One-minute speeches (Rule 144)
The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
(PL) Mr President, for a number of months now, Polish farmers and exporters of farm produce have been unable to export their products to the Russian Federation. In March this year Ukraine became the latest country to ban the import of meat and meat products from Poland. The decision was taken without giving any legal grounds for it. It is surprising that talks between the European Union and the Russian Federation have yielded no results. Perhaps the European Commission does not attach the required importance to matters of trade between Poland and Russia, and gives priority to other interests of the European Union and other countries. For this reason, I again ask the European Commission to do everything it can to have the export ban on Polish agricultural products in Ukraine and Russia lifted. This is a problem that is within the competence of the European Commission, and also within the scope of its responsibility.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a few hours ago an Internet website linked to Al Qaeda declared a holy war through the Internet, inviting all the Muslim hackers of the world to bombard Christian websites, especially the Pope's. This is, in my opinion, an extremely serious matter and an attack on the fundamental principle of religious freedom.
When the freedom to be able to address the world by means of communication is under attack, especially at the highest level, and aim is taken at a religion, indeed at an entire system of belief, one of the basic values of the European Union is under attack: the principle of religious freedom. Europe cannot remain silent about this. We are faced with an escalation of actions and initiatives whose purpose is to strike at the basic principles of our freedom. We must defend ourselves from such arrogance and from such a totalitarian escalation of Islamic fundamentalist extremism.
(HU) I feel that as a Hungarian MEP, I ought to respond to the sudden international interest in my homeland.
It is my conviction that there is unnecessarily great concern in the European Parliament with internal political struggles, and my Hungarian colleagues in the opposition have brought an atmosphere of Cold War politics into the building. We did not receive our mandate in order to bring the conflicts among our domestic parties onto a European political stage, as this serves only to increase the distance between the European institutions and the citizens of the European Union. It cannot be in anyone's interest to present a biased image of Hungary and to destroy the positive image of the country that we have worked so hard to build up.
If we want the decreasing confidence in the EU and its institutions to be restored, we must transcend petty conflicts of interest and engage in European-style politics to meet the not insignificant challenges that face us. The further enlargement of the Union, offences against human rights, the negative effects of globalisation and the efficient collection and expenditure of EU funds for the development of neglected regions are but a few of these. We have a lot to do.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, less than twenty-four hours ago I was in Moscow and, for one moment, was on the point of putting on the MEP's sash while I was among the thousands of people paying their last respects to Anna Politkovskaya. Then I thought that that would offend the gaze of that lady, even though she could not see me, to see our emblem on display.
The journalist Anna Politkovskaya told us what you did not wish to see or hear. On page 6 of today's Le Monde we read about people arrested in Moscow because they said: 'Georgians, we are on your side!'. Georgians, not Chechens. The symbols worn by those who were arrested were, moreover, those of the Transnational Radical Party. We, as radicals and liberals, have brought to this Parliament members of the Chechen Government in exile, who came to announce that they had chosen non-violence. Nothing was done about it.
Mr President, allow me to make a suggestion: let us no longer call our buildings 'Schuman' or 'Adenauer'; let us call them 'Daladier' and 'Ollenhauer'. Let us remove these names that we have no right to use ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(NL) Mr President, I should like to draw your attention to the poisoning scandal involving the Probo Koala in Ivory Coast a few weeks ago, the repercussions of which are as yet incalculable. The ship has, or will soon have, permission to leave Estonia. There is still much uncertainty as to what will happen with the poison and the contaminated crew. My observer, who travelled to Estonia on my behalf, totally agrees with Commissioner Dimas when he says that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Poison of that kind should never have left the EU in the first place. This is a breach of European and international law. Having been denied the opportunity to speak with the crew of the Probo Koala on several occasions, despite prior permission, I can only conclude that various authorities are playing a very underhand game with human lives, a game that is not yet over by a long way. The Probo Emoe is already appearing over the horizon.
(HU) As I mentioned at the meeting last week of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the greatest and most tangible achievement of the rule of law is precisely citizens' free exercise of political rights. These, of course, are not to be confused with inadmissible violent acts.
For this reason, I wish to draw Parliament's attention to the investigations and the offences requiring investigation which took place in Budapest on the night of 19-20 September, the consequences of which are still being felt to this day, calling into question the effectiveness of the rule of law in Hungary. According to complaints, the police used excessive force on the two days in question, and took disproportionately harsh measures not only against the demonstrators but against young people, including several foreign nationals, who were on the streets. Among those they arrested, punished collectively and in some cases still continue to detain were some individuals who had absolutely nothing to do with the violent events.
It is important that the use of force to curtail fundamental human rights and in particular personal freedom - such as preliminary arrest and detention - should be used only in cases where they are absolutely convinced that this is truly necessary.
(HU) Mr President, the European spirit is under threat in Hungary; we are moving further away from Europe. The socialist Minister of Local Government and Regional Development made a promise to his fellow coalition members last Saturday that he would make the appropriate legislative amendments to ensure that, in future, development funds from the European Union are distributed based on party political considerations.
If this becomes a reality, it would no longer be elected bodies that decide on the use of funds from the EU budget, but rather party political intentions would set the course, thus providing fertile ground for non-transparent, unverifiable spending. This declaration not only endangers Hungary's credibility in the European Union, but also the development of a European spirit in Hungary, which demands that EU funds should serve cohesion and unity among the Hungarian people, based on the realisation of the fundamental principles of democracy.
The remarks by the socialist minister unambiguously point to the fact that the use of EU funds serves the aim of enriching the Hungarian socialist party elite.
Mr President, last Friday the Hungarian Government gained a solid majority in a vote of confidence in the Hungarian Parliament. As a result, our national currency has become stronger, economic prospects are better and Hungary has returned to normal life. There is no general crisis in Budapest. Only our leading opposition party, Fidesz, is in crisis. The elected members of the national parliament lead anti-democratic demonstrations on the streets instead of opposing the government inside the parliament. As far as I know, elected parliamentarians should work in the parliament, not on the street, where extreme-right wrongdoers who were also demonstrating set fire to a building housing a television station.
It would be very wise if the PPE-DE Group could tell its Hungarian members that parliamentary democracy should mean respect for parliament, respect for parliamentary elections and strict borderlines between democratic politics and non-parliamentary extremism.
Mr President, a report recently issued by the United Nations Human Rights Office for Iraq states that the bodies at the Baghdad mortuary often bear signs of horrific torture, including acid burns, excision of eyes and teeth and wounds made by drills and nails. Human rights organisations have repeatedly reported that acts of torture are taking place in the prisons run by the US and British forces and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and Defence and in prisons controlled by various military factions. The UN Human Rights Office's position is that the level of torture in Iraq today is worse than it was during Saddam Hussein's rule of terror.
The EU, and Parliament in particular, have an obligation to respond appropriately to this UN report. I call upon you, as well as the President of the Commission and the Finnish Presidency, to make a clear statement on the issue as soon as possible.
(PL) Mr President, at last year's confidential session of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on a new partnership agreement with Russia, the PCA, Mr Brok, the chairman of the committee, acted in a scandalous way. Mr Brok reacted brusquely to my question to Mr Mingarelli, whose job was to reassure the new Member States that the planned agreement with Russia would not affect their energy security, and that the agreement would not be concluded in the manner of the agreement on building the northern pipeline, in other words that it would not protect exclusively German interests. In a raised voice he replied that it was the kind of question that might be raised at an election rally in his country and rejected it without giving the speaker a chance to reply. Leaving aside the fact that the reaction itself was quite arrogant and supercilious, Mr Brok allowed the principles of parliamentary democracy, which is based on pluralism of views and freedom of expression by MEPs, to be violated. His behaviour showed extreme bias in the running of the committee towards securing the sanctity of German-Russian relations.
