Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


Community Customs Code - Customs 2013 programme (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on the reports:
by Mrs Fourtou, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernized Customs Code) C6-0419/2005, and
by Mrs Fourtou, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an action programme for customs in the Community (Customs 2013) C6-0158/2006.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection as well as the other committees involved, and in particular Mrs Fourtou as rapporteur for the reports to be discussed tonight.
The modernisation of the European customs environment is an essential contribution to attaining the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. It is a must if we want the European Union to remain an attractive place to do business and maintain the external competitiveness of EU companies. In this context, it is crucial to deepen the single market by making the EU a fully-integrated customs territory.
This reform is also critical if we want to live up to the challenges of globalisation and reinforce the role of customs in protecting our citizens and companies from security and safety hazards such as counterfeiting, dangerous goods or the devices of international terrorism.
The modernised Community Customs Code will provide the legal framework for the development of a simple and paperless environment for customs and trade based on the best use of information and communication technology.
The present Community Customs Code was adapted in 1992. Since then, it has undergone only limited changes. This means that the Code has not kept pace with the radical changes to the environment in which customs and traders operate, particularly in respect of the rapid and irreversible adoption of electronic data exchange. The Customs Code has to be adapted to fit the electronic environment. In addition, it is commonly held by customs authorities and traders alike that current customs procedure and processes are unnecessarily complicated. They also do not reflect the changing focus of customs work, moving from the collection of declining customs duties towards the application of non-tariff measures. This includes, in particular, security and safety measures, the fight against counterfeiting, money laundering and drugs and the application of sanitary, health and consumer protection measures.
With your support, the proposal for a modernised Customs Code on the table tonight, together with the proposals on the Council table and e-customs, will make customs work better, faster and more cheaply.
Let me once again and now more specifically turn to Mrs Fourtou and the Committee on the Internal Market for their detailed and most valuable assessment of the Commission's proposal for a modernised Customs Code. I know there is unanimous support in the Committee on the Internal Market for the rapporteur's recommendations. Progress in the Council is complementing your work. I am pleased to report that on 4 December the Competitiveness Council showed a keen interest in the key elements of the reform. Ministers gave strong support to the Commission's proposals on the single window, on centralised clearance and on customs agents, while inviting the Commission to pursue the work to implement these in an acceptable manner for all Member States.
I would like to thank Parliament for its constructive contribution to the debate on these three issues, but I must also inform you that in at least one of them the Commission's position remains unchanged. Thus it is the Commission's firm opinion that the accreditation of professional customs agents is not a matter for the Customs Code. There is a future for the profession in an open competitive market, through self-regulation and the recognition provided by the status of authorised economic operator.
Though there is no debate on the e-customs proposal tonight, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur Mr Heaton-Harris and the Committee on the Internal Market for its full support for an extremely ambitious Commission proposal. It is indeed challenging to propose that all Member States and the Commission commit themselves to developing common electronic systems for customs proposals by an agreed date. Let me stress that the firm support from Parliament is more than welcome in order to convince Member States that, despite budgetary constraints, they need to develop their customs IT system in a Community framework. I am confident that the Council will acknowledge this step and the proposal can soon be adopted.
I very much appreciate the efforts of the European Parliament and particularly those of Mrs Fourtou to come to an agreement in a single reading on the Customs 2013 proposal. This will definitely ensure the continuity of the programme activities as of 1 January 2008. The speedy adoption of Customs 2013 shows that there is a broad agreement across all the institutions on the obvious need to guarantee the effective functioning of the internal market in the customs field. Indeed, the customs environment is undergoing major changes. The Customs 2013 programme will be an essential instrument to ensure efficient cooperation and coordination between all customs administrations. It will facilitate the introduction of new trans-European computerised systems, reinforce networks between customs officials and promote and establish common training modules.
Once the two customs proposals under debate and the e-customs proposal are finally adopted by both Parliament and the Council, they will enable the customs services of the EU to meet the major challenges. They will facilitate international trade, foster simpler control and will more effectively protect the internal market and the health, safety and security of our citizens through more efficient control.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 'modernised Customs Code', 'paperless Customs', 'Customs 2013 programme', these three reports that we are discussing in this session demonstrate the growing importance of customs and their role in the European Union's desire for competitiveness and efficiency.
These three reports are closely linked but, in the interests of greater clarity, I shall first present the modernised Customs Code and then move on to the Customs 2013 programme.
The Customs Code - as you said, Mr Kovacs - dates from 1992. It was legitimate to modernise it in order to adapt it to the evolving range of tasks undertaken by Customs and the radical changes that have taken place in international trade. It is a matter of rationalising customs procedures by laying the foundations of customs clearance systems that are accessible and interoperable within the European Union. That is why this proposal is accompanied by a proposal for a decision on electronic customs, for which Mr Heaton-Harris is the rapporteur.
The new Code includes 200 articles and we have concentrated on the principal points, or at least the most controversial points, that is, the customs representative, the authorised economic operator, centralised customs clearance and comitology.
Article 11 is concerned with the customs representative. Until now, national legislation has made it possible to reserve the right of representation to a professional category. In the context of the Single Market and the electronic environment, however, there is no longer any grounds for this monopoly. Furthermore, some businesses are able to have an integrated service that takes care of customs formalities. The right to customs representation, therefore, must be open to all. Nonetheless, in many Member States, using a customs agent is traditional and remains very useful for small businesses. That is why, without wishing to retain a monopoly, the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection adopted an amendment that, among the criteria for the status of customs representative, provides for recognition of the existence of practical standards of competence or professional qualifications in order to satisfy those Member States for whom the abolition of this monopoly is difficult to accept.
We have not yet found the ideal solution and this question will certainly be raised again at second reading because certain delegations within the Council are still expressing reservations and going so far as to demand regulated access to the profession.
The authorised economic operator was introduced into the Customs Code by means of Regulation 648 of 13 April 2005, known as the 'security regulation'. This statute is not yet properly in existence because the provisions for its implementation have just been adopted by the Commission. The Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection has introduced a clarification, making a clear distinction between the 'customs simplification' Authorised Economic Operator, and the 'security and safety' Authorised Economic Operator.
Centralised customs clearance is a facilitation that, in principle, has been well received but the Member States are wondering about the collection of customs duties. The Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection has adopted a fairly radical position in demanding that electronic customs clearance operations should be free of charge and that customs-offices should be open 24 hours a day. Indeed, in the interests of fair competition between national customs authorities, the rule must apply to all. It is necessary, however, to ensure that there is harmonisation of the checking processes.
Finally, the provisions in the proposal make constant reference to comitology. This procedure is necessary because reference needs to be made to experts to establish the provisions for implementation of the Code. In accordance with the new interinstitutional agreement of July 2006, certain provisions of the Code are subject to the new procedure for comitology with scrutiny. Therefore, having sought the opinion of the European Parliament's legal service, we have adopted, in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, amendments that are aimed at adapting the comitology procedure corresponding to the different articles. The Committee on International Trade adopted amendments for the codecision procedure for certain provisions that would normally fall within their competence by virtue of the strengthened cooperation procedure. We considered, however, that its position was contrary to that of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection and we had to reject those amendments.
Those then, very briefly, are the main points of the report and, as I said just now, it is very closely linked with the report concerning the Customs 2013 programme. Reading the mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2007 programme has demonstrated that this programme is well adapted to the needs of administrations and that it plays a crucial role in helping participating countries to share their experiences. This evaluation recommended strengthening the activities carried out in the field of training and information exchange. The programme has a budget of EUR 322.8 million over a period of six years and its aim is to help the customs administrations of the participating countries to encourage legitimate exchanges, to simplify and speed up customs procedures and to ensure the safety and security of citizens and the financial interests of the Community.
The amendments adopted in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection are in line with the work of the Council and I wish to thank the Finnish Presidency in particular because, in order to satisfy the European Parliament's legitimate budgetary demands, it has on many occasions negotiated with Member States and defended our position. Therefore, we shall be able, I hope, to conclude this matter at first reading.
The reports concerning customs are eminently technical and complicated. That is why I wish to thank most warmly the various people I have spoken to within the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union who have always responded to my every request and allowed me to tackle these subjects more easily. I thank also my fellow Members and the Chairman of our Committee for their help and support. At a time when trade is speeding up, when organised crime and counterfeiting threaten our security and our market, customs and economic operators need our full support.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, Commissioner, I wish to congratulate you on the important work that you and your services have accomplished in the interests of modernisation of customs legislation, which is a necessary condition for the good functioning of our internal market. I should like also to warmly congratulate Mrs Fourtou who made some very useful proposals for improvement.
