ahead of us in implementing the ITS Directive. We will do so in close collaboration with all public and private stakeholders.
Mr President, Mr Kallas, ladies and gentlemen, the directive for the deployment of intelligent transport systems in the field of road transport, which we will finally be voting on tomorrow, is of huge importance for other modes of transport because of its impact on the interfaces with them that I regard it as the emergence of a new era of transport.
The directive is responsible for the coordinated, concentrated and targeted implementation of the comprehensive action plan and will guarantee that intelligent transport systems become an integral component of new types of vehicles and infrastructures. The decisive issue for consumers is firstly that intelligent transport systems will have to be introduced, but no one can definitely say when. Personally, I should very much have preferred a detailed timetable.
Secondly, they will play a major role in making transport cleaner, safer and more efficient and they will offer completely new opportunities for comodality, in other words, for integrating different modes of transport. Thirdly, they will guarantee a high level of data protection and, fourthly, they can be used to optimise infrastructure capacity. My fifth point is that they will offer a wide range of additional services for private individuals and business people.
Intelligent transport systems blend harmoniously into the next report on the future of transport and also into the Europe 2020 strategy, because they will give rise to extensive research and development projects. The call for compatibility between new systems and with existing systems is in line with Parliament's demands. On behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), I urge the Commission to put in place the standards and specifications for the eCall emergency system and for all the travel, transport information and reservation systems as quickly as possible, so that the process of introducing these systems throughout Europe can begin very soon.
The adoption of a directive on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport is an important step towards increasing safety in the transport sector.
I wish to thank all the teams of rapporteurs for extending the directive's scope beyond the road transport sector by including interfaces with other modes of transport. This will enable Intelligent Transport Systems to be used for passengers, vehicles and infrastructures and for interactions between them in the field of road transport, including urban transport and interfaces with other modes of transport.
The European Parliament has requested, right from first reading, a minimum number of applications and services supported by Intelligent Transport Systems, as well as stringent personal data protection provisions. The directive stipulates four priority areas where the Commission will define common specifications and standards for implementing and using Intelligent Transport Systems.
The Commission has made the commitment to adopt the specifications quickly within the following clearly defined timetable: 2014 for the provision of EU-wide multimodal travel information services; 2013 for the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services; 2012 for the provision of minimum universal traffic information free of charge relating to road safety; 2012 for the harmonised provision of an interoperable EU-wide eCall system; 2012 and 2013 for the provision of information and reservation services for safe parking places for trucks.
The adoption of this directive has been delayed as a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the comitology provisions. In fact, the abovementioned specifications will be adopted by the Commission by means of delegated acts.
I believe that we are only at the start of the road in terms of deploying Intelligent Transport Systems. We hope that both the Commission and Member States will allocate the finances required to deploy these systems.
Mr President, I believe that Mr Koch is right when he says that intelligent transport systems will take us into a new era. In the last year, I have come across lorries that can talk to one another. It sounds crazy, but this really is the intelligent transport management system of the future. Special devices enable lorries to identify for safety reasons whether there is an obstacle or a pedestrian crossing the road in front of them. They can then pass the information to the lorry travelling behind, so that it can brake in good time and prevent an accident from occurring.
Of course, this is not yet on the agenda. In this case, the major benefit of Mrs Jensen's report is that it gives us an overview of the current situation and an insight into what we will need in future in order to improve safety, prevent congestion, reduce accidents and take more effective action on the environment.
My final point concerns something which I have experienced myself near Hanover in Germany. On the motorway, there is an intelligent transport system consisting of variable speed limits. These tell drivers what speed they should travel at in order to prevent traffic jams. This is good for drivers and for the environment and also reduces the number of accidents. We need systems of this kind and much more.
Mr President, obviously I am delighted that we have, at last, adopted a European framework for ITS. As previous speakers have said, it was a tough nut to crack and it is also thanks to the tireless efforts of our rapporteur, Mrs Jensen, that we have finally, after some tough negotiations, been able to present a balanced position to Parliament. Thank you very much for that.