I ask the President to respond to this and to explain the behaviour of Mr Brok in his discrimination against MEPs from the new Member States.
(FR) Mr President, one event chases away another. Nonetheless we are now witnessing live the escalation of violations of the rules of international law perpetrated by Russia against Georgia: the granting of Russian citizenship to the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the rejection of the peace plan proposed by Georgia to settle the conflicts with the separatist regions and the closure of the two border crossing points. Tension has further increased following the arrest of Russian spies by Georgia, with reprisals from Moscow which has hunted down Georgians and is trying to economically strangle its neighbour by unilaterally introducing sanctions blocking trade between Russia and Georgia. Finally, by giving the impression that Russia would recognise the separatist regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, if Kosovo gained its independence, Mr Putin makes the resolution of the conflict even more remote. The list is long and the Georgians are utterly exasperated.
Faced with this situation on the brink of explosion, the European Union has a crucial role to play in bringing the sides, and especially Russia on the occasion of European Union/Russia negotiations, to the negotiating table to find a solution and put an end to this latent conflict in the Southern Caucasus. The Neighbourhood Policy allows us this; military action would be a total failure of our policies.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, EUR 10 billion is the sum that the Italian Government has concealed and written off from its debts in presenting the national budget for 2007. I thank you warmly for having given me the floor to make it known, through this Parliament, especially to the Commission, that the budget that has reached you from the Italian Government lacks a debit entry of EUR 10 billion.
To whom is this debit owed? To the Italian pensioners who have worked in Switzerland and are awaiting this payment of EUR 10 billion, which the Italian Government has no intention of paying and - what is worse - which they have deleted from the budget. No one knows that there is a debit item of EUR 10 billion in the Italian national budget. I hope that, from today, it will be known to everyone.
(ET) Mr President, last Saturday, Russia was once again the scene of a political murder. The first few years of the 21st century have clearly demonstrated that in Russia the right to express the truth is a taboo for which people must all too often pay the ultimate price - their lives.
Political foul play has become a part of everyday life in Russia, and unfortunately we too must come to terms with this. Anna Politkovskaya's struggle for democracy, human rights and freedom of expression is the best thing that could have been done in the interests of tomorrow's Russia and a better Europe.
Ladies and gentlemen, I sincerely believe and hope that Parliament and the unofficial meeting of the Heads of State or Government at the informal dinner to be held in Lahti on 20 October will be able to exert sufficient pressure on President Putin to ensure that the truth of this terrible injustice is revealed as soon as possible, and that all those who participated in it are brought to justice.
(PL) Mr President, I would like to raise the issue of water shortages, which is becoming an important matter for many citizens of Europe.
Water is necessary for life and for economic activity. Unfortunately, the constant increase in temperatures in the 25 Member States (by 0.2oC over 10 years) and a reduction in precipitation in many regions have made access to water increasingly difficult for many citizens, leading to losses in agriculture and problems in manufacturing. The water situation is rapidly deteriorating, while investments in renewing water resources and water conservation are a long-term, costly process. This makes it necessary to organise training and the exchange of experience, and to popularise best practice and methods for the rational use of water and water conservation. Economic activities should also be redirected towards rationalising the water situation in all areas of the economy. Water shortages could become a barrier to agricultural production, and in particular to the production of raw materials for biofuels, whose supply is not a problem. The water situation must be constantly monitored, and Parliament needs to be kept regularly informed ...
(The President cut off the speaker.)
- (LT) While travelling to the Women's Basketball World Championships, the Lithuanian basketball players ended up stuck in French Guiana on their way to Brazil and were unable to depart for four days. Brazil refused to admit anyone who was not vaccinated against yellow fever.
After subsequent vaccination and the verbal assurances of the Minister of Health of Brazil that everything would be all right, the Lithuanian team finally reached Belen in Brazil by chartered aeroplane. However, they were rudely forced back onto the plane by immigration officers and sent back to Cayenne.
Only the Lithuanian basketball players received such treatment. Other Europeans who were vaccinated at the same time were admitted to Belen. Brazilian officers made it clear that German players would face no problems in this situation.
Why is Lithuania subject to double standards, as if it were not a European Union Member State? It would appear necessary to allocate more funding for raising awareness about the new EU countries, not only within the EU, but also abroad.
- (LT) Can a mouse really scare an elephant? It would appear so, and the current crisis in relations between Russia and Georgia is evidence of this.
The European Union has a choice of how to react to events in its neighbourhood: it can just make a statement or get actively involved in the peaceful settlement of this conflict.
I welcome the participation of Mr De Gucht, the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, in handing over the Russian officers to Russia and his statement made on behalf of the EU. However, this is still not enough.
I believe that, if Russia is considering the possibility of military action in resolving the conflict with Georgia, the European Union must make every effort to immediately stop the deportation of Georgians from Russia and the compiling of lists of pupils from Moscow schools with Georgian family names, as this reminds us of the policy of Nazi Germany and the deportation of citizens of Jewish nationality.
During the deportations following the Soviet occupation, my parents were transported to Siberia in wagons for animals. Now the means of transport have changed: Georgians are deported from Moscow in planes used for the transport of cargo. Such acts and such a policy cannot be allowed to continue.
(PL) Mr President, in May this year we adopted at second reading the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods, which states that as of 1 January 2007 European law will make food producers responsible for placing accurate information regarding the properties of food products on packaging. This means in practice that all the health benefits of products must be confirmed by independent laboratories.
Unfortunately these regulations will only superficially benefit consumers. Also, the EU regulation may eliminate the products of small and medium-sized companies who will be unable to afford tests of the same standard as wealthy European firms. In effect, consumers will have less and less choice and will be unable to make informed purchases, and they will still not know what they are actually buying. The destructive mechanism of such competition could be restricted by licensing the right to issue recommendatory health symbols, and creating a uniform system of recognising healthy products. It is also essential to give special support to small and medium-sized enterprises, whose products are often of higher quality than the products of large companies on our common market.
(PL) Mr President, the Republic of Lithuania gained independence just over a decade ago. This fact was celebrated by all of democratic Europe. Lithuania immediately started to introduce social and economic reforms, the aim of which was to eliminate the remains of Soviet occupation. An important role in achieving independence was played by the large Polish minority (10% of the total population), which has for centuries inhabited the areas around the capital Vilnius. However, although many years have gone by since the end of Soviet rule, the Lithuanian authorities have so far failed to return to the Poles the land that was confiscated from them by the occupying forces. And despite numerous agreements, Lithuania has refused to allow Polish names to be written in their Polish spelling, insisting that they be written in Lithuanian. These activities are a blatant breach of European regulations on national and ethnic minorities in EU Member States.