With regard to international trade, I shall make three comments concerning questions of competence between committees, comitology and, lastly, the parliamentary dimension in international trade. I think, Mr President, that there must be an end to rivalry over competence between the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on International Trade or, at the very least, these rivalries must not delay the adoption of European legislation that our internal market so desperately needs. It is not sensible to deny the link between international trade and the issue of Community customs. At a time when Europe is being closely watched, I regret that Rule 47 of our Rules of Procedure has been violated in respect of strengthened cooperation between committees, because the amendments voted for unanimously by the Committee on International Trade have been brushed aside in an irregular manner and will not, alas, be put to the vote in plenary.
I am delighted, however, that our amendments have brought to light an abusive use of comitology procedures by the European Commission. I hope that, in the end, it will be forced to use the new comitology procedure with scrutiny, which came out of the interinstitutional agreement of July 2006. On that subject, it will be important to clarify the use of Article 194(c), and the European Commission will have to assure us that it does not intend to modify the Community Customs Code according to an international trade agreement concluded by it under Article 133 of the Treaty on European Union.
Ladies and gentlemen, at a time when the failure of the Doha agenda harms the rules of international trade, we must protect our producers and our consumers from security and safety problems thanks to border controls. In this context, never has the parliamentary dimension of international trade been so important, particularly in relation to the functioning of Community customs.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by expressing my sincere thanks to all my fellow Members who have cooperated on this difficult dossier; above all Mrs Fourtou, who has fought her way through this complex set of rules with great success.
The rapporteur for our group, Mr Heaton-Harris, unfortunately cannot be here today, and so, as the coordinator with competence for this dossier, I shall be speaking on his behalf and that of the group today, if I may.
The Community Customs Code is an extremely important project, which will remove persisting hurdles in the European internal market and, particularly with regard to piracy and intellectual property, has global significance. For example, it enables centralised clearance at an enterprise's headquarters, which is important to the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, in particular. I think that this report on the Modernised Customs Code helps to simplify existing customs procedures and will also help to improve the competitiveness of European enterprises.
I should like to focus on just a few points. From the outset, one critical point was Article 14 on authorised economic operators, about which Mrs Fourtou has spoken. I think that the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection has reached a good compromise on this, one which gives these persons greater freedom in the performance of their activities. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will therefore withdraw its Amendment 57 and support the compromise reached in the Committee on Internal Market.
This compromise makes clear that we want our enterprises to enjoy greater freedom, and we should also communicate to the outside world that the regulations of the Modernised Customs Code have been drawn up for our enterprises and in their favour. The Community Customs Code will not be an obstacle to greater competitiveness.
Finally, I should like to highlight and champion the amendment to Article 125 that was tabled by Mr Heaton-Harris on behalf of our group. This article enables Member States to introduce simplifications beyond the scope of the Customs Code, within the framework of bilateral or multinational agreements. The old Customs Code already included the possibility of closer cooperation, and so this possibility is already being used in practice.
It would be detrimental to our enterprises if we were to now abolish this framework, and I believe that that also accords well with the thoughts of Mr Audy.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, I have the feeling that, with regard to this issue, disputes amongst MEPs, as such, have been kept to a minimum, particularly with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats having withdrawn its Amendment 57. I believe that Mrs Fourtou and the Commission's services in the TAXUD Directorate-General have done a wonderful job and have explained an issue that appeared to be complex in a very clear fashion, but we still have a few amendments that the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is insisting on presenting.
I believe that the first group of amendments raises no difficulties, since it involves adapting the comitology proposals to the new comitology agreement between Parliament and the other institutions. With regard to the other amendments, there are still certain issues outstanding, such as the issue of representatives at customs. A significant proportion of Members of this House, at least, believe that customs activities require a degree of professional dedication and cannot be replaced with an abstract freedom to carry out customs activities. There are too many considerations of a personnel nature, including security considerations, which make this a legitimate profession that must be maintained and must not be eliminated on the basis of a liberalisation theory that has nothing to do with reality.
The amendments presented by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on the economic operators authorised and also, particularly for consumers and citizens, on free electronic customs processing and the twenty-four hour provision of these services, also seem to me to be positive. I believe that it would be a good thing to simplify customs procedures, which are usually very complex and which hinder the internal market.
I - like the Socialist Group in the European Parliament in general - am therefore in favour of the amendments presented by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I believe that Mr Audy is absolutely right to raise the issue of comitology, but I believe that, in accordance with the reports that we have received from the legal services, the only possible solution is the one adopted by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and that the problem is not one of confrontation amongst committees but, rather, one of our all having to adjust to this situation, in view of the current reality. I do not therefore believe that there is any kind of problem between the two committees.
In short, Mr President, we are in agreement with Mrs Fourtou's report; I believe that we could reach an agreement very quickly amongst the three institutions in order to approve the two reports, and we hope that this Parliament will approve the amendments from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs without any great difficulty.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SV) Mr President, I should firstly like to offer my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Fourtou, for the splendid job she has done. In general, there is no rule without its exceptions, and that is a good thing. Our European Union does not consist only of Member States that should be covered in full by the Community's customs regulations. The EU also consists of territories that, for historical and other reasons, have in different ways been forced to place themselves outside the Community's harmonisation of indirect taxation. Such territories include the Åland Islands, which belong to Finland, the Channel Islands, the Canaries, Agios Oros in Greece and the overseas French departments.
It is important for both the European Union and its territories that trade between them be able to take place as smoothly as possible. Because these territories are very different even from each other in terms of their trade with the European Union, it is important that it be made possible to introduce special exemptions for them. This would benefit the European Union and our efforts to achieve the objectives in terms of the Lisbon Agenda.
Special arrangements for these areas would not disrupt trade within the Community, and we should, of course, all benefit from the smooth flow of trade and from the fact that unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles had not been erected. I am therefore pleased that, in its report, the committee has taken note of this need and adopted a pragmatic approach. My hope now is that the Council and the Commission too will meet Parliament half way on these points. Bilateral arrangements too must be possible in certain cases. It is important for the EU to respond to the population's special needs and not to get hung up on standard solutions that are appropriate for many but not for everyone. I am pleased that the reform of the Customs Code can also help strengthen people's confidence in the EU, which has, of course, seriously wavered recently.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the European Parliament and Council Regulation laying down the Community Customs Code is a document amounting to a thorough modernisation of the Customs Code in force since 1992. This modernisation is required in view of the radical changes that have taken place in the area of international trade. Accordingly, the regulation aims to simplify customs legislation and procedure. It is designed to benefit commercial entities and customs administrations, to reduce the cost of customs formalities and to respond to commercial challenges involving safety and protection, detecting counterfeiting and money laundering and also protecting health and the environment.
The new Community Customs Code goes beyond simplifying certain procedures. Fundamental changes in Customs legislation have been undertaken in a number of areas. This document is inextricably linked to the report on computerisation of Customs procedures. The decision taken by Parliament and the Council concerning an electronic environment for customs authorities and traders provides for the creation and application of safe, interoperable and accessible electronic customs systems which should simplify and improve flow along the supply chain and also customs procedures.
The third proposal establishing an action programme for duties in the Community 'Customs-2013' intensifies cooperation between customs administrations and their officials. Trans-European information networks are provided for, to facilitate the completion of customs formalities in the internal market and allowing products to be taxed according to national and Community tax legislation within the market. This programme plays a key role in the harmonious operation of the internal market and the management of the Union's external borders. It also contributes to attaining the Commission's objectives for the years 2005-2009 and the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.
(FR) Mr President, a codification is a moment of intelligence: one moves away from law to which one is subjected to law that has been thought out. I am therefore very pleased about the reports on customs codification by our fellow Members and friends, Mrs Fourtou and Mr Audy, particularly because, since 1919 in the case of Germany, 1934-35 for France, 1938 for Mexico, and so on, we had lost our codifying ambition. Here, of course - let us not be naïve - we are codifying the customs rules simply because of pressure from the United States after 11 September, who want customs that are no longer to do with budgets but with security: hence the addition of control by authorised economic operator, by customs representatives, and so on.
Beyond this little codification, however, we shall have to think of a customs codification that is legally equal to the challenges of globalisation. Since maritime law was codified at Montego Bay in the 1970s, and since International Trade Law was codified at Marrakesh in the 1990s, the 21st century will have to devise a customs codification at the only level appropriate to international trade, that is, at global level.
The place for working towards this model of a global code exists: it is the World Customs Organisation in Brussels, in partnership with the World Trade Organisation in Geneva. The sources of inspiration for this model code exist too: it is the Tokyo Convention and the Brussels Convention on customs value and rules of origin. There remains the purpose of this model for a customs code, that is, a revolution in customs technology, so that we can move out of the current archaic system and have customs duties that can be adjusted, reimbursed, subsidised and negotiated.