If we consider that the problems of congestion and pollution are becoming ever more serious, we can hardly overestimate the importance of this initiative. There is very clearly a need for innovative solutions, but why is it that a European approach is now so important? In my view, it is important because we are unlikely to be able to make full use of the possibilities of ITS unless we progress from the limited or even piecemeal deployment which is the reality in many Member States today to a coordinated Europe-wide deployment.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is, however, only the first step, but it is a very important one nonetheless. Over the coming years, we must keep close track of how both the Commission and the Member States implement priority actions. We have actually already wasted half a year or so on the timeframe presented by the Commission in response to the debate on the implementation of the delegated acts. In general, however, I think that we should see to it that the services envisaged are user friendly for all groups. In this context, we are very pleased that specific provisions have been introduced for vulnerable road users, because attention to this will lead to improved quality for all users. Thank you for your attention.
Mr President, on the windscreen of my car I have a small electronic device which records when I drive through a toll booth in my home country. I was very pleased to discover recently that it also works when I drive through a similar booth in my neighbouring country. How nice it would be if it was that easy throughout the whole of Europe, and that is exactly what my fellow Danish Member, Mrs Jensen, wants for everyone who drives a great deal on Europe's roads. I would therefore like to offer my sincere thanks to the rapporteur for the sterling work that she has done on this directive.
It has been a long time coming, and contains a whole series of both technical and specific initiatives. I abide by the principle that I only recommend EU legislation if it makes sense, and for me this means that it should relate to cross-border problems that are best solved jointly. I must say that this subject meets this requirement very well. At the same time, this directive offers a helping hand to the lorry drivers who bind Europe together. Without them, none of the trade within the EU would exist.
Now all we need is for the Member States to put all of these good intentions into practice. As far as I can see, this is where the problem lies, for although the Council is co-legislator for the directive, roads are built in small national municipalities that do not have much money for this purpose. Similarly, a lot of money and political will is also needed to upgrade the rail transport system.
(EL) Mr President, the spread of intelligent transport systems in road transport and in their operation in relation to other forms of transport is a particularly important issue. It is a real challenge for European transport policy and previous speakers were right to speak of a new era in transport.
The broadest possible application of intelligent transport systems will help, firstly, to bring about more efficient, more stable and safer transport and, secondly, to achieve the objective of cleaner and more environmentally friendly transport.
I therefore believe that approval of the framework directive on intelligent transport systems is a very positive development for all European citizens because, to date, the voluntary approach has been far from satisfactory. We need - and we all agree on this - a minimum level of standardisation if we want to see these systems being used on our journeys and travels in the very near future.
Like the rapporteur, Mrs Jensen, whom I congratulate, I believe that we should proceed and give our approval tomorrow, in order, moreover, to confirm that long, hard negotiations have taken place, lasting until just a short while ago, and that we must now proceed.
The last thing we need is another unnecessary delay in the overall procedure. Congratulations again to the rapporteur.
(ES) Mr President, I would especially like to congratulate Mrs Jensen and thank her for her dedication and determination as regards these intelligent transport systems, particularly with respect to roads, in order to achieve harmonisation and, above all, backward compatibility, which I believe to be essential.
In recent days, I have read how an operator such as SNCB in Brussels proposed to offer car drivers traffic information in real time in order to help them take intermodal decisions sufficiently in advance. I understand that this is one of the aspects of the services of the future referred to by Mrs Jensen, the harmonisation of which is going to enable their spectacular extension throughout Europe.
I believe that this dialogue between modes of transport is essential, as is the cross-border one between road systems, which can also encourage other aspects of road safety.
I particularly thank her for the road safety applications and, above all, the extension throughout Europe of the eCall system. I would also have liked it to be extended, and indeed hope it can be in the future, beyond the trans-European network infrastructure and, above all, to farming vehicles, given that quite often we find, particularly in regions like the one where I come from, that there is an accident and the person dies because it has not been possible to get there in time, or because his emergency call was not received. For that reason, I hope it can be extended.
Safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles are very useful, and receive my full support. I believe that they should be increasingly extended in the future to trans-European road networks.
The only thing I think we now need is for Galileo to become the platform for this kind of service; that would indeed be the icing on the cake. I hope that between them, Mr Kallas and Mr Tajani manage to achieve this, so that these intelligent transport systems become, moreover, Galileo's future.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, better management of goods transport and greater road safety are two fundamental aspects in creating an intelligent transport system. The aim is to create a coordinated and integrated system, guaranteeing continuity of services, of traffic management and goods transport along freight corridors.
The key issue remains the financial impact of this innovative system, which principally consists of traffic communication interfaces, and which could be solved by standardising an integrated information system. Efficacy, efficiency, continuity and interoperability are the principles upon which the future actions of the Member States should be based. A correct evaluation of territorial features, traffic conditions and processes of interconnection between the various transport systems will therefore be necessary for a properly effective implementation of the system.