(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, if I may, to draw the Chamber's attention to a serious problem facing the Czech Republic as regards drawing on cohesion funds for modernising the waste-water sector. In order for us to honour our obligations under the directive on waste-water treatment, we will have to invest over EUR 4 million by 2010, more than 10% of our annual national budget. We agree, of course, that this cannot be done without EU subsidies. I therefore fail to understand how it is possible that in the Commission there are projects aimed at bringing clean water to Czech towns that have been lying untouched for a year and a half. These are projects put forward by our water companies based on an operational model that is in line with Community law, and yet Commission officials, acting on the basis of personal whim, refuse to authorise them and try instead to dictate to us, the elected representatives of these towns, what sort of contracts we should be signing and how we should be solving the problems of the water sector. Let us not forget that the Czech Republic is in the heart of Europe and that the main European rivers rise there and flow into neighbouring countries. This is therefore not only a Czech problem, but also a European one.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have emphasised the untimeliness of the statement by Mr Barroso, President of the Commission, before the vote in Parliament on the Eurlings report on Turkey, since Mr Barroso influenced the vote with his negative observations, aimed at ruling out Turkey's prospects of membership. Furthermore, given the subsequent comments by Mr Rehn and Mr Verheugen, one must think that Mr Barroso was lacking in foresight concerning not only our Parliament but also the Commission itself.
I wish to express my full support for Mr Verheugen's statement, which confirmed the objective of full membership of the European Union for Turkey and emphasised that it is in our interests to have a Turkey that is linked to the West: that is, a democratic Turkey governed by the rule of law, which respects human rights and protects the rights of minorities. This, in my opinion, is the objective that we must keep in view: a European Union that is capable of promoting democracy and the rule of law and - please allow me to say this, Mr President - a European Union that should have had the courage to send representatives of Parliament, the Commission and the Council to the funeral of Anna Politkovskaya, something that, in the event, it did not do.
. - (SV) Mr President, you recently contended that the historic dimension possessed by the EU seat in Strasbourg cannot be viewed in the same way by certain Nordic countries that did not participate in the Second World War. The people of the Nordic region did not suffer enough during the Second World War to be able to understand the symbolic value of having the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Thus, Nordic criticism of the European Parliament's expensive commute to Strasbourg can be dismissed.
Your statement was, of course, entirely erroneous from an historical point of view - Finland, Norway and Denmark were, in fact, involved in the Second World War - but it is also remarkable in another respect, in that the President of the European Parliament is entirely serious in believing that we should not listen to views on the sites at which the European Parliament sits if such views are expressed by citizens and MEPs from countries that did not take part in the Second World War. This is a grotesque idea, the only redeeming feature of which is that we thus need not listen to the President either, as Spain was also a non-combatant country in the Second World War. This line of thought is unreasonable. The peoples of Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden today have as much right to be heard in the current debate as those of other countries. It is scandalous that the person entrusted to be the President of the European Parliament should have such poor judgment as to consider himself entitled to tell us whom we should listen to and whom we should try to silence.
(The President cut off the speaker)
Thank you very much, Mr Lundgren. I wonder whether you have had time to read the letter that I wrote in response to the letter sent to me by several Members, and which you will have received. Have you read it? If you have, I do not understand your question. You are still saying things that are entirely false.
In that letter I explained to everybody what I said. What I said is nothing like what you claim I have said. In that letter, I explain clearly that I merely pointed out that some countries may be influenced in their points of view by the fact that, during their history, they did not take part in the world war. That is in no way intended to imply that some countries have no right to express an opinion. It does not mean that their opinion should not be heard. I simply say that they have different opinions and that one of the reasons for that may be that they have different histories.
Why do you say that the President of Parliament is denying anybody the right to express an opinion? Do you imagine that I am stupid enough to deny any European citizen the right to express an opinion because of their country's history?
Of course everybody has the right to express their opinion. I simply say that opinions may vary for differing historical reasons. Quite frankly, I do not understand why we are having such an absurd debate about a misinterpretation of my words that you, I regret to say, are persisting with.
(HU) It is unfortunate that the question of the conflict between Georgia and Russia, and a debate on these unusually disturbing tensions is not on the agenda. This would be a very opportune time for such a discussion.
Things are happening in the Caucasus that may seem astonishing at first glance, but in reality are the natural consequences of a decade and a half of Russian-Georgian relations. The retaliation and punishment following the discovery of a group of Russian spies reflect a warlike situation. It is unacceptable that the Russians should expel Georgian citizens from the country on the basis of their ethnic identity. We are faced with a violation of human and civil rights and freedoms. It is obvious that the Russian Federation cannot accept that it has lost its influence over the Georgian Republic. It finds this hard to bear, as it feels its identity as a great power threatened.
The Council, the Commission and Parliament have a great responsibility. They need to intervene more decisively and negotiate with the Russians. First of all, we need to establish what the territorial integrity of Georgia means, for at present this is understood in several different ways. It is only through peaceful means that a solution can be found, and we must avoid the outbreak of another armed conflict in the region.
Mr President, I wish to raise the European perspective of the proposed takeover of Aer Lingus by Ryanair. Until recently, Aer Lingus was the Irish national carrier and in state ownership. It was in a healthy economic situation but needed to raise finance to renew its fleet. The Irish Government said that the EU would not permit any state investment in the airline, which is news to me. As I understand it, a state has flexibility in investing in airlines if in fact they are in a healthy economic position - as indeed Aer Lingus was. This is another example of the 'blame Brussels' mentality, whereby a national government can explain its own actions by saying, 'the EU will not allow that', when that is not necessarily the case. However, that is history, and we now have Aer Lingus being targeted in a takeover bid by its main rival, Ryanair.
In a way it is ironic that on the one hand we blame the EU for the current situation when in fact no blame attaches, while on the other hand we will undoubtedly make a case to the Commission's DG Competition to block the takeover, to save us from our own actions and to protect us from the consequences of those actions.
(PT) Mr President, I should like to take this opportunity to salute Portuguese workers and their union confederation, the CGT-IN, who will be holding a general day of protest tomorrow, 12 October, against the right-wing policies pursued in Portugal. Among other issues, the Portuguese workers are fighting against the government's social security proposals aimed at raising the retirement age and at reducing pensions; they are fighting to protect and increase domestic manufacturing, to create jobs with associated rights, to defend public services and public administration designed to serve the citizens; and they are fighting for the right to collective contracts, for higher wages and for the fair distribution of wealth.
I wish to say a final word, Mr President, on the European Court of Justice's recent ruling on the Cadman case regarding maternity/paternity leave and salary calculations. In my view, it is utterly unacceptable that this could be seen as, and used for the purpose of, bringing into question the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', which is enshrined in Article 59 of the Constitution of the Republic of Portugal.
- (SK) Last June the European Commission developed a proposal envisaging a reduction in land areas taken up by vineyards in the European Union. The losses and consequences resulting from this reduction would be offset through a package of direct agricultural payments totalling EUR 2.4 billion. This proposal would affect nearly 12% of the total surface area of vineyards, in other words approximately 4 000 hectares tended by about one and a half million viticulturists. This step could entirely undermine wine production in Slovakia, which has experienced substantial growth over the past few years, especially in terms of wine quality; in addition, this comes at a time when Slovak wines are becoming increasingly competitive in European Union markets.
The Commission's proposal also prohibits the use of added sugar in producing certain types of wine, although in my country this procedure is traditional, as the vines cultivated in Slovakia are characterised by higher acidity, which is typical for the region. I am not questioning the need for reform in the European wine market, but I believe we should look to other solutions.
Mr President, next week a LIBE Committee delegation will visit Algeria. However, one of the Algerian visa requirements is the absence of an Israeli visa passport stamp. Mr Gaubert noticed this and was rightly appalled at this blatant anti-Semitism. He demanded an explanation. The matter was referred to you, Mr President, and you were asked to make representations to the Algerians. I understand that you refused to do so, saying it was a matter for individual MEPs. Mr Gaubert has quite rightly refused to go on the trip.