Adjusted according to the production cost differential between one country and another; reimbursed, in the form of a customs credit offered by the importing country to the exporting country; subsidised, in favour of exporting countries of the South, who would receive a customs credit supplement; negotiated, finally, in the stock exchange like the protectionist pollution quotas. In this way we shall at last achieve a reconciliation between international free trade, which is necessary and national social protection, which is equally necessary. This is the marriage of David Ricardo, the free trader, and Friedrich List, the protectionist.
(SK) To begin with, I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Fourtou and Mr Heaton-Harris, for their work in drafting these technically demanding reports.
From the very beginning, the Customs Union has been considered a cornerstone of the European Community. The Customs Code is a practical instrument that ensures smooth trans-border trade, and it should therefore take into consideration the new challenges of a globalising economy. The creation and subsequent implementation of a modernised Customs Code is a logical and essential prerequisite for the effective development of the European market.
The proposal reflects efforts to create a customs and trade environment based on improved effectiveness of customs clearance procedures through information exchange, elimination of the administrative burden, and facilitation of trade at European and international levels. In this age of technology, an electronic system offers new opportunities for the quicker and more effective implementation of commonly recognised standards. The proposal offers a unique opportunity to overcome existing discrepancies between the customs systems of Member States, as it will ensure enhanced interoperability of national systems, which we have so far failed to encourage adequately.
At present, security-related issues are becoming a priority, and the proposal therefore also focuses on this area. It includes specific measures to secure external borders, as well as data protection. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that these proposals will be accepted during the vote. If they are not, we would paradoxically be blocking the free trade that we are actually striving to facilitate.
(PT) Mr President, to whom I extend my warmest greetings, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I naturally welcome this initiative and commend the rapporteurs on the quality of their work. This initiative is of the highest importance, given that the code currently in force dates back to 1992. It must be modernised to reflect the changes that have since taken place and must address those changes.
There are two aspects that strike me as crucial. Firstly, this new code will help boost international trade because simplifying the processes may lead to an increase in the competitiveness of European businesses, and thus to stronger economic growth. To this end, opening up to new technologies - as well as placing greater value on those technologies and even enforcing their use - represents a highly significant step that should help strengthen the competitiveness of the European economy.
That being said, there is a second point that must be highlighted, which relates to the nature of the current functions of customs. Security needs to be increased at various levels to protect public health, to ensure food safety and to combat crimes such as money laundering, counterfeiting and fraud more effectively. In other words, consumers must be better protected.
I should like to conclude by saying that this proposal is a positive step towards safeguarding more effectively the interests of Europeans both as manufacturers and as consumers. As such, we naturally endorse the proposal.
Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur for her work on this issue. I wish, however, to talk about one specific issue regarding customs policies. The single biggest problem currently facing the EU in relation to its customs policies is the unwillingness of the Turkish Government to implement the Ankara Protocol. Turkey promised the European Union 18 months ago that it would do so and that, accordingly, Turkish ports and airports would be open to Cypriot ships and air traffic. Turkey has failed to honour this political commitment, which is a central element of the Turkish accession negotiations to join the European Union.
Last week, Turkey offered to open one port to Cypriot traffic. This offer was not even given in writing to the Finnish Presidency, and, even so, it falls well short of the commitment given by the Turkish Government that it would implement the Protocol. It is now very likely that up to eight chapters of Turkey's accession negotiations with the European Union will be suspended some time this week, which is the recommendation of the European Commission.
On a broader level, Turkey faces the real possibility that EU accession talks may be fully suspended in time if it does not implement the Ankara Protocol and open up Turkish ports and airports to Cypriot traffic.
(EL) Mr President, I consider the speech of the previous speaker quite useful and definitely well timed and I would like to endorse everything he said. However, I will not just stop at what he said; I would like to refer to the main subject of today's discussion by saying that technology, the Lisbon Strategy and the logic behind the common market force us to modernise the Customs Code.
The delicate position of the customs representatives and their particular professional nature necessitates the specification of certain criteria for the proper performance of their activities, without these criteria having a negative effect on the internal market or the free transportation of services. This is the equation we have to solve. Therefore, we have amended Article 11 of the new Customs Code, so that there is no numerical limitation in this particular profession, the recognition of customs representatives throughout the European Union Member States is established and, of course, there is free competition in the sector, in general.
On the other hand, several of my colleagues, including me, have insisted that the criterion of practical standards or professional qualifications for individuals who wish to become customs representatives must be precisely specified. This is because the usefulness of the profession will be acknowledged as well as the considerable services they offer to companies as well as to the customs authorities, and primarily it will ensure the safety and protection of the public's interests.
Therefore, I believe that with the proposal submitted today by the European Parliament we achieve a proper balance; in that context I would like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her efforts to arrive at this useful compromise within the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
(EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that if we wish to create a common market according to the provisions of the Lisbon Strategy and become a considerable competitive power on a global scale, we have no other choice but to effectively meet these trade challenges and adapt to the rapid technological developments. To this purpose, not only do we have to eliminate bureaucratic customs procedures but also amend the laws that govern them, in depth.
Even though our goal is to simplify commercial transactions between Member States while at the same time safeguarding security and protection of European citizens, such a goal would not be feasible without the presence of customs representatives, namely specialised professionals with certified knowledge. Therefore, I consider it necessary to issue accreditation to the right individuals using the most commonly accepted criteria.
I consider that customs brokers provide the necessary guarantee of knowledge and experience for the execution of customs operations and therefore they must be considered accredited customs representatives. Let us not forget that they exist as a profession in the vast majority of Member States and they serve an important role to the benefit of all financial agents and especially for small- to medium-sized enterprises whose activities are of vital importance to European growth.
To conclude, I should like to stress that modernising the Customs Code cannot in any way be identified as deregulation of the labour market of serious professionals who historically have proven their effectiveness.
(PL) Mr President, the European Union's customs system should serve two main purposes. Firstly, it should protect the Community's economic and financial interests and secondly, it should facilitate legal trade exchanges and the acceleration and simplification of customs formalities.
Unfortunately, despite the existence of the Customs 2007 Programme and the allocation of almost EUR 150 million, these aims have not been fully achieved. One only has to consider the negative impact on the Community market of large-scale smuggling of alcohol and tobacco products, and recently also of liquid fuels. Not only does the scale of this organised smuggling destabilise the internal market, but the Union's budget also suffers as it is deprived of the hundreds of millions of euro it should obtain from customs duties.
This state of affairs also has an impact on the trade in foodstuffs. Products often appear for sale on this market at prices significantly lower than the cost of production, which indicates that the customs system has been evaded. This happened recently on the poultry market in Poland, and over the last two years there have also been problems with frozen strawberries from China.
The second purpose of the customs system, namely facilitating trade exchanges, is not being fulfilled. This is particularly obvious along the European Union's eastern border with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Tiresome procedures, corruption and queues of vehicles stretching back for miles all contribute to making it unattractive to export goods from the European Union.
I very much hope that the EUR 323 million allocated for the implementation of the Customs 2013 programme will allow significant improvements to be made.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the honourable Members for their valuable contributions to the debate and for the positive attitude towards the Commission's proposals.
The Commission has given appropriate consideration to Parliament's 58 amendments to the Modernised Customs Code and has found the majority - as many as 32 - acceptable, 9 acceptable in principle or in part and only 17 unacceptable.
I would point out that those amendments which the Commission finds unacceptable are related to the key issues that I highlighted earlier and that are commonly debated by both Parliament and the Council.
I must reiterate that as regards customs representation - Amendments 14, 19 and 57 - the Commission maintains that the accreditation of professional customs agents falls outside the scope of the Customs Code. The Commission fully recognises the role played by customs agents in the world of trade. These agents, like any other economic operator, should have the right to exercise their profession in another Member State, and professional competence in one Member State should be recognised in another. This is a basic feature of the single market and essential in an electronic environment.
The Commission is actively working with the professional associations, like CLECAT and CONFIAD, listening to their concerns and trying to find a satisfactory solution. The proposed change offers substantial benefits to business in general, such as increased competition between customs service providers, and opens new and wider business opportunities for customs representatives beyond national borders.
On comitology, I believe that our legal services have come to conclusions that are not too dissimilar. There are indeed a few articles where the Commission considers that the regulatory procedure, its scrutiny, should not apply, but in most cases our institutions' respective analyses are converging.
I should like to clarify why the Commission cannot support certain amendments. The first I should mention is Amendment 21, which suggests that in Article 22(1), the words 'administrative and criminal' be deleted. All Member States impose criminal penalties in customs matters and apply, even if they are not always described as administrative penalties, measures of an administrative nature intended to penalise non-compliance with the customs rules. There is, for example, the withdrawal or suspension of authorisations in case of serious misuse. Such administrative measures play an essential role in the uniform and proportionate application of customs legislation. It is therefore necessary that Article 22(1), continues to refer explicitly to both administrative and criminal treatment of infringements.