A serious investigation into how the system will react in critical moments will then be needed. Hopefully, the committee created by the directive will be able to work with local authorities so that the system is designed to guarantee a rapid and efficient response in case of transport-related problems.
(HU) I, too, would like to welcome the introduction of intelligent transport systems as they will make people's lives much easier. I would like to draw your attention to three issues. One of these is something that also came up in relation to passengers' rights; namely, that the European Parliament is strongly committed to helping people with disabilities. However, I would like to emphasise that people with disabilities will have to be helped in this system, too, and I suggest that the problems faced by people with disabilities also be taken into consideration in the course of the introduction of the system, as well as by the system developers. Also, I would like to highlight the importance of information communications accessibility. Finally, since some of the Member States have not yet carried out impact assessment studies on the cost of introducing the system, I would like to ask the Commission to dedicate separate resources for this purpose before the system is introduced to allow Central and Eastern European countries to access it.
(RO) Introducing a standard framework for the harmonised deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems is an important step towards modernising the transport sector. It means that Member States must guarantee the deployment and coordination of ITS in an interoperable manner.
As rapporteur for the European rail freight corridors dossier, I think that interoperable ITS systems are an absolute must for the rail sector, especially in terms of traffic management. For this reason, reciprocal recognition is required of national type approvals and specifications for IT hardware and software, as well as compliance with the schedule for rolling out the ERTMS.
The fact that Member States have the opportunity to come into line with the new requirements by modernising their already existing systems is a positive step, thereby preventing a lack of geographical continuity from occurring.
Mr President, I suppose one could say that one would want to be pretty stupid to oppose intelligent proposals. Certainly, the Intelligent Transport Systems cannot be opposed: they are to be welcomed. Compliments to Mrs Jensen and also Mr Kallas for outlining the benefits. Obviously, things that make for environmentally friendly transport, road safety, proper parking, tracking weather systems, etc. are all of tremendous benefit to road users.
Regarding road safety, I would also like to see some emphasis being put on the effect that slow drivers have on road accidents. All the emphasis seems to be on speed, and obviously that is a major contributory factor.
However, this is to be welcomed and I just want to thank the intelligent Mrs Jensen, for helping to make road use beneficial for all users, be they stupid or intelligent.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the definition of these European specifications for the coordinated development of the selected ITS applications for transport and air travel networks is very useful. However, I wanted to underline two facts regarding security. The first is that we should try to insist strongly on safe parking facilities for lorry drivers. Secondly, when speaking about safety, I believe that we need to be careful: drivers are asked to do everything but drive, they are given so much information and are pestered with everything and more.
So this is now a very important issue and I address this consideration to Mrs Jensen because I believe that, on the one hand, there is this desire and, on the other, we need to be very careful to act in such a way that drivers can also think about driving.
(DE) Mr President, road safety and security applications represent a major component of the four important areas and I would like to comment on them briefly here. Firstly, the Commission proposals to allow the introduction of huge lorries, referred to as gigaliners, should be rejected. Gigaliners would increase the risks on the EU's roads. The European road network is not designed for vehicles of this size. They would reduce visibility for car drivers and result in longer overtaking distances and disastrous accidents.
My second point is that the often catastrophic results of tunnel fires indicate that vehicle fire prevention systems need to be improved. I am calling for all cars in Europe to be fitted with a mandatory fire extinguishing system in the engine compartment. These systems are already used in motor racing and the mass-produced versions cost between EUR 50 and EUR 100. They are relatively cost-effective and would result in a significant increase in safety.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, millions of European citizens are preparing to depart on a deserved summer holiday. Unfortunately, however, just like every other year, they have to prepare themselves to deal with cancelled flights, lost luggage, motorway traffic jams, perhaps even under the baking sun, and emergency situations to which we are now, unfortunately, quite accustomed.
Last week, I tabled a question on this subject, asking the European Commission to make a concrete effort to deal with this problem. Launching an information campaign on the rights of travellers is certainly a useful tool, but it is not enough to avoid such emergencies being repeated. All too often, the rights of travellers are trampled underfoot and months, even years, go by before receiving rightful compensation.