This raises two important issues. First, why has the European Union sent almost one billion euro to Algeria since 1996, when that country is implementing a blatantly anti-Semitic policy? The EU should stop these payments immediately.
The second issue is the apparent dereliction of duty by you, Mr President, when you could have made a stand against Algeria's anti-Semitism, backed by the weight of your office. Please reconsider and rectify this situation.
The truth is that I do not know what you are referring to, Mr Batten, but you are welcome to clarify what you have said to me. If you would be kind enough to give me the details, I will be able to ascertain whether or not I have acted correctly and, if necessary, I will put things right.
I am happy for you to explain your point further.
(PL) Mr President, today's debate about the soft fruit sector gives rise to the hope that the two years of attempts to change the organisation of the fruit and vegetable market are now beginning to take effect. Is it not strange that the Member State that supplies 90% of the EU's frozen strawberries had to wait so long for a decision to introduce protective customs tariffs? Many Polish farmers have incurred huge losses in the past few years while waiting for an end to Chinese dumping on the market. Nobody will compensate them for these losses. But the fruit and vegetable market is not confined just to strawberries. The 18 main produce types introduced by the new Member States are an issue that has still not been regulated. These include above all cooking apples. Polish apple growers will soon be protesting against the low prices offered by the processing industry.
Parliament has spent two years attempting to regulate this sector of the fruit and vegetable market, so far to no avail. Suffice it to say that apples are the main fruit in the European Union as regards harvesting (they account for 32% of all fruit harvested), while the EU is also a major importer of this fruit. How much longer will we have to wait for this and other segments of the fruit and vegetable market to be regulated as promised in the European Parliament's resolution on simplification of the common market organisation in fruit and vegetables of 11 May 2005? Will this vote be honoured by the European Commission?
A member of the secretariat will speak to Mr Batten so that he can explain the point he has made with regard to relations with Algeria and the President's compliance with his duties.
That concludes this item.


Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes


Voting time
The next item is the vote.
(For details of the outcome of the vote: see Minutes)


Opening of the sitting


Implementation of the Services Directive (debate)
The next item is the debate on
the oral question to the Council on implementation of Directive 2006/123/EC, by Malcolm Harbour, Andreas Schwab, Evelyne Gebhardt, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Heide Rühle, Adam Bielan, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides and Matteo Salvini, on behalf of the IMCO Committee - B7-0216/2009), and
the oral question to the Commission on implementation of Directive 2006/123/EC, by Malcolm Harbour, Andreas Schwab, Evelyne Gebhardt, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Heide Rühle, Adam Bielan, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides and Matteo Salvini, on behalf of the IMCO Committee - B7-0219/2009).
author. - Madam President, it is a privilege to be able to make my first intervention in the Chamber since being elected as chairman of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and to present this question on behalf of all the political groups on the committee as well as the coordinators. I am very pleased that many new members of the committee are here tonight to support me and to contribute to the debate.
I do not think that this House needs any reminding about the importance of the Services Directive. In unleashing the power of the single market in a sector that comprises probably 70% of the European economy, the jobs that it will create, and the dynamic effect of that, are sorely needed at the moment in the stagnant conditions that we face.
This is a very wide-ranging directive. It has many new features. It is complicated in many areas. It has needed a lot of attention. The transposition of this, in a consistent and full way, is absolutely vital for its effective operation. At the very core of this directive is the fact that Member States will remove barriers to business and, in particular, measures in their own national legislation that discriminate against service companies who want to do business. Believe me, there are literally hundreds of legislative proposals or pieces of legislation in different countries that have had to be amended as a result of this proposal. Unless all colleagues move together to do this, and all countries move together to do this, that discrimination is going to remain. This has to be done consistently. Otherwise, those barriers will remain.
That is why I want first of all to pay tribute particularly to the Commission for the leading role it has played in managing and coordinating the whole process among Member States of carrying out and transposing this legislation. I also want to thank the Council and, indeed, successive Councils, since this proposal was agreed back in 2006, who have led the process which we have actually seen in summits calling for the consistent transposition of this directive.
I want to say particularly to Cecilia Malmström, the Minister here tonight, how impressed the committee was with the work that Sweden was doing when we went to visit Sweden on a mission back in September. I think that they have clearly set an example to many other people and, in particular, in the meticulous way in which they are ensuring that public authorities at all levels in Sweden understand their obligations under European law in order to be able to authorise service companies coming from other places within the European Union.
Our question tonight focuses, in particular, on what we regard as the most important elements to be put in place as soon as possible. Member States have been required to go through the screening process of their legislation to look, as I say, for those discriminatory elements. But the transposition on 28 December is just the start of the process of removing obstacles, because every country is now going to come up with a list of proposals which discriminate against other countries and which, they believe, they can justify in the public interest. That mutual evaluation process - which is an entirely new one - requires other Member State authorities to look at each other, at each other's discriminatory proposals. That is going to be a vital part that starts, and we are following that with great interest. We would like to hear tonight how the Commission is proposing to approach that process. We would like to know from the Council what support they are giving to that. We would also like an assurance that this is not going to be a process done behind closed doors, because consumers and businesses and other interest groups will want to know how that process is being carried out. We want to see that list. We want to see the list of regulations and internal statutes that Member States want to retain.
Second is information and access to procedures through electronic technology. Setting up the points of single contact for business is a ground-breaking proposal, again, in any European directive. Member States are required to make that information and access to the procedures necessary for businesses to complete to allow them to trade through those systems. It is vital that we have full and complete systems set up.
So that is what our question is here tonight. We look forward to Mrs Ferrero-Waldner - perhaps in a field that is not so familiar to her - giving us some comprehensive answers. We know you will give our best wishes to Charlie McCreevy from everybody.
I think it is important to understand, however, the perspective of my committee. For us, this is also the start of a process over the next five years of monitoring and sustaining political interest and pressure on all the Member States to deliver this directive. I have to say to Cecilia Malmström that it was disappointing, to say the least, to see in the report that a Competitiveness Council discussed back in September a note from the Commission that, it would appear, in some Member States the political commitment to full and timely implementation has unfortunately not been translated into appropriate action. That is not good enough. We want the benefits and we want them now.
Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Harbour and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for raising this important issue. Just as Mr Harbour said, the free movement of services is one of the cornerstones of the internal market. It accounts for 60-70% of the EU's economy and employment and it is growing. It will play a very important part in the EU's economic growth, but as has also been pointed out, the free movement of services has not worked as well as it should have done. There is still much to be done to remove barriers to trade and to facilitate the trade in services, and it is excellent therefore that we now have the Services Directive, which is to be transposed by 28 December.
The Commission is ultimately responsible for the Member States doing what they are supposed to do and I am sure that the Commission will talk about this, but I will nevertheless say a few words on behalf of the Presidency on the basis of the question that has been put to me by the committee. The first thing I would like to say is about the screening of legislation and how it has contributed to the implementation. The purpose of this is to identify and eliminate barriers to the freedom of establishment and the free movement of services. The requirements relating to the provision of services that the Member States retain must comply with the requirements for non-discrimination, necessity and proportionality.
This is a huge task, but when it is finished, the service sector will benefit from a reduction in the administrative burden for companies providing services. The final report to the Commission on this should be ready on 28 December.