The Commission cannot agree with Amendments 23 and 25 relating to customs fees. The Commission's intentions are simply to limit, as far as possible, the charging of customs fees; in particular, such fees should not be charged for the drawing-up of electronic declarations. On the other hand, we find it inappropriate to prevent the collection of fees where attendance of customs staff is requested beyond the normal office hours. We hold the view that customs fees are only legitimate where customs render a service that goes beyond their normal mission.
I should also mention Amendments 30, 40 and 41, which aim at granting benefits to railway companies. The Commission cannot accept them, because they are going against our efforts to build up a level playing field for all transport operators, be they road, inland waterways or air transporters. In fact, the original proposals are likely to have been misunderstood and I am confident that once further explained their rationale and fairness will become obvious.
In conclusion, I can assure you that these issues can and will be urgently and seriously addressed. The Commission is confident that, given the spirit of openness and cooperation that has marked the consultations to date both in Parliament and in the Council, practical and appropriate solutions will be found so that the Modernised Customs Code can enter into force as planned in 2009.
With regard to the customs 2013 programme proposal, I confirm that the Commission fully supports all the amendments proposed by Parliament. I hope that the report by Mrs Fourtou will be adopted tomorrow by a large majority.
Let me finish by repeating that the strong support by the European Parliament for the e-customs proposal will certainly be acknowledged by the Council and speed up the adoption of the proposal.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30 a.m.


6. Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (amendment of Decision 2008/839/JHA) (


9. Follow-up of the energy efficiency national action plans: a first assessment (


Question Time (Commission)
The next item is Question Time (B6-0231/2009).
The following questions are addressed to the Commission.
Subject: Competition and transparency of income taxation
Does the Commission consider the maintenance of non-transparent systems of income taxation within the European Union to be compatible with free competition and if not, what steps does it intend to take to put a stop to such systems in Member States or parts of Member States?
Member of the Commission. - Let me first recall that Member States are, under Community law, largely free to design their direct tax systems in a way that best meets their domestic policy objectives and requirements. But in recent years they have reached common agreement on several measures proposed by the Commission that are designed to tackle the erosion of tax bases and investment allocation distortions. In doing so, Member States have acknowledged that EU-wide cooperation and fair tax competition rules are vital to protect revenues.
On the question of transparency raised by an honourable Member of Parliament, I would like to recall that very recently, on 28 April 2009, the European Commission adopted a communication identifying actions in order to promote good governance in the tax area, which means transparency, exchange of information and fair tax competition.
Firstly the communication identifies how good governance in the tax area could be improved within the European Union so as to reinforce the argument for other jurisdictions to follow. It calls on Member States to swiftly adopt Commission proposals for directives on administrative cooperation and mutual assistance in the recovery of taxes and savings taxation. Member States should also continue to give appropriate priority to eliminating harmful business tax regimes. More specifically, the Commission's proposal on administrative cooperation contains a provision according to which bank secrecy could no longer be invoked to deny a request for information from another Member State relating to persons non-resident in the requested Member State. This is entirely in line with international consensus on tax information exchange.
Secondly, in order to enhance the promotion of good governance beyond the European Union, the communication suggests how to ensure better coherence between EU policies with a view to ensuring that the deepening of economic relations between the European Union and its partner jurisdictions would be accompanied by a commitment to good governance principles. Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring support for developing countries which have committed to the good governance principles.
The communication also proposes ways of ensuring more coherence between Member States' individual policy positions in the international tax area and agreed good governance principles. This would notably include, where appropriate, a coordinated response to jurisdictions that refuse to apply good governance principles. Today the Commission presented the communication to the EU ministers of finance at the Ecofin meeting, with a view to seeking their support on the proposed approach for the last Ecofin meeting of the Czech Presidency in June 2009.
(ES) Thank you very much for your answer, Commissioner. You have addressed a number of aspects, such as transparency; what I missed in your speech was a reference to recent agreements in the framework of the G20, concerning the fight against tax havens and so-called 'non-cooperative jurisdictions'. Is the Commission contributing to the G20 proposal or has it remained entirely on the fringes of this type of negotiation?
Member of the Commission. - The Commission is a full participant in the G20 and is participating fully in this process.
I have already mentioned some of the measures the Commission would like to encourage Member States to take. It is fully involved in the G20 process.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, in principle I am against the introduction of new taxes. They affect, above all, the middle class. They affect wealth creation and do not stimulate investment.
However, we must consider taxes in conjunction with short-term stock profits. Do you envisage that taxes on short-term stock profits gained from naked short selling will be earmarked for the creation of new jobs?
Could the Commissioner please reassure the House that he is firmly committed to all direct taxation - income tax and corporation tax - being firmly left a Member State competence? Please confirm that is your view.
Member of the Commission. - Well, there is a Treaty and the Treaty is very clear. We know that there will be a new Irish referendum perhaps on the Lisbon Treaty, but these Articles are very clear on how the competences are divided in text, and the Commission has no intention of writing a new treaty with different responsibilities.
This is also partly the answer on using tax policy for creating jobs. As different countries are in different situations, a Europe-wide taxation instrument will not perhaps achieve the same goals as in a particular Member State.
Taxation instruments are sometimes good to really create incentives or develop the economy, but this is very much dependent on the situation in particular Member States.
Subject: EU earthquake policy: actions taken by the Commission in the wake of the recent catastrophic earthquake in Italy
In November 2007 Parliament adopted resolution (P6_TA(2007)0507) on an integrated approach to earthquakes by the EU (prevention, response and repairing damage) in which it called for the adoption of specific measures as regards a policy for protection, reinforcing buildings (with special emphasis on buildings of historic and cultural significance), funding, research, public information, etc.
Furthermore, in my letters to the Environment Commissioner (10.1.2008) and the Commission President (22.5.2008) I have drawn attention to the urgent need to draw up a communication devoted specially and exclusively to the effective management of responses to earthquakes.
In the wake of the recent deadly earthquake in Italy, does the Commission take the view that it is covered by its written answer of 22.7.2008 and the answers furnished by Mr Barroso and Mr Dimas or does it intend to take further initiatives to protect European citizens from earthquakes?
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, the Commission is fully committed to helping to protect people from earthquakes. This protection must form part of an integrated approach to dealing with situations which may be caused by various dangers. The Commission recently adopted a communication entitled 'A Community approach on the prevention of natural and manmade disasters' which also covers earthquakes. This communication follows on from the actions taken by the Commission over recent years, which are in line with many of the recommendations formulated by the European Parliament in its resolution in 2007. This specific action relates in particular to the dissemination of best practices, the development of joint approaches to risk evaluation, mapping and education and awareness-raising, while at the same time seeking to improve the cohesion of and synergies between financial and legislative means of prevention which already exist, thereby strengthening the added value of action by the European Union. The Commission will make every possible effort to moderate the impact of earthquakes by encouraging the Member States to fully integrate the common European planning codes for buildings and public works, especially Eurocode 8, into their national regulations. The Commission awaits the response of the European Parliament to the approach proposed in its communication with particular interest.
(EL) Madam President, I am sorry, but the question remains. I honestly do not understand: why does the Commission refuse to do for earthquakes what it did for floods? What is the difference? In fact, I am very surprised that this debate is being held after the recent disaster in Italy. As regards the last communication to which you referred, it mentions earthquakes in passing at three points, to which you referred. Do you honestly believe that a reference to earthquakes at three points in a communication suffices to counterbalance the huge need which we have in Europe for a communication specifically on earthquakes? I would honestly like to have an answer.
Μember of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, the communication which we released in February 2009 takes an integrated approach to the overall question, regardless of the source of the danger. We consider that this approach is the best. As far as floods are concerned, we have a communication on water scarcity and drought. There are communications on specific dangers or specific problems which exist, but we consider that the integrated approach which we want to use is the most appropriate.
We await Parliament's response and, if there are important reasons why we should abandon this approach, then we shall consider them. However, I must say to you that the Commission communication will also help a little in preventing the consequences of earthquakes.
As such, it is addressed at the Member States, which jealously guard the principle of subsidiarity as regards competence for this matter, so that they will incorporate the provisions of the European Union on buildings into their national laws, be they the provisions of Eurocode 8 for new buildings, or the provisions on strengthening buildings for old buildings. Let them do so, let them take certain other actions which are needed, such as strict compliance with planning regulations, in order to prevent most of the disasters.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, connected to the fault line through the Apennines, there is another fault line which crosses Slovenia. As you perhaps know, the Krško nuclear power plant is situated on this fault line. On our initiative several warning devices have been installed there. What measures do you plan to take, following this devastating earthquake in Italy, to guarantee the security of the Krško nuclear power plant, which stands on a fault line connected to this. Do you think that you might take precautionary measures, which might go so far as closing Krško?