Providing information, making people aware of their rights, is clearly important, but it is much more important to make them respected across Europe by introducing concrete measures, particularly in the light of now common situations, which ought to be foreseen.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like once more to thank the European Parliament, and Ms Jensen in particular, for the excellent work in the legislative process leading to the adoption of the Intelligent Transport Systems Directive. I look forward to the important work ahead of us in the implementation of the ITS Directive. We are committed to using the power conferred on the Commission by Parliament and the Council for seven years to adopt the necessary specifications. We will do so in close collaboration with all relevant public and private stakeholders.
Mr President, my thanks go to all my fellow Members for the comments that we have received. I think the debate shows that there is a lot of enthusiasm for this issue, as well as high expectations that we will be able to achieve good results. I would also like to thank the Commissioner for his promise to set about making things happen and to work closely with all of the actors in this area. I also know that the Commission has promised to work closely with the Member States on these matters. There has been a great deal of anxiety in the Member States with regard to the risk that those Member States that have already invested in intelligent transport systems would find that their investments have been in vain if suddenly, different specifications and standards were chosen.
I believe it is important that, with this legislation, we have now created a platform for Member States, all of the experts and the Commission to be able to meet and discuss these issues, and we can hope that the actions and practical projects to be implemented will achieve a common understanding of the path these things should take. In any case, I think that we have done a lot of work to ensure that these things should, and could, be developed from the ground up and that we have not merely set out directives from above, but that there has actually been a dialogue about these things.
Finally, I would like to mention that we have also had discussions in Parliament about whether intelligent transport systems will make us more intelligent or less intelligent. Clearly, as someone pointed out, we must use intelligent transport systems in an intelligent way. I support this viewpoint. It is easy to see that people who use their GPS do not have a clue where they have ended up because they have simply followed the voice that said: 'Turn right, turn left'. In the end, they do not know where they are. An intelligent transport system must be used in an intelligent way.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday, 6 July 2010).
Written statements (Rule 149)
There is a strong need for the development of intelligent transport systems in road transport, as the transport systems of the European Union are increasingly overburdened. According to various forecasts, by 2020, goods transport by road will increase by 55% and road passenger transport by 36%. This will result in increased energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions from road transport. We must do our best to make road transport safer, cleaner and more efficient with the help of innovative research. This, however, will require an unprecedented level of cooperation from us, since the non-harmonised solutions currently used at a local, regional and national level may threaten the development of a single market, and this may lead to non-utilisation of the Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). I am very pleased that the Council and Parliament are of the same opinion on this issue. I also believe that the ITS system must be implemented as soon as possible and particularly in urban and goods transport. However, in order to provide simple and swift access to the system for all, we will need a single system of standards which can guarantee effective cooperation on the part of Member States with one another and with the competent authorities. The increasing requirements of transportation cannot be met using existing measures. This is why we need new and innovative solutions. Reducing rising carbon dioxide emission levels by the means mentioned above is an additional challenge.


24. Citizens' petitions during the year 2007 (
- Concerning paragraph 31:
rapporteur. - (ES) In order to take into account recent legal decisions, I am tabling this oral amendment, which I will read out in English:
'customs authorities continue to confiscate, as an extraordinary measure only, the cars of Greek nationals', I add, 'provisionally', and I add the last sentence: 'takes note of the ruling of the European Court of Justice C-156/04 (07.06.2007) that deems satisfactory most of the explanations provided by the Greek authorities in this case; welcomes the implementation of new legislation adopted by the latter in the purpose of addressing the shortcomings highlighted in the aforementioned ruling;'.
I see no objections to that oral amendment.
- After the vote:
Madam President, looking at our efficient voting time, I think I can make a short but justified remark. In the name of those who can, and do, read the results on the screen, I would like to express my gratitude for your efficient way of doing that. I hope that the other presidents - including Mr Pöttering, who is very efficient - will follow that example.
Thank you. We do our best!


Statement by the President
On 1 December two members of the Spanish security forces were shot by the terrorist organisation ETA in Capbreton in France. A young, 24-year-old Spanish police officer, Raúl Centeno, died instantly and a second police officer, Fernando Trapero, aged 23, was seriously injured and died last Wednesday.
Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of you all I should like to convey our sincere sympathy to the members of the victims' families.
I should also like to send a message of solidarity to the Spanish people, the Spanish authorities, the country's democratic institutions and the security forces in particular. The European Parliament denounces every kind of violence as a means to an end. Terrorism is an assault on freedom and democracy. Terrorism must be fought and eliminated using every means available under the rule of law. There can be no justification for terror. We must not show any weakness when fighting terrorism. The terrorist threat will therefore never succeed in bringing democracy to its knees!