The national points of contact are to gather information concerning rights and requirements in the services sector for service providers and the recipients of services. They are to give service providers the opportunity to apply for authorisation online and to communicate with the authorisation authority. Of course, this is quite difficult for the Member States to organise. It is based on the idea of us having a more modern system with a high degree of e-governance. Next week, the Swedish Presidency is holding a ministerial meeting in Malmö on precisely the subject of e-governance. At this meeting, the Member States will receive support from the Commission and a lot of seminars will be held to enable us to learn from one another so that we can make user-friendliness the main focus.
Another important issue is the language used on the web portals and the option of being able to use this facility in a language other than the Member States' own. This is not a requirement in the directive, but hopefully most Member States will have information in several languages at the points of contact. This will give service providers a better opportunity to compare different markets and obtain the overview needed to be able to expand their operations.
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection asks whether the Member States will be able to implement the directive in time, and I hope that they will be able to. The Commission will have to answer this, but in fact, in the Competitiveness Council, all Member States stated that they would be ready in time. Political support for this is, of course, very important.
What are the biggest challenges, then? The directive as a whole is, of course, extremely wide-ranging and it requires a number of measures to be taken by the Member States, not only in terms of legislation, but also various measures to facilitate cooperation. These structures that we will hopefully have in place will make governance more efficient and more up-to-date. However, it will take time to put this in place. Screening the legislation in this huge area and finding legislative solutions cannot be accomplished overnight. Authorities will need to be trained with regard to their new duties, and this will require resources.
So the answer to the question of what the biggest challenges are is, of course, the setting up of the points of single contact and ensuring that they work. Lastly, Parliament asks how the interested stakeholders have been involved. This is an important question, because it is, of course, a fundamental part of the process for the various stakeholder organisations to be involved in creating an understanding of the Services Directive, communicating the advantages to citizens and companies, but also discovering their views and needs.
This dialogue has been a key element. Many interested stakeholders were already involved in reference groups during the negotiation period and in many cases, these networks have continued. In many countries, there has been broad social consultation on the proposals for implementation in order to obtain various pieces of information and views.
Finally, Madam President, I would like to thank Parliament for the interest it is showing in the process of implementing the Services Directive. In view of the very important role that the European Parliament played in reaching an agreement, it is good that you remain interested and are checking and ensuring that we are doing what we are supposed to do in the Member States. We agree that it is especially important for the directive to be put in place promptly and in the correct way, and, particularly now during the economic crisis, the Services Directive will be an important tool to take us out of the crisis and allow us once again to concentrate on economic growth and, hopefully, to create jobs.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank the European Parliament for putting forward this timely oral question, particularly also on behalf of my colleague, Charlie McCreevy, on the state of the implementation of the Services Directive.
It is a little less than two months before the implementation deadline, and it is a good time to look back on the work that has been done so far and to take stock of where things are today.
The Services Directive is one of the most important initiatives adopted in recent years. It has a great potential to remove barriers to trade in the internal market and to modernise our public administrations, and proper implementation becomes even more pressing in the current economic context. We know that very well and the European Parliament, and in particular, its Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, have not only played a key role in making its adoption possible but the Commission also particularly appreciated your continued interest in monitoring the work done by the Member States to implement the directive.
For our part, the Commission has delivered on its commitment to facilitate the implementation process. This was already mentioned. We have taken Member States' requests for technical assistance seriously and we have deployed unprecedented efforts and resources to support their work. More than 80 bilateral meetings with all the Member States were held and expert groups met in Brussels over 30 times during the last three years.
But the Commission cannot carry out the implementation at national level. This is the role of Member States, and transposing the Services Directive has been a challenging task for them.
It has been challenging because it involved the carrying out of several large-scale projects, such as the setting-up of 'points of single contact' and the review and simplification of legislation relating to services. It has been challenging also because it involved intensive coordination between all levels of the administration, be it at national, regional or local level.
So where do things stand today? And will Member States deliver?
Just over half of Member States seem to be in a position to achieve the implementation of the Services Directive by the end of 2009 deadline or in the beginning of 2010. Some Member States might be late. This is not entirely satisfactory, in particular, for citizens and businesses wanting to make use of their rights in the internal market. Although the situation is not unusual compared to other internal market directives, it gives some reason for concern.
But it must also be taken into account that, perhaps more than for any other directive, Member States needed to address a huge amount of difficult legal and practical issues. And given this, the result that we hope to achieve by the beginning of next year may actually be considered as quite good.
Let me now reply in more detail to your question.
So, almost all Member States have completed the process of 'screening' their national legislation. Some are still working on it. The extent to which the screening has contributed to an effective transposition of the directive is, of course, also somewhat difficult to assess at this stage. The transposition deadline has not yet expired, and Member States have not yet submitted their legislative changes to the Commission.
But it is clear that an ambitious and thorough process of screening is crucial to ensure the 'internal market friendliness' of national legislation in each and every Member State. And it is also crucial for the competitiveness of our services sector in general.
As regards the points of single contact, it seems clear that most Member States will at least have basic, practical, point-of-single-contact solutions in place by the end of 2009. These will, again, not be totally perfect, but they should form a solid basis. Member States should continue developing and upgrading the points of single contact which, in the long run, should become fully-fledged e-government centres.
In this context, the Commission agrees with the importance of providing additional information and procedures through the points of single contact, such as those related to workers rights and taxation. Businesses and consumers need to be aware of the applicable rules. But as you know, this is not mandatory under the directive.
We expect, as the points of single contact consolidate and develop, this information will also be provided. Indeed, some Member States are already planning to do so.
As regards the implementation of the directive in the area of social services - to the extent that they are covered by it - this does not seem to have raised particular problems. The directive itself contains mechanisms to ensure the specificities of these services are taken into account.
Finally, I think it is clear that stakeholders have played a vital role throughout the implementation process. They have followed Member States' efforts closely and have been involved in implementation in different ways, and we will ensure that stakeholders are consulted next year during the evaluation of the results of the implementation.
So we need to find a method to ensure that this consultation is targeted and very concrete.
Finally, many Member States have had open consultation on the draft implementing legislation during the legislative process. Some stakeholder organisations have even organised regular surveys with their members on the state of implementation. Let us say it is important to be realistic and honest at this stage of the process. A lot still remains to be done in the area of implementation, and those Member States who are behind schedule need to make extra efforts.
I remain convinced, however, that the glass is more than half full. But we had better keep filling it and quickly.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we have just heard from the Commission and the Council is somewhat discouraging.
Europe faces international competition, global competition, in which European service providers also need to find their place and be successful. If we look at the history of this directive, which started life in Parliament with a significant level of participation by the Members, it is, in my view, rather discouraging to hear that the glass is half full, or half empty, as Mrs Ferrero-Waldner said. President-in-Office of the Council, Parliament has not only played a role in the past, but intends to fulfil its role in future, too. We have therefore decided, within the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, to address this question to you in good time before the transposition deadline in order to check whether you, as the Member States of the European Union, have undertaken your obligations, which were originally proposed by you, to transpose this directive by the end of this year, and whether you are able to meet this target. At least as far as the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) is concerned, I am still assuming that you will do everything you can to fulfil your claim in the coming months.
We will appraise the directive and its implementation from the point of view of the citizens of Europe, the service providers and the workers, and against this background we will examine closely how the Member States behave towards one another and the level of transparency - as mentioned by the Chairman - with which the exchange of views over the elements of the directive is carried out and how effectively the Member States' regulations are screened for their suitability for the internal market as far as service providers are concerned. The same applies to the scope of the directive. Here, too, as we have done in the past, we will observe closely the degree to which the European Court of Justice might interpret the EU Treaty so as to give priority to the rights of citizens and that - as we sometimes get the impression happens in the Council - the interests of the Member States do not always take priority.