(EL) Madam President, I too am surprised by the position expressed by the Commission here today because, of course, we respect the reply as regards the question of subsidiarity and I absolutely agree with the specific demands, but that does not resolve the question of a collective political proposal on the part of the European Commission which includes all aspects of disasters caused by earthquakes. Mr Pirker added yet another and, of course, we shall find others. The question therefore remains: why, over and beyond the principle of subsidiarity and the specific measures mentioned by the Commissioner, do we not have a global proposal on the part of the European Commission?
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, as I said earlier, we await the response of the European Parliament to the communication we have issued on earthquake prevention. Once we have a response, we shall examine if this approach or the other approach is better. In particular, there are specific provisions for nuclear installations and there is the Seveso II directive for industry.
Subject: Solar thermal electricity and the Economic Recovery Plan
In a bid to tackle the serious energy and economic challenges facing the European Union, in its recovery package the Commission has proposed measures designed to contribute to both economic recovery and energy objectives. However, solar thermal electricity (STE) - one of the most promising renewable energy sources - is not included in the list of sectors which stand to benefit.
Moreover, European industry is currently the world leader in this area, but it can only maintain this position if the domestic market expands and if further R&D is promoted.
Can the Commission please comment on why the STE sector has been excluded from the strong financial boosts provided in the recovery plan? What other sources of funding are available to the sector?
Member of the Commission. - Solar-thermal electricity was never excluded from the European Economic Recovery Plan. It was not included for the reason that we addressed the most urgent energy needs. That means that we looked at the issues where the crisis has had the greatest impact and where projects could not materialise.
The first question was interconnection. Any power production, especially from new energy sources, cannot function if there are grid issues. So we addressed as a matter of urgency the electricity grids and interconnection between member countries.
On top of that we have had the gas crisis, which clearly showed that in some cases missing physical infrastructure has a huge impact as regards gas supply disruption. This is the easiest way to respond to the security of gas supplies.
And we addressed two other issues which I think would definitely be postponed if they did not have support from the Community: firstly, offshore wind energy, which is rather a large project that needs to be connected to the mainland grid, and, secondly, carbon capture and storage, where we really need to encourage industry to come with a full-scale project as soon as possible.
For this reason we have not considered other eligible areas. That is why it was not included, not because I do not believe in it. I believe in solar thermal energy but we addressed the most urgent needs.
What sources are available to support the further evolution of solar thermal electricity? First there is the seventh framework programme. We have EUR 2.35 billion for the years 2007-2013. Second, it is one area where you can provide the tool. From next year we have an opportunity to provide 300 million emission allowances for new entrants. Renewable energy projects, such as solar thermal electricity, are eligible. So if the projects are there they are very welcome.
We can also use funds from the European Regional Development Fund. We encourage more use of synergy energy sources; in particular we increased the limits of how much renewable energy could be used in relation to housing and energy efficiency. So overall eligibility for these measures has been increased.
On top of this, in the summer or early autumn, the Commission will table a new communication on financing low-carbon technologies. We will try to elaborate on it so that these technologies get support, not only from the Community budget but also from industry and the Member States, so that this support is targeted and so that we get the new technological development very quickly to achieve our goal of 20% renewable energy by 2020, but perhaps we can be even more ambitious in this respect.
So we have not excluded it. It is just that we have a lot of areas that we need to address and we have taken the most urgent areas where money needs to be invested now.
Thank you, Commissioner, for a very full reply. I have noted carefully what you have said.
In the event that any of the projects which have been nominated specifically under the Recovery Plan are not in a position to draw down the funding by the deadline of 30 June 2010, will you have what I will refer to as a reserve list of projects that are ready to go, so that the money will actually go into this sector, to energy efficiency and low energy?
In the solar thermal area, for example, they have major projects ready to start construction at the end of 2009 and early 2010; they have several projects ready to go. Could we have a reserve list so that all this money is used in the event of those who have been allocated at the moment not being in a position to draw it down?
Member of the Commission. - In establishing the list we looked at the majority of the projects and we also involved the Member States, so at this stage I have no reason to believe that we will be unable to disburse or commit all the money.
If there should be some delays, or if some projects are not sufficiently prepared, we will have a report in March 2010. So, if there is a possibility that part of the money is available, I promised at trialogues that the Commission will consider, if appropriate, making a necessary proposal. But it is premature to promise it because it depends how well we can commit the money, as today there are a limited number of projects where we believe that they have advanced enough to use this money.
Subject: Nuclear power stations
According to the Institute of Energy of South East Europe, many EU countries and other countries from southern and eastern regions and eastern Mediterranean countries engaged in accession negotiations are examining schemes to extend or construct nuclear power stations to generate electricity. Will the Commission say what actions and initiatives it intends to take to impose pre-conditions and restrictions in respect of these initiatives, bearing in mind the special geological characteristics, climatic conditions and the possibilities for funding these schemes and their viability?
Member of the Commission. - Well, my colleague Stavros Dimas has already replied to a supplementary question on this issue.
Basically, nuclear energy is established in a way that means that each country has a nuclear safety regulator who has full responsibility for implementing nuclear safety measures. At the same time, each Member State decides whether or not to use nuclear energy. This is subject to the Euratom Treaty, and very clearly there are additional requirements. The additional requirements are that each project that is submitted is also analysed by the Commission and we make a recommendation on the projects to be developed. We did that in the case of Belene and also of Mochovce.
There is also a clear obligation that the requirements of the environmental impact assessment should be fulfilled, as laid down in Community law, and the additional requirements of the UN/ECE Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context will also be applicable.
So whatever project is being proposed, we are not discriminating between Member States. There are clear requirements to be fulfilled and each project is analysed on its own merits, based on the Community acquis and on environmental legislation. I can assure you that this process is so watertight that no permission has ever been given to build a nuclear power installation unless all the safety requirements can be guaranteed.
(EL) Madam President, I should like to ask, in connection with what the Commissioner said about the evaluation of every proposal, if an ex-ante study can be carried out for the area in question, including on the basis of EuroMediterranean cooperation and the particular character of the area, so that there are criteria which every country will have to take into account from the beginning and comply with in their planning.
Member of the Commission. - First of all, each and every country develops its own legislation that decides on the process of how the application should be made. Later, the process very much relates to, and is based on, the national legislation and Euratom legislation. As a result, we cannot take a regional approach. We need to look at the specific situation in each and every Member State and, at the same time, each and every project.
We cannot just consider an average situation in the region and say that this region is not suitable for using nuclear power. That would be untrue because you cannot develop a project that could be used in more or less every place. It is a question of the costs, conditions and time needed. So, we cannot go with a regional approach. We really need to look at each and every concrete project because only in this way can we guarantee full safety in this project.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on the nuclear package which you have just tabled and which, in particular, concerns new nuclear power plants, as well as the proposal that, in future, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEO) standards should be binding.
I would be interested to know whether you think you could prepare a proposal for an EU regulatory authority or the upgrading of WENRA to a body for issuing binding standards in the next legislative period, and whether we could also make IAEO standards compulsory for all Member States.
Member of the Commission. - On the second part, I believe that, with this high-level group of nuclear regulators, we can move forward with stronger standards. This is just the point of departure; it was the lowest common denominator we could have developed.
At the same time, because of the sensitivity of the issue - politically and also, sometimes, culturally - I strongly doubt that the European regulator could play the role required. I would not say the European regulator could not be trusted, but that regulator needs to keep a distance from nuclear power installations. I believe that full responsibility for safety should lie at all times with a national regulator, because that is the best way and that will always avoid the debate of whether the central regulator is pushing hard enough for nuclear energy etc.
It is good to establish a common framework, but responsibility must remain with all the regulators who, as is proposed in the nuclear safety directive, have full powers and all the necessary instruments to implement this policy. We have very good nuclear safety regulators in the Union, so an organisational shake-up is not necessary. We just need to increase the binding standards, starting from the level we have now, and working together, thus demonstrating to the world that standards can be increased in the nuclear industry.
Subject: Promoting sustainable energy in cities
In my own home city of Cork, local authorities and businesses are striving towards the creation of sustainable energy policies. What is the Commission doing to support cities like Cork in their efforts to promote sustainable energy?
Member of the Commission. - I am very glad that you put this question, because I am very proud of one of our achievements, and that is the Covenant of Mayors.