I am sure that we are all in agreement on these principles. Thank you.
(Applause)


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Extension of the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Claude Moraes, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the extension of the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection - C6-0196/2007 -.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I fear that as I get into the first paragraph of my speech, there will be only me, the PPE coordinator, and the Commissioner left in the Chamber. I admire you for your stamina, Commissioner. I should never take up my speaking time by doing this, but I could not help it. Thanks to the PPE Group for being here too at this time of night.
Commissioner, you and the Council did a great job in rescuing this proposal, which now benefits those who should never have been excluded from the original Long-Term Residence Directive. There was another opportunity to include them in 2008, and again unfortunately, through the failure to reach unanimity in the Council, this could not happen. So it is a very happy day today that a proposal taken on by my predecessor as coordinator in my group, Martine Roure, is now the subject of an agreement. I am very grateful to the Council, too. I pointed out in the previous debate that it was not present but, if it were present here today, I would thank the Council too, because during the Belgian Presidency, we were able to make good progress. I am very grateful for that.
The proposal will bring direct benefit to all beneficiaries of international protection who have been in the EU for more than five years but currently cannot become long-term residents. It will finally bring to an end their differential treatment compared to other third-country nationals and will give them greater certainty about their situation in the EU.
The main issue for the negotiations boiled down to the calculation of the time period of legal residence to reach the five years. We supported the Commission that the full duration of the procedure should be taken into account. However, this was strongly opposed by the Council. We were particularly concerned about this, because asylum procedures can take many years in some Member States. The compromise we have reached in the negotiations is that at least half of the asylum procedure will be taken into account and, if a procedure takes more than 18 months, the whole procedure will then be taken into account.
I hesitate to go on to the issue of correlation tables but I am duty bound to say something about them - I would rather not. I would nevertheless like to implore the institutions to reach a horizontal agreement on this issue. I would particularly urge the Council to recognise the importance of correlation tables for overseeing the implementation of legislation. We had a very difficult situation in which many of the dossiers considered of great importance by groups across this House could have been delayed because of this issue.
I am very happy also that the scope of the proposal includes both refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. It is vital to continue the trend towards aligning the standards of protection and the rights granted to both groups, as in the recasting of the Qualification Directive. The agreement also contains many safeguards against refoulement. Given that beneficiaries will now be allowed to move between Member States, it is important that the protection background of beneficiaries is never forgotten. Therefore, Member States will have to include a comment in the long-term residence permit and will be obliged to consult the Member State that granted protection in cases of possible expulsion. The proposal also takes into account the transfer of protection to another Member State under national arrangements. The long-term residence permit needs to be modified accordingly in order to safeguard against refoulement.
We have also ensured that the principle of family unity is upheld in the event of expulsion to another Member State, but it is also clear that it should not be automatic in cases where it may not be in the best interest of family members to go with the expelled person.
The agreement we have reached on this is a signal of the new cooperation which can exist between the three institutions in the area of asylum and legal migration aided by the new framework in the Lisbon Treaty. It shows that we can reach an agreement with Member States on a progressive piece of asylum-related legislation.
I again want to thank my shadow rapporteurs from across the groups, Ms Nedelcheva, Ms Wikström and other colleagues who helped make this what I would call a pleasurable trialogue - if that is not a contradiction in terms! I should like to thank all concerned for making this a reality.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the European Parliament rapporteur, Claude Moraes. He has done a fantastic job together with his team of shadow rapporteurs. Parliament, the Commission and the Council have really achieved an agreement. The minister was also very helpful.
The compromise that we have reached is a well-balanced one and is in line with the 2007 proposal. The extension of long-term residence status to beneficiaries of international protection will ensure a higher level of protection and legal certainty for refugees in Europe and will allow for better integration in our societies.
This is also the first building block of our asylum package - the first of six pieces of legislation - and is a first step towards our joint aim of achieving a common European asylum system by 2012. It will give a strong political signal that we can agree, that we are willing to go down this difficult but necessary road and make progress, and that we can act reasonably and constructively on this. I would really like to thank you for that.
Concerning the much talked about issue of correlation tables, the Commission made a declaration to the Council. I would like to read it out, with your permission: 'The Commission recalls its commitment towards ensuring that Member States establish correlation tables linking the transposition measures they adopt with the EU directive and communicate them to the Commission in the framework of transposing EU legislation, in the interest of citizens, better law making and increasing legal transparency and to assist the examination of the conformity of national rules with EU provisions.