Secondly, we are very pleased about the point you mentioned with regard to the electronic management of the process, but the key issue in our view is whether service providers can ultimately carry out all the tasks required under the procedure in a simple and effective way using the online process and whether, behind these many home pages, they will actually find people they can talk to about the matter and about the requirements in the Member States, or whether we are not simply constructing walls and barriers here.
Ladies and gentlemen, the President is asking me to be quick. I would like to come to my last point. In the previous debate, Parliament called, in particular, for the Internal Market Information System to remove all the problems that the administrations of the Member States may reasonably experience in connection with the transposition of the directive, and I therefore hope, Mrs Malmström, that you will make every effort to ensure that this directive can enter into force on 31 December this year.
Mr President, I am grateful that we are able to debate this topic today, as it is such an important one. I would like to make one thing absolutely clear: as Parliament, we have not merely played a part, but we have ensured that, in this Services Directive, a very positive, constructive compromise was found. This compromise is based, in particular, on guaranteeing labour and social rights and on the particular regard for and removal of the services of general economic interest. That was the reason why a Services Directive was possible in the first place.
However, there are a few things than I am not sure about in this regard, and the questions that we raised have not been answered. It would, for example, be very disappointing if what I have heard from various sources turned out to be true, namely, that some Member States are using the transposition of the Services Directive to destroy the balance that we, as legislators, have found by not fully respecting the rights of workers as we envisaged in the Services Directive. This relates not only to the working conditions, which are being called into question, but in many Member States, the definitions are also being re-written or made more restrictive. There are also Member States which, with feeble justifications, are not removing the social services from amongst the services to which this transposition relates.
In this respect, the European Commission's Handbook was not very helpful, because the guidelines that it gave were partly wrong and it provided an interpretation that was, in our opinion, incorrect. The examples that I have given show how important it is for us also to create a legal framework for services of general economic interest, so that social rights, such as labour rights, can also be fully and completely respected once again. Anything else would not be sufficient.
I would also like to ask the Member States to what extent they have involved the stakeholders and, in particular, the trade unions and the social services, in the transposition. This is a question that we raised, but to which I have not heard an answer, and I would very much like a good answer to this question.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's response is, of course, not only discouraging, as Mr Schwab said, but also very disappointing. When it comes to the transposition, we need to realise that if you say that around 50% are on schedule, then we have to assume that the other 50% are a long way from achieving that.
Take my own country, Germany, for example: the individual Federal Länder are currently transposing this directive. In Rhineland-Palatinate, where I live, I had the opportunity, on 2 September, to participate in the first reading for the transposition of the Services Directive for this Federal Land. As you can imagine, it will be impossible to achieve the transposition on time, and I believe that the other Federal Länder are in a similar position.
The crucial factor for us, of course, will be how the transposition is carried out. If Article 13(2) stipulates that 'authorisation procedures and formalities shall not be dissuasive and shall not unduly complicate or delay the provision of the service' then we must take great care to ensure that this does not happen in practice. A decisive factor, for example, will be how the single points of contact are equipped. Will they have language skills? Will they work closely enough with the administrations to also be able to deal with the concerns put to them? We very much doubt it. In fact, the committee should now be asking which countries are behind schedule with this, which countries make up the 50% and when do they expect to achieve this. It would then be better to create a moratorium, or something similar, for these countries.
I am certain that, in most countries, this directive will not be transposed by 1 January 2010, even though these countries have had more than four years to do this. That is a major problem and it is very disappointing.
Mr President, in the discussion which is under way, I would like to ask about the effect of the crisis on implementation of the directive in EU countries.
In my country, Poland, despite the crisis and difficulties with transposition, it has been possible to draft a law on services which is based on a high degree of liberalisation in registering and running a business. In sectors such as crafts, trade, tourism and hotels, the restrictions are only exceptions. We are doing this in the name of equal opportunities and protection of the principle of healthy competition.
The compromise of 2006 assumed that certain areas would be excluded from regulation of the directive. I would like to ask what the evaluation of those decisions looks like today. It was assumed then that in the future, further legislative work would be undertaken on the question of public utility services. Keeping to the metaphor used by the Commissioner, after filling the glass which is already half-full, will there be another, and what will happen next?
Mr President, in the compromise reached in 2006, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament withdrew demands for social considerations to be given priority over the freedom of companies that provide services. Otherwise, as Mr Harbour wrote in a press release, it would not have been a compromise. The term 'country of origin principle' has been deleted, but it has been replaced by a conflict of laws regulation from the Commission that clearly states that, in the event of a conflict between the labour market laws of different Member States, the law of the country of origin of the company shall apply.
The directive could have been interpreted as meaning that the EU would not interfere in national labour law. However, the Commission quickly drew up guidelines stating that companies providing services do not need to have a permanent representative in the country in which the work is carried out, and therefore the trade union has no counterpart with which to negotiate. The Vaxholm ruling also clearly stated that Swedish labour law is subordinate to EC law, which meant that Sweden was forced to reduce the standard of its labour law legislation. I, and the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, can see no alternative for workers rights other than for us to provide a clear legal protocol in the treaty in which union rights take precedence over market freedoms.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first and foremost, the Services Directive represents the end of a journey for Europe, a journey of which the final destination is precisely the completion of the internal market so as to facilitate trade within the European Union, and to thus enable the authorities to coordinate their efforts and, above all, to minimise the transaction costs between the different operations within the different sectors and the different Member States.
Harmonising the contents of the various administrative procedures and making it easier for service providers to operate in other Member States automatically means increasing growth and therefore also stimulating growth in a period of exceptional crisis such as this. The Services Directive, adopted by the European Parliament and by the Council on 12 December 2006, is an intrinsic part of the Lisbon Strategy, which has been revised over time and adapted to the various situations that Europe has experienced over the last nine years, and its main objective absolutely must be to make the European economy the world's most competitive economy, but also a knowledge-based economy.
The economic crisis that we are going through and that the European Union is tackling at institutional level, skilfully reconciling the various measures taken with the individual Member States too, requires the Services Directive to be applied even more correctly and more swiftly than was necessary when it was first adopted. The deadline of 28 December 2009 for the transposition of the Services Directive is therefore not only an indication of the date set for moving on, of course, from the ratification to the legislative process of this directive, but also, and above all, it represents an important step towards a Europe that is increasingly aware of its resources and, more specifically, that is increasingly capable of getting the best out of those resources.
(FR) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since its adoption and the heated debates that surrounded it, the Services Directive has somewhat faded into obscurity, but it is important to show that we are particularly vigilant in the crucial phase of its transposition.
I question the interpretation of the provisions of Article 2 of the directive linked to the exclusion of social services from its scope. Notions such as 'support for persons in need' and 'mandated providers' seem restrictive when compared with the definition of social services used in certain Member States, and I am concerned that a deliberately strict interpretation may serve to justify the inclusion of whole swathes of these services in the scope of the directive.
The exclusion of these services is a key element of the text and a guarantee for the citizens that the European social model will be protected.
I hope that certain Member States, including France, will not take advantage of the transposition in order to liberalise social services, under the false pretext that they are complying with European laws. These problems to do with the integration of services of general interest demonstrate the need to have European legislation that is specific to them and not to stick to a default definition as part of a directive on commercial services.