In 2008 we supported the initiative from cities to have a Covenant of Mayors. This means that cities make a binding obligation to reduce CO2 by more than 20% by 2020. They develop sustainable energy action plans for this. They have also founded a Covenant of Mayors' Office for coordination and promotion. We support these actions through the Joint Research Centre, to provide scientific background and technical support for the preparation, implementation and evaluation of the sustainable energy action plans. For smaller municipalities, the Commission negotiates with other national, regional and local administrations to ensure their support for the smaller cities.
An advanced system of good practice, the Benchmarks of Excellence, is also intended to be implemented this year.
We have also created a financial support facility through the European Investment Bank (EIB), in which we place the grants, and also use the EIB to target sustainable development in the cities. The EIB has already been involved in specific projects, such as with Barcelona, on which negotiations are quite advanced.
I know that the City of Cork has not yet signed this Covenant, so it is still up to the City of Cork to use this opportunity. It is a good way to really mobilise citizens behind these initiatives.
At the same time there are also other instruments for sustainable development, and the cohesion policy provides significant support to cities to implement sustainable energy policies and actions. In total, for the period 2007-2013, EUR 9 billion from cohesion policy funds will be directly invested in sustainable energy initiatives in the EU. The Southern and Eastern Operational Programme, which includes the City of Cork, will invest EUR 669 million in the region and contribute to reaching Lisbon growth and jobs objectives.
These cohesion funds will directly support sustainable energy projects in the region, and will help to mobilise further national investment. Funding may be used to stimulate energy efficiency and renewable energy production, the development of efficient energy management systems and the promotion of clean and sustainable public transport, particularly in urban areas.
The Operational Programme includes the 'Gateway Challenge Fund', which is based on an integrated sustainable development strategy for Cork.
Finally, the Regional Development Fund was recently changed to give all Member States the possibility to use regional funds for energy efficiency improvements and the integration of renewable energy into existing housing. This can be as much as 4% of the total Regional Fund allocation.
So, to summarise, I believe that we have created a framework for cities that share an ambition to develop sustainable models for their citizens, and that is the Covenant of Mayors. The Covenant of Mayors includes sympathisers like New York and Rochester, and has participants from other non-EU countries, so it offers a lot of knowledge through the office we operate.
As concerns financial support, we do not at this stage have any programme dedicated to energy efficiency, but we have the Structural Funds, we have an Intelligent Energy Europe programme and we have also the European Investment Bank. We are using all those instruments to support these initiatives. The European Investment Bank is very active in this process. However, at this stage it is not so much an issue of finance, but more about good projects and really dedicated policy from the cities.
That is my answer to your very important question. I believe that cities have every opportunity to lead the way towards a sustainable energy future.
Thank you to Commissioner Piebalgs for his response. Commissioner, you have already pointed out in your response that there is a saving in economic terms because of the efficiency in energy, but now we need to move on to the next step. Rather than just promoting sustainability and energy efficiency, we need to utilise the funds to create new ways of creating energy to make cities even more self-sufficient, rather than importing fuel or building nuclear power stations, as we were saying previously. We need to find cleverer and better ways, and maybe you might look in the future not just to the investment bank but to new ideas coming from the Commission as well.
Member of the Commission. - We are trying to respond to this request. We are planning, by the end of this year, to develop a new energy efficiency action plan that will address this. We are also drawing up a communication on the financing of low-carbon energy sources.
It is very important for stakeholders to take the initiative, and I expect cities to put forward proposals and put pressure on Members of the European Parliament and on Member States to create Europe-wide instruments in the areas concerned.
Without this bottom-up approach, we will fail to use the opportunities that exist. European cities are so diverse, and there are so many good ideas, that we should not just try to apply a top-down approach to each and every city.
I believe that the Covenant of Mayors will provide much-needed intellectual input and experience to the policies we need to formulate to achieve sustainable cities. It is not only about savings. There are many issues involved. It is also about smart grids, the integration of renewable energy and sustainable transport - hydrogen buses, electric vehicles. There are plenty of opportunities.
Each and every city could make its own programme, because what the Covenant of Mayors has done is make an obligation to reduce CO2 by more than 20%. That does not necessarily mean through energy efficiency. It could be a completely different policy area. It very much depends on local circumstances.
In view of the time I am afraid I will not take the further supplementary question. I am sorry, Mr Rübig, but you have had one question already and the Commissioner has given us some very full answers.
Subject: The economic crisis and avoiding protectionism
As our Trade Commissioner you have rightly said that we must avoid protectionism in our response to the current economic crisis, as it is widely acknowledged that we will not get out of this economic downturn through restricting trade.
In what ways is the Commission working to prevent the growth of protectionist tendencies in its international trade negotiations? Can any progress be reported with regards to completing the Doha Round?
Additionally, how will the Commission ensure that the promotion of open trade is balanced with the EU's development priorities, such as core labour standards and environmental sustainability?
Member of the Commission. - Since the outbreak of the economic crisis, the European Union has taken a firm stance against straight protectionism, consistent with its commitment to fair and open trade.
The Commission is intensively monitoring protectionist measures put in place by its major trading partners with a view to appropriate action. Furthermore, the EU has strongly supported the initiative of the World Trade Organisation to report on trade-related developments during the economic and financial crisis.
Since the beginning of the current crisis, more than ever the EU has been committed to multilateralism, to transparency and to open markets based on rules that benefit developed and developing countries alike. The EU has consistently argued that an ambitious and balanced Doha Round outcome is among the most important instruments in preventing trade protectionism and in boosting the economy.
This is also the message put forward by the WTO in the recent trade policy review of the EU trade policy, which praised the role played by the EU in strengthening the multilateral trading system. The key role the Doha Round could play in the current crisis was also recognised in the G20 global plan for recovery and reform issued on 2 April. The G20 leaders expressed their renewed commitment to reaching a swift conclusion of the Doha Round.
Finally, the EU's commitment to open trade goes hand in hand with its commitment to sustainable development, which is an overarching policy objective for the EU, including in the context of various trade policy initiatives.
Sustainable development and, in particular, environmental and social considerations are important components in our trade policy. This is witnessed by the inclusion of sustainable development provisions focusing on labour and environmental standards in our bilateral trade agreements.
Thank you, Commissioner, and I am conscious that you are standing in for Commissioner Ashton. I want to congratulate the Commission, and indeed Members in this House who are on the Committee on International Trade, for pushing the line of discouraging protectionist tendencies.
I should like to ask about the issue relating to developing countries and how we can ensure that we increase or facilitate trade both with and between developing countries, for example via increased trade-related assistance. This is an important component that we should factor in. Overall, I have seen very encouraging activity from the Commission and Parliament in relation to protectionist tendencies, which would be a retrograde step.
Member of the Commission. - Reports by the WTO and the Commission's own monitoring show that there is no imminent risk of a generalised protectionist escalation. None of the large trading nations has yet resorted to across-the-board restrictions on trade and investment. Developments in certain countries - for instance, Russia, Indonesia and Argentina - need close monitoring as these countries have until now been the greatest users of border measures to restrict trade. Overall, the most targeted sectors are agriculture and food products, iron and steel, metal, automobiles, textiles and toys.
Does the Commission accept that as well as lecturing others and monitoring others to avoid the risk of protectionism we should be careful ourselves and make sure that when we use our trade defence instruments they are for the purposes for which they are intended and not as protectionist measures?
Member of the Commission. - The Commission is doing everything possible to ensure that this monitoring is strong in every aspect, especially on the issue that you raised. I could convey the message to Commissioner Ashton in order to have a more specific view and a more specific answer. But so far there are no disturbing signals.
Subject: Internet piracy Canada
Canada has one of the world's highest levels of Internet piracy. This is exacerbated by serious legislative and enforcement deficiencies. In fact, Canada's Copyright Act is in urgent need of revision in order to bring it into line with current international standards of protection in the on-line environment, such as those laid down in the WIPO Internet Treaties of 1996 and the EU Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC). The longer this situation lasts, the longer European rights holders - in particular the creative sector (authors, composers, performers, songwriters and phonogram producers) - will be deprived of the legal tools they need to stop the large-scale online infringement of their rights in Canada. Their losses to Internet piracy are huge. The situation is such that legislative action needs to be taken now rather than after the upcoming EU-Canada Trade Summit in May and subsequent bilateral trade negotiations.
Given the urgency of this issue, what is the Commission doing to ensure that Canada amends its relevant legislation without any further delay?
Member of the Commission. - The Commission is aware of the issues raised in relation to Canada's intellectual property rights protection and enforcement. We are extremely concerned that Canada's proposed reform of its Copyright Act appears to be being given so little priority.
Reasonable protection of intellectual property rights is essential for the future survival of the creative industries. While several Member States are now eagerly discussing how intellectual property rights can better be adapted to the online world, we must indeed still pay attention to the risks of internet piracy originating from third countries.