'The Commission regrets the lack of support for the provision included in the 2007 COM proposal amending the Long-Term Residence Directive which aimed at rendering the establishment of correlation tables obligatory.
'The Commission, in a spirit of compromise and in order to ensure the immediate adoption of the Long-Term Residence proposal, can accept the substitution of the obligatory provision on correlation tables included in the text with a relevant recital encouraging Member States to follow this practice.
'However, the position followed by the Commission in this file shall not be considered as a precedent. The Commission will continue its efforts with a view to finding, together with the European Parliament and the Council, an appropriate solution to this horizontal institutional issue'.
I think we can agree on this. It is important that this declaration is in the protocol and has been heard. As I said in the earlier debate, the Commission is repeating this argument.
Nevertheless, on this particular report, it is very important that we have reached agreement. Thank you all, again, for your contribution.
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Moraes, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, first of all, to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Moraes, on the excellent work he has done and on the exemplary cooperation he has shown with the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission and the Council.
With this report, we have made a great step forward towards a harmonised European asylum system. The agreement reached with the Council was necessary and I am very pleased that we have succeeded in making progress on this issue. The asylum package is very much greater and, indeed, there is still much to be done. Therefore, we must not drop our guard and I hope that the Council will take the same cooperative attitude in negotiations on future issues. That is what I wanted to say by way of introduction.
Regarding the substance of the dossier, without repeating the rapporteur's words, I would like to go back to two points. First of all, I would like to stress the importance of integrating third-country nationals into our societies. Migrants who come to our countries are a considerable asset to our economies. We cannot, however, welcome everybody under any conditions. Several governments have realised in recent months that their integration model has failed.
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Moraes, who has drawn up the report on which we are to give our views to his usual high standard and with a sincere desire to uphold humanitarian principles and the principle of respect for our fellow human beings.
Beneficiaries of international protection in a Member State often stay there for a very long time, perhaps the rest of their lives, as their vulnerability and persecution in the country from which they have fled tends to remain for a very long time. Many beneficiaries of international protection therefore find themselves in the same situation as those who are classed as refugees. It is also reasonable for people to be classed as resident in a country after they have lived there for five years, and this was the approach taken by both the Commission and Parliament. The Council wanted to take a different approach, which I find regrettable.
I would also like to emphasise that members of the family of the person who is a beneficiary of international protection must have the chance to shape their own lives. For example, in the case of expulsion, the family must be allowed to choose whether to follow or to remain where they are. I am pleased that Parliament will now adopt this report. It is regrettable that the Council has not approved the correlation tables, but I welcome the fact that we are pressing on with the reports that are to be included in the common European asylum system.
It is to be hoped that the Council will now take more of a listening approach. We all have the same deadline to meet and that is 2012. We now need to relinquish our old, ingrained opinions and look to the pan-European approach and what is best for everyone when it comes to asylum and migration. Otherwise, the word 'solidarity' will soon become meaningless.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Moraes, once again for his fine work and for his very good, if not excellent, cooperation on this report.
Mr President, last week, we visited Athens with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and while I was there, I talked to Mamuth. Mamuth is 26 years old and comes from Eritrea. He entered the European Union via Greece and travelled on to the Netherlands, where he would have preferred to stay, because he had some contacts there, but he was sent back to Greece. Mamuth said that, when he eventually got his refugee status in Greece, he would not be able to travel freely and that it would take an eternity before he was granted Greek nationality.
It is for the sake of young men like Mamuth, who are entitled to a new life and do not deserve to be shunted back and forth across borders again, that I am pleased that this House is now going to change that situation and that rapporteur Claude Moraes has managed to take this first step in our asylum packages. It is also important that Mamuth, who would actually prefer to live his new life in the Netherlands, is given a decent basis for comparison, because this young man has the right to see how various matters are dealt with in Greece and the Netherlands, or wherever it is that he wants to build his life.
Thank you, Mr Moraes, thank you for your cooperation and let us see how long the process takes for Mamuth.
