EURES activity report 2004-2005: Towards a single European labour market (debate)
The next item is the oral question (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=OQ&reference=O-2007-0038&language=PL" - B6-0136/2007) to the Commission by Mr Andersson, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the EURES activity report 2005-2005: Towards a single European labour market.
author. - (SV) Mr President, earlier we talked about the importance of mobility for growth and employment in Europe. Then we were talking about mobility for workers who undertake further training, look for new jobs in their own country, change professions through further training and about geographical mobility within countries, but also cross-border geographical mobility. If we look round Europe we can see that it is important for growth. Some of the countries that have the highest mobility also have the highest growth and employment in Europe. This is very important.
What is the situation in Europe? Well, the situation differs quite considerably from one country to the next, but at the same time we can see improvements. We have seen improvements in recent years. I come from a border region between two Scandinavian countries where mobility was not very extensive to begin with, but it has increased sharply in recent years. It is important for growth and employment that people on one side of a national border can move over to the other side of the border. Perhaps they could not find a job at first but found work on the other side of the border. This increases growth in the entire region and is good in the long term.
We also have many obstacles. I have seen this in this work. There are obstacles in different social security systems, taxes and so forth, and in the lack of information. As regards information on this subject, we have our cooperation on employment services, the EURES cooperation. EURES cooperation has developed in recent years. Partly with the special limits, but perhaps above all through its portal, which individual citizens can access to find information on what jobs are available, but also on the social security situation. What is the situation as far as taxes are concerned? What do I need to do if I am going to cross a border?
In the most recent budget in the European Parliament we pushed through an increase of EUR 2 million for EURES cooperation. That is why we are tabling the oral question and the resolution. We can see a number of needs that exist with a view to increasing mobility further. In our oral question we focus on nationals from third countries. It looks to the future. We know that Europe needs more workers, not least nationals from third countries. They already exist and we should increase cooperation - in particular with neighbouring countries that we have neighbourhood cooperation with - and create greater opportunities for them to obtain relevant information on the employment situation, social security schemes and taxes.
The second part relates to seasonal workers. There have been seasonal workers in the Union for a long time and seasonal workers also need better information on the situation, social benefits, and the rules that apply. This can be obtained from the EURES portal.
Lastly, I would also like to raise the question of whether the Commission has ideas about improving mobility in other respects. We had a big discussion on transitional rules and mobility between new Member States and old Member States. There are still a number of countries in the EU that are applying the transitional rules. I hope that this period will be as short as possible and that we will soon be able fully to apply free mobility so that all the transitional provisions disappear. It is also important for us to try to look around and see what the situation will be in the event of greater mobility for the countries that have not applied any transitional rules because mobility is not particularly extensive. It is not extensive and there are probably reasons in general to improve information. If hopefully the transitional provisions now disappear, we must also improve information for individual workers on job vacancies and on what is needed, what must be contributed in terms of social security, taxes and so forth.
These are the questions we have put to the Commission