One of the key issues in play is how to strike a fair balance between the interests of rights holders and those of consumers, while respecting data protection rules. You will remember that this was a key debating point of the Commission Creative Content Online initiative launched by the Communication of 3 January 2008.
The Commission's concerns have been put forcefully to the Canadian authorities for quite some time now. The fact we will soon start negotiations for a free trade agreement with Canada will give us a new opportunity to bring about significant improvement of IPR protection in Canada. In the mean time, the Commission will be taking the matter up with the Canadian authorities at the highest level. It will also call for the revision of Canadian copyright law to be initiated as soon as possible and preferably during the Parliament's present session.
(GA) Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for that answer. But I would like to ask a question - how hopeful is the Commission that the effort they are making in relation to Canada will succeed and what are the direct plans the Commission has to stop piracy on the Internet and this practice? If we are unable to stop it with a country like Canada, what chance do we have in other cases?
Member of the Commission. - As I said before, a trade agreement will provide the legal framework with which to address some of the EU's trade irritants and issues with Canada, such as its IPR enforcement standards and certain anti-competitive practices. We are optimistic since we will have negotiations on an FTA.
Subject: Korea FTA
Following the recent discussions between the Commission and the South Korean Trade Ministry, can the Commission outline the state of play of the EU-Korea FTA negotiations?
Member of the Commission. - The negotiations on a free trade agreement with Korea are the most advanced of the EU's ongoing trade negotiations. After two years of negotiations, we now have a comprehensive agreement within reach with the EU's fourth-largest trading partner outside Europe.
The free trade agreement with Korea would create new market access in many areas of interest to EU exporters. By way of illustration: the agreement would swiftly eliminate EUR 1.6 billion of customs duties to the benefit of EU exporters; it would offer solid disciplines on non-tariff barriers in priority sectors such as the automotive, pharmaceutical, or consumer electrics sectors; it would provide significant new market access in services of special interest to EU service providers; it would offer the most ambitious package yet on intellectual property rights, government procurement, sustainable development and other rules issues; and it would foresee novel ways of involving civil society in the monitoring of how the free trade agreement is implemented, and protect our sensitivities with appropriate arrangements.
The free trade agreement would also present a useful point of reference for other negotiations. Moreover, concluding that agreement now would demonstrate the commitment of both sides to open markets as one response to the current economic environment.
At the end of the eighth round of negotiations in March 2009, both sides made important technical progress at their level, but a certain number of difficult issues remained unresolved.
EU Trade Commissioner Ashton and Korean Trade Minister Kim subsequently met in London on 2 April 2009. Despite intensive discussions, it was not possible to bridge gaps on the remaining issues, such as duty drawback and rules of origin.
The Commission is currently consulting on the best way forward.
Thank you, Commissioner, for that response. Firstly, I entirely agree that a free trade agreement with Korea would bring enormous benefits both to the European Union and to Korea, and would send a positive signal in terms of our determination to keep markets open. However, failure to reach this agreement now looks like it lies more with the Member States than with our negotiating partner.
That being the case, if we cannot reach an agreement with Korea, would the Commission accept that DG Trade might as well pack up and go home as regards free trade agreements, because if we cannot agree with Korea we are not going to agree with India, ASEAN or on any other such agreements we are negotiating?
Member of the Commission. - In contrast, the Member States have recently confirmed their interest in concluding an ambitious and balanced agreement with Korea.
As usual, the Commission will defend the principles on the basis of which we negotiate with all countries.
Thank you very much. Maybe the Commissioner would comment on the situation of the German Government on this matter.
Like Mr Martin, I am a supporter of this free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea. However, we do need to be careful about details and timing. It is estimated that 650 000 Korean cars would sell in Europe per annum. While there is already some production in eastern Europe, there will be a significant volume of new imports.
Most surveys indicate that these will substitute the sales of Japanese cars produced in Europe, like those produced by the Honda plant in my constituency in Swindon. This plant is currently mothballed and the workers are on standby. In order not to exacerbate the current situation here and elsewhere in Europe, will you ensure that there is a serious time lag before such imports are allowed?
Member of the Commission. - I understand your concerns about the situation in the car industry. From the start of negotiations with Korea, the Commission has invested considerable resources in obtaining a good result for the EU car industry. European car exporters will benefit from a combination of the elimination of Korean duties on cars and the effective removal of technical barriers. The most substantial barriers will be removed from day one of the agreement.
Subject: US-EU trade dispute concerning hormone-treated beef
Will the Commission provide information concerning the outcome of the negotiations it is conducting with the US authorities with a view to definitively preventing - following the decision for a temporary suspension - the activation of the so-called carousel retaliatory measures as part of the transatlantic trade dispute on hormone-treated beef and revoking the retaliatory measures already in place?
Member of the Commission. - The Commission is currently still engaged in negotiations with the United States, and we are very optimistic that a mutually acceptable solution can emerge very soon. In the last few weeks we had intensive transatlantic contacts on this issue. The EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton and US Trade Representative Ron Kirk agreed on 22 April to hold further talks in order to find a negotiated solution to the long-running dispute over hormone-treated beef.
They confirmed their wish to resolve this difficult issue that affects businesses and consumers in both the EU and the US and, in order to facilitate the negotiations for a solution, Commissioner Ashton and US Trade Representative Kirk agreed that the imposition of the so-called 'Carousel' sanctions by the US on certain EU products would be postponed by a further two weeks beyond the original 23 April deadline.
The Commission is committed to doing its best to find a positive and lasting solution to this issue, and talks are currently being held by senior officials from both sides. The Commission's final objectives in these negotiations are to definitively prevent activation of the 'Carousel' sanctions and to have the retaliatory measures currently in place revoked. We are confident that an agreement is within reach that would fully safeguard our public health and consumer protection objectives in this issue.
(EL) Madam President, in the absence of the competent Commissioner, Mrs Ashton, I should like to thank Commissioner Kuneva for her reply and to ask the Commissioner to convey my thanks to Mrs Ashton for mediating and consulting with the American side on the lifting of the carousel retaliatory measures being taken by the United States of America. This is an action which, if nothing else, goes one step further, goes beyond the limits of the partnership between the United States of America and the European Union, which are two principal commercial players which also play a leading role in the framework of negotiations under the Doha round under the aegis of the World Trade Organization.
Member of the Commission. - Mr Papastamkos, I shall gladly convey your message to Commissioner Ashton and, without going too far in what I am saying, I think the results will be really quite satisfactory.
Subject: Non-compliance by airlines with Regulation No. 261/2004
The Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered a judgment on 22 December 2008 pursuant to which an airline may not refuse to compensate passengers following the cancellation of a flight because of technical problems affecting the aircraft. A Swedish court before which a case was brought by the ombudsman has just given a similar ruling.
Could the Commission indicate to what extent it will take account of these rulings which once again demonstrate the reluctance on the part of the airlines, the overly vague wording of Regulation No. 261/2004 concerning the 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying a cancellation and the passivity of the Commission in the face of numerous violations of this regulation to the detriment of passengers?
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, honourable Members, I believe that first of all we need to emphasise that it is not the Commission's job to interpret Court of Justice rulings. These rulings referred to questions referred for preliminary rulings by national courts with the aim of ensuring uniform application of Community law.
Under the terms of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on passenger rights in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, Member States are responsible for applying the regulation and are obliged to prosecute airlines that do not comply with the provisions. When processing passenger claims that are sent to them, the competent national authorities, appointed by Member States in accordance with the regulation, must evidently take into account the instructions provided by the Court of Justice. The Commission's role is that of monitoring the correct implementation of the regulation by the competent authorities, particularly in the light of relevant Court of Justice rulings.
The last meeting between the Commission and the competent national authorities was held at the beginning of December last year, in other words a few weeks before the Court of Justice's decision. The Commission has planned another meeting for the 14th of this month. During this meeting, the Court of Justice's recent decision over case C-549/07 will be examined.
National authorities will have an opportunity to comment on the ruling and describe how they assess the behaviour of airlines to passengers in the event of cancellation in the light of this precedent and also the practical consequences of the ruling.
(IT) Commissioner, thank you because I feel that due attention must be paid to this matter. As far as I have understood, Member States must handle these matters, but you can also see if anything can be done. Thank you, therefore, for your answer and we look forward to seeing what happens next.
Thank you for having spoken in Italian. I know that you are of Italian origin, so once again, thank you. The Commission will of course monitor what is happening because I believe that passenger rights are very important to all of us. This is one of the aims of my work as Commissioner.
I said this at the time when my appointment was approved by Parliament. I will therefore continue to ensure that monitoring is carried out in order to check whether Member States are respecting passenger rights. We are all committed, even Mrs Kuneva, to trying to effectively defend the rights of citizens in all areas.