(PL) Mr President, proper implementation of the Directive on services in the internal market is important not only for European entrepreneurs operating in that market, but also for consumers. The Services Directive is a good example. A period of three years has been allowed for its implementation. That is a long time, but even so, not all countries will manage to transpose the directive within the three years. This example shows most conspicuously that ideal cooperation between Member States and European institutions is needed in order to achieve transposition in time in all Member States.
Indeed, this is the direction taken in the recommendations issued by the Commission in June this year concerning means for improving the functioning of the internal market. I think that in the implementation process, it is necessary to go a little further. Therefore, in the report concerning the table of results for the internal market, I propose the initiative of organising a forum for the internal market, which would bring together representatives of European institutions, Member States and other interested groups with the aim of achieving a more explicit commitment to transposition, so that we will be able to apply and execute legislation on the internal market, including this extremely important directive. I would like the forum to be a place for the exchange of experience of Member States and EU institutions in the area of transposition. I would like the forum to draw the attention of society to questions concerning the internal market. We must increase our citizens' interest in the functioning of and responsibility for the market. Then we will have achieved complete success.
In connection with the problems which we heard about a moment ago concerning transposition of the Services Directive, I would like to ask if Member States have sought to cooperate with the Commission, and if it can be said that in the implementation process, they have succeeded in applying any of the Commission's recommendations? Does the Commission continue to seek new solutions? Is it making use of all possibilities and means to mobilise and support especially those countries which are experiencing problems with transposition? Are there any new ideas on this matter?
(MT) It is worrying that our regular contacts with the local authorities, at least in my country, confirm that many of them are still in the dark as to what awaits them once this directive enters into force. Generally speaking, there is little knowledge as regards the current laws on the four freedoms. There also appears to be a lack of information on anything related to the laws and regulations on financial services, e-communication services and transport services. Furthermore, it seems that the authorities might have problems in simplifying the administrative process and harmonising trade and other licensing regulations. Therefore, the Commission needs to adopt further initiatives so as to provide immediate and direct assistance to local and regional authorities. Moreover, if we really want the implementation process to fully reflect what we agreed upon within Parliament, then it is imperative that the European Parliament remains involved in the process, even after the directive enters into force.
(PL) Mr President, in conditions of recession we should, as a rule, strive to create new jobs, increase competitiveness, foster price reductions, or, to put it succinctly, increase benefits to the consumer. We are doing this, for example, by subsidising the motor industry. We are talking about such occupations as hairdressers, plumbers and bricklayers, who do not need subsidies. They do need, however, freedom to do their work. Regulations and reality - if only they were in agreement.
I know of the example of a bakery built in a neighbouring country. While it was a question of consent to build it, everything was alright. However, when production started, the government and the local authorities withdrew their consent. Why? The association of local bakers protested. If only this type of practice were never employed.
Commissioner, let us agree also to name the 50% of Member States which do implement the legislation. Which ones are they? I would also like to ask that we receive in January a proposal for precise monitoring of the transposition of this directive in individual Member States.
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I agree with the Commissioner that the Services Directive is one of the most important pieces of legislation passed in recent years, and that its proper implementation is extremely important.
In the previous parliamentary term, I had the opportunity to work on the provisions of the Services Directive. I still remember the huge effort made by all of us here in the European Parliament in drawing up its provisions. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Services Directive and am deeply convinced - and this is something I often stress in meetings with entrepreneurs - that it represents a huge opportunity both for them, and also for the entire economy of Europe.
However, it will be possible to transform the opportunity into specific results only if the appropriate legislation is implemented by Member States appropriately and on time. Therefore, I am joining the appeal for acceleration of the implementation process by national authorities which still have not completed essential work in this area, in particular, on the question of proper implementation of the principle of freedom to offer services and of individual contact points. I follow carefully implementation of the Services Directive in individual countries, as I do also in my own country of Poland, where work on suitable implementation of the directive's provisions is still under way. I hope the outcome of these efforts will be satisfactory.
(SV) Mr President, the Nordic labour market model is based on agreements between the social partners. This type of model does not work if one of the partners, in this case, a service provider, does not have a representative in place with whom negotiations can be carried out. We were therefore very pleased with the decision taken on the Services Directive, which we believe means that the right to negotiate, enter into and apply collective agreements, and to take industrial action in accordance with national legislation and practice, would not be affected.
Nevertheless, during the implementation of the Services Directive in Sweden, a debate arose as to whether or not it is permissible to lay down a requirement for there to be a competent representative of the company. Thus, my question is: does the directive in any way prevent the host country laying down the requirement for the services company to have a representative in place with the mandate to negotiate and enter into agreements?
(PT) In the course of this debate, we must not forget the serious implications that transposition of this directive on the liberalisation of services will have in a number of countries, particularly those with highly unstable social situations, further worsening a crisis situation like the one we are experiencing. Even with all the concern shown in the various Member States, unless immediate measures are taken to defend social and workers' rights and to protect the most fragile sectors, including in public service areas, we could have even more serious problems. Liberalisation could increase unemployment, poverty and inequalities among the most vulnerable, and only benefit large service companies and economic groups, particularly in the wealthiest countries.
Therefore, at this time of crisis, one vital measure is to postpone transposition of the directive on the liberalisation of services and to conduct an appropriate study of the potential social implications that implementation of this directive would have.
Mr President, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is to be thanked for highlighting this important issue, the implementation of the Services Directive. In particular, the economic crisis which we are in must not be allowed to be used by countries, entrepreneurs or anybody else to drive us back to protectionism, which would be a disaster in the overall context.
On the broader front, trade in services can be the driving force for economic recovery and, indeed, Ireland has prospered since we engaged in foreign trade. The new crisis would be far worse in Ireland if we did not have the broader base to trade internationally, facilitated by the internal market.
Indeed, opening up our borders to foreign competition has not brought any negative consequences for domestic services. It has, in fact, fostered competition and innovation. So, what has been proposed today is something I support 100%.
Finally, I would just like to say that it was good to hear somebody here say something good about the Irish Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, who is a friend of mine although he is from a different political grouping.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, we are talking about the Services Directive. The aim of this directive was to put into practice the fourth fundamental freedom of the European integration project, since we are today talking of anniversaries. It was adopted three years ago, and now the period given to the Member States in which to adapt their national laws and remove obstacles has come to an end. Now that this period has passed, it is time to assess what state we are now in, who has transposed the legislation and who has not, and under what conditions.
My question, however, is whether the Commission considers that a greater level of harmonisation is required and, if so, whether it is thinking of proposing any legislative initiative in relation to this extremely important Services Directive, seeking to harmonise the market and the rights of consumers, citizens and workers.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, thank you again for raising this very important issue. I think there is general agreement that the Services Directive is very important and that it is really urgent that we try to implement it as soon as possible.
The Swedish Presidency is doing its utmost, as have earlier presidencies, to make sure that this goes smoothly and quickly. We have had several discussions in different Council formations. We have had seminars and discussions on it, and it has been placed on the agenda to encourage real progress on this issue.
However, almost two months remain, and the answer to the question of who is lagging behind may change. There is still time. Our aim is clear - and I know that it is the Commission's aim as well - and it is that all countries should have implemented the directive by 28 December 2009. There might be some delays. We deplore that, of course, but I know that all countries are working as quickly and swiftly as possible.
A question was asked about how the contact points would function. Well, they do not exist yet, but the aim is for them to function in a user-friendly and effective way and to contain all the relevant information that is needed, both by the service suppliers and by consumers. Member States have collaborated with the Commission to supply an information leaflet, available in all languages, to facilitate access for citizens and consumers to the relevant information. Many Member States are also making their own efforts in order to spread information about the directive. There is also an agreement to have a common logo to make it easier for users to navigate between the different websites and the contact points.