(MT) Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking and congratulating Claude Moraes on his report. I agree with the report and welcome it with satisfaction because it will grant new rights to those who apply for international protection, including refugees. It will furnish them with rights which, after all, are already given to third-country citizens that have been legally residing in a European Union country for five years. There are, however, a few difficulties in this report. I come from a country which has experienced these difficulties, namely that five years is far too long a time to wait in order to acquire the right that is granted by this law. This applies especially to those countries who are hosting a huge amount of people who are stuck there; blocked in the country they first arrive at. Aside from my country, there are others that have recently undergone similar experiences, Greece being one of them. They are hosting vast numbers of persons who are required to wait five years to benefit from these rights, as laid down by this law. Naturally, they ultimately benefit from long-term residence, yet they can also move to other European Union countries, which could be of great help to those like Greece, Malta, Cyprus and others. Therefore, I believe that this law, although good, could have been improved upon by decreasing the stipulated five-year waiting period. Here, I would like to conclude by thanking the rapporteur Claude Moraes for having recognised this and for having done what he could to insert a reference, albeit a symbolic one to him, in an explanatory note at the end.
(RO) Mr President, I, too, must begin by congratulating my colleague, Claude Moraes, for this report. I also want to thank him for the exceptional efforts he makes as coordinator within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
I think that it is excellent that this new directive finally fills a legal vacuum with regard to the right of residence which beneficiaries of international protection find themselves in throughout the European Union. These persons who have settled in one of the Member States are currently in a precarious state of legal certainty due to the fact that they are not eligible, under current circumstances, for long-term residence permits, something other third-country nationals are eligible for. They must be granted the right of long-term residence in a non-discriminatory manner, with the only condition being prior legal residence, as is also the case for the other third-country nationals. I believe that it would have been better to take into account in this calculation the whole duration of legal residence within the European Union, from the time the application for international protection was lodged.
At the same time, consideration must be given to the fact that these people are permanently vulnerable outside the European Union, so that any move to withdraw international protection or the right to residence must be carried out with complete respect for their fundamental rights and the principle of non-refoulement.
This directive provides the necessary additional provisions with regard to the procedures that can be applied if it comes to expulsion or ending international protection. I think that we must vote in support of Claude Moraes's report as it is part of the general package governing the European Union's asylum and migration system.
(DE) Mr President, I am not looking at this report through rose-tinted spectacles. I am deliberately looking at it through the eyes of the citizens in our home countries who are concerned because after residing for five years in a Member State, refugees are then to be granted long-term resident status. This will then apply throughout the territory of the EU. So once a refugee has settled in a country with relatively soft asylum law, after five years he will be able to move his place of residence to any other Member State he chooses - and naturally he will initially seek out a country where the regulations have loopholes or are softer, and will subsequently settle long-term wherever the social standards are obviously high. The consequence will be secondary migration and abuse. Even the accumulation of a duration of five years in the asylum system is problematic, since often the administrative procedures are subject to wilful delays and investigations. Extending the directive would place an even greater burden on those Member States with a high social standard, which already have huge problems in any case, making it harder still for refugees to be integrated. I shall be extremely critical of this report.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I do not have much to add. There is a big consensus of support here for the work done by Mr Moraes on this very important directive.
I would just once again make a pledge to Mr Moraes and the others that this is an important building block. I believe it will get strong support tomorrow in the vote. This is the first step in our common journey towards 2012 and the asylum package. I just hope that this spirit of constructive cooperation will remain because I need - and I am counting on - your support for the remaining directives.
rapporteur. - Mr President, I should like to formally thank the Commissioner again for her work on this.
One of the reasons why we hope that the first step on asylum can be completed in tomorrow's vote - and I hope it is a resounding vote - is because, although asylum remains one of the deeply sensitive issues for this House, as Mr Busuttil explained for smaller countries in particular, every piece of legislation on asylum can have a disproportionate effect, not just on small countries, but also on flashpoint countries such as Greece.
We should all proceed carefully, as we did in this report, and there are some items in the explanatory memorandum which ensure that Members' concerns are taken very seriously, particularly when they come from serious Members. For example, I think we were able to incorporate Ms Nedelcheva's concerns regarding integration and those of Ms Wikström when she talked about family members and expulsion, as well as the issues of domestic violence and other issues. It is when we have that kind of cooperation that negotiations go very well at the higher level of the Commission and the Council thanks to the work we do in Parliament with colleagues.
Finally, Ms Sargentini, I really wanted to find an inventive way of saying that correlation tables were extremely important. To say that asylum seekers are now waiting for the correlation tables to be implemented is probably the most inventive and imaginative lobbying for the correlation table resolution to happen, so I hope Council was listening. Thank you again to all my colleagues for their support on this report after such a long time.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 December 2010.