I will be brief, as I realise there is very little time. Commissioner, I have to say that the implementation of the rights we have are, frankly, a joke at the moment. I was recently in Amsterdam and watched KLM dealing with delayed passengers by rebooking them on a self check-in. The staff systematically, without asking the passengers, declined the compensation and assistance which they were entitled to.
Can we have some monitoring by the Commission? Can we have some people actually at airports looking at what the airlines do? Because, frankly, it seems to me that it has become a joke.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, the Commission intends to report to Parliament and the Council on the functioning and results of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 through a communication, which should be adopted in the second half of this year.
This document will analyse four years of the Regulation's functioning and will propose any other actions to be taken in order to reduce the number of incidents and improve the protection of air passengers' rights.
All airports will therefore be checked. I hope that the Commission's work will improve the situation and provide citizens with the answers they expect. I can therefore assure you of my commitment as Commissioner. I have started, and I will continue, and I can confirm my commitment.
Subject: Airline privatisations in the EU
Given the successful model used for privatising Olympic Airways and transferring it to a private investor, will the Commission say to what extent this model could be used for other airlines facing similar problems?
How does the Commission assess the prospects for future privatisations of airlines in the EU? How much do airline mergers contribute to addressing the crisis, without creating monopolies and reducing competition?
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, honourable Members, the Commission shares the opinion that you expressed in the text of your question, in other words that the Commission's decisions have obviously led to the ordered sale of some Olympic Airlines and Olympic Airways Services businesses. These have certainly been successful with regard to competition and transport policy.
Alitalia used the same model and it could be used by all airlines that find themselves in serious difficulties. This decision has therefore led to the creation of a new airline model, what ought to be the airline of the future: no more state companies but fully privatised companies. This is the work that the Commission has attempted to support. I believe this aim of privatisation is also shared by other airlines, I am thinking of Austrian Airlines, Malev and Czech Airlines.
In accordance with the treaty, the Commission must nevertheless remain neutral with regard to the public or private ownership of companies. The Commission is favourable to consolidation of the Community air sector, which it still considers to be too fragmented, particularly in view of the current crisis.
This consolidation should not, however, hinder competition to the extent of impairing the effective operation of the common market. The Commission or the competent national authority is responsible for monitoring concentrations carried out for this purpose under the terms of the relevant Community regulation, depending on the magnitude of the relevant concentration operation.
(EL) Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for his comments and reply. I should like to take advantage of the Commissioner's presence to ask him if there have been any evaluations on the part of the Commission on the loss of jobs in European aviation companies over the last eight months since the economic crisis broke and, if there are, what measures do you believe could be used to reverse the situation?
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not have any definite data on job losses due to the crisis, but I am certainly well aware of what is happening in the air transport sector.
All my efforts as Commissioner for Transport have been directed towards supporting this form of transport and it comes as no surprise that we are again discussing a question, the matter of slots, that aims to prevent the airline situation from worsening in this time of crisis: this also means seeking to reduce job losses, in other words to contain employment levels within the European Union in the air transport sector.
Subject: Rail artery for Europe and the Brenner base tunnel
Can the Commission provide detailed information on the precise timetable and financial plans concerning both the leg of the high speed rail link for Europe from Strasbourg to Vienna and the Brenner base tunnel as the centrepiece of the Berlin-Rome link? What further steps are planned and are any additional opportunities provided by the recovery plan?
Madam President, Mr Posselt, as you know, the Berlin-Palermo rail axis is one of the 30 priority transEuropean transport network projects and the Brenner base tunnel project is the centrepiece of this priority project.
The Commission supports this key element of the priority project that will make it possible to connect rail networks at both sides of the Alps by means of a highcapacity, high-speed line, mainly designed for goods transport. The project will therefore contribute both to the effective operation of the internal market and environmental targets and to economic recovery.
The Commission therefore wishes to meet citizens' expectations in practice. This is another reason why we accelerated the granting of finance at the end of last year once authorisation had been given for EUR 786 million of funding for priority project No 1. The coordinator Mrs van Miert has been monitoring the project since 2005, I believe with positive results.
We have currently started a consultation process with the EU Member States in order to renew the mandate of the European coordinators and thus cover the period 2009-2013. In this way, we will be able to allow them to carry on with their work, particularly that of monitoring the priority projects. On 22 March 2009, the Austrian authorities submitted their multiannual programme for infrastructures, which includes financing of the Brenner base tunnel. On 17 April 2009, following the completion of the environmental impact assessment, they issued a construction permit for the project.
The Italian authorities, for their part, submitted their base tunnel project to their Inter-ministerial Economic Programming Committee (CIPE) so that the funding could be approved in May. Minister Matteoli, with whom I have spoken, confirms the will of the Italian state to pursue the objective, in other words to finance the project, and I believe that the Austrian and Italian authorities are in absolute agreement on this matter.
Priority project 17 - the Strasbourg-Vienna high-speed link that forms part of the Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava rail axis - is proceeding in a satisfactory manner in all the Member States involved: France, Germany, Austria and Slovakia. Most of the 831 km stretch between Strasbourg and Vienna - more specifically the Strasbourg-Stuttgart and Linz-Vienna sections - will be complete by 2015. The Stuttgart-Ulm section, which represents the most significant bottleneck, will be complete by 2020.
The relevant finance protocol will be signed on 2 April of this year. At the moment, the most complicated section seems to be the cross-border section in Bavaria between Munich and Salzburg. The German Government is currently conducting a review of its multiannual programming, and so we will have to wait until the end of this year before we can begin discussing this very important section. The Strasbourg-Vienna section will cost EUR 10 billion and the priority project will cost EUR 13.5 billion in total.
I believe that this information may be of use and covers all of the requests made in Mr Posselt's question.
(DE) Commissioner, I would like to thank you for your very good and detailed answer and also for your excellent work on these two important projects which cross in Munich. I have just two brief supplementary questions:
Firstly, there is a rumour regarding the Brenner Base Tunnel, that it might be reduced to passenger transport. Can you rule this out?
Secondly, in Austria and in Stuttgart a great deal is being done for the main route from Strasbourg to Vienna and Budapest. However, we have the problem of the Munich bypass, the Munich airport link and the stretch from Munich to Mühldorf, Freilassing and Salzburg, so the Chemical Triangle and the stretch via Mühldorf. I would like to draw your attention to this in particular, as progress here is still very slow.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, honourable Members, as far as the Berlin-Palermo link is concerned, I can reassure you that although there are bound to be concerns when rumours circulate, these rumours seem to be absolutely unfounded.
I wanted to give you some other news because you are particularly interested in the Strasburg-Vienna section. On 31 March, the European Commission published two invitations to submit TEN-T proposals. Within the framework of these proposals, the Strasburg-Vienna section could obtain backing under the 2009 annual programme - amounting to EUR 140 million for both studies and work projects - and the European Economic Recovery Plan, this provides EUR 500 million exclusively earmarked for work projects to be started by the end of 2010 at the latest.
It is naturally up to national governments to send in cofinancing proposals, which will be assessed competitively against proposals from other Member States. This means that if Germany intends to submit a plan concerning this section of greatest interest to you, it can go ahead and do this and the plan for obtaining funding will be carefully evaluated by the Commission.
As regards the progress of Project 17, the Commission has decided to grant significant funding to various projects along this axis, more specifically the three cross-border sections and the bottlenecks.
Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).


9. 2008 discharge: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training


7. IASCF: Review of the constitution - Public Accountability and the Composition of the IASB Proposals for Change (vote)
- Before the vote:
(PT) I want to draw attention to the fact that there is a printing error in the voting list of the PSE Group. I would ask colleagues to follow the coordinator in terms of how they vote.
- After the vote on paragraph 5:
Mr President, we have agreed between the groups that Amendment 4 by the ALDE Group does not fall even if Amendment 2 is adopted, because these are compatible amendments. So we should have voted also on Amendment 4. This change is made as an oral amendment, so if there is someone who objects to this, I can understand that, but we have agreed between the groups that Amendment 4 should also be accepted and should be voted on.
I will not announce the result of the final vote until this minor problem is sorted out. I need clarification from the chairwoman of the committee responsible. According to our services, there is a problem with the introduction because the first amendment says 'regrets' while the other says 'expresses doubts'. Can you clarify this for us?
(FR) Mr President, I believe that Mrs Kauppi is mistaken because Amendment 4 by Mr Klinz relates to the same paragraph as Amendment 2 by Mrs Kauppi. As the House has voted on Amendment 2 by Mrs Kauppi, by definition Amendment 4 falls.
(FR) I am pleased to see that the chairwoman of the committee responsible agrees with the analysis of the sittings services. Therefore, Mrs Kauppi, I am sorry but I cannot carry out your request.