Some Member States - although it is not compulsory - will provide information on working rights and labour laws at their contact points. The Services Directive does not cover labour law and the posting of workers is excluded from it. The question put to me by my Swedish colleagues is a Swedish issue. We are looking into that, and it is a little outside this debate. We will be happy to come back to it in a more national context.
The Services Directive is important. It will make life easier for service providers, it will facilitate free movement and will be beneficial for investment, for growth and jobs and it will be very good for the citizens. The citizens look to us to ensure that it is in place as soon as possible because it will facilitate their life. It is our responsibility to make sure that we do our utmost to see this happen.
I would like to thank Parliament again, not only for its contribution in voting on and adopting the Services Directive, but also for acting as a watchdog and continuing to push the Council and the Commission to do what we can in order for it to come into place. But there is still some time remaining and possibly we will come back to this debate next year, under the Spanish Presidency. The Commission will still be watching this very closely.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, as has been said before, we have discussed all the questions surrounding all the different social and other aspects of this directive. I do not think we should reopen this discussion now, but we do have to look to the Member States to see how they have implemented or will implement the directive. On the basis of the already available information, it does seem that a majority of Member States will have completed the implementation either by the end of the year or maybe the beginning of 2010.
So I think one can also say that most Member States will at least have set up the basic single contact point and will therefore be ready to comply with their administrative cooperation agreements and obligations.
In some cases, however, there might be delays as far as the changes in the legal framework are concerned.
With regard to the review process, some Member States have taken the opportunity of the review to simplify laws and procedures and have made a considerable number of changes. Other Member States have enacted only a few amendments, and the number of changes made of course depends on several factors including the existing regulatory framework and also the internal organisation of Member States: in federal states, it is more complicated than for others.
Of course, this also depends on the willingness of a Member State to simplify laws and procedures.
With regard to the question of proper implementation, my colleague, Charlie McCreevy, has, on many occasions, drawn the attention of members of the Member States' governments to the importance of the work on implementation, and he and his staff have followed and monitored the implementation process very closely.
Indeed, as I said before, during the last three years, more than 80 bilateral meetings with all the Member States were held, and expert groups met in Brussels over 30 times. So we have been very active on that. And we will continue to follow Member States' work and will also continue to provide technical assistance if desired by the Member States. But in the end, it is also clearly the Member States' responsibility to do the work and also allocate the necessary resources.
As regards next year, I think it will be crucial to ensure that the process of mutual evaluation provided for in the directive is used in a constructive way. We will also have to assess the quality of implementation of the legislation, as was asked, monitor the functioning of the single contact points and then also get feedback from businesses and from consumers.
Last but not least, we may also need to resort to other enforcement mechanisms - sometimes maybe to infringement cases, but it is too early now to say that.
On the small and medium-sized enterprises, of course, we are of the same opinion as you. They are the backbone of the EU economy and their concerns are at the heart of the Services Directive.
So this directive will benefit all businesses, but SMEs will benefit most, and at the present time, SMEs very often decide to stay at home because of all the legal complexities and also because of the absence of transparent information. Therefore, the Services Directive will do away with many of these complexities and - we all think - give a boost to them.
To the Commission's knowledge, no Member State is using the implementation of the Services Directive to reduce workers' rights. I would like to say that very clearly. Workers' rights as such are not affected or dealt with by the Services Directive. Indeed, this was clearly a result of the practical and political compromise reached by both Parliament and the Council.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that Parliament has been a key partner throughout the history of the Services Directive. Over the past three years, the Commission has found it important to keep you involved in the implementation process and informed about our work with the Member States and, as was mentioned earlier, this will remain a key action to making the internal market work better, to deliver the growth and jobs we need. Proper implementation is therefore the most pressing issue, especially in the current difficult economic crisis.
That concludes the item.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Europe must be competitive. Thanks to the efforts of the European Parliament, the Services Directive will help implement the hitherto not entirely regulated free movement of services within the European Union's internal market. The Services Directive regulates licensing procedures, indicating prohibited requirements, and confirms that from 2010, all new requirements for service providers must be non-discriminatory, justified by important social interests; it also regulates the principal functions of the point of contact being established. Most importantly, the costs of service provision are reduced at interstate level, and this is particularly important in this period of economic recession. Lithuania is joining the list of Member States that are ready to implement the provisions of the Services Directive on time. Indeed, it is very important for the Commission to cooperate closely and effectively with the Member States, as in some countries, there is a lack of information and insufficient levels of preparedness for the implementation of the directive. At present, only 50% of the Member States are ready to transpose the provisions of the Services Directive into national legislation.
Mr President, Member States must fully implement the Services Directive by 28 December 2009, which would, as in the case of goods and products, open up the services market to private individuals and companies.
This directive would help small and medium-sized enterprises to a large extent and promote job creation and economic growth, while taking consumers' interests into account. However, some Member States have decided to restrict employment for citizens from new Member States which joined in 2004 and 2007. Germany and Austria wish to maintain this restriction until 2011, without any more serious economic and social motive. France and Belgium are applying a similar regulation with regard to Romania and Bulgaria.
However, by now it is clear that the fears personified by the notorious 'Polish plumber' are groundless. The number of Central and East Europeans working in France is far less, for instance, than the number employed in the UK, even though the decision was made by Paris three years ago to gradually remove the restrictions in those professions where there was a labour shortage.
These measures are hindering, to a large extent, the implementation of the Services Directive, one of the basic pillars of which is the complete removal of discrimination on economic and nationality grounds. Twenty years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which swept away the borders between East and West, we can say that the Services Directive also serves a similar aim. The successful implementation of this directive would finally do away with the false image that has been promoted of the 'Polish plumber'.
Before any implementation of the directive, the European Parliament should carry out a counter-assessment of the human and social impact of its application by taking account, in particular, of the consequences of the crisis that we are going through. Indeed, everything points to the fact that this directive will result in the European Union's businesses, craftspeople and employees being pitted against one another. Recently, a professional agricultural organisation revealed that the French authorities were proposing that it set up, in the countries of Eastern Europe, employment agencies for agricultural workers who are lower paid and less socially protected than French workers. The transposition of the Services Directive must not lead to the introduction of such practices, which lead to the levelling down of social Europe. Furthermore, we are very concerned about the threats hanging over the services of general interest (SGI) due to the case law of the European Court of Justice. We therefore continue to hope for another European legislative framework that will optimise and develop public services in particular.
The Services Directive (2006/123/EC) is characterised by partial liberalisation of the flow of services in the European Union. The objective of bringing such a directive into effect was to release economic potential. The directive has opened up many possibilities, both for consumers and for entrepreneurs. Greater use of the single market has become possible. The main beneficiaries of liberalisation of the market for services include small and medium-sized enterprises, for which the previously existing barriers had caused the greatest difficulties. According to the European Commission, around 70% of the GDP of EU Member States is generated from services. A similar figure is given for the proportion of the workforce engaged in service provision. One of the advantages of bringing the directive into force is the resultant rise in competitiveness in the internal market. Application of this directive has proved to be an opportunity for development of the European economy and has allowed jobs to be created. It should be added that this has achieved one of the aims of the Lisbon Strategy, concerning a rise in the competitiveness of the European economy. In addition, it has brought about an increase in the range of services being offered. The effects which have been achieved are an encouragement to continue work on the further liberalisation of this directive.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


5. "Europe for Citizens" programme (2007-2013) (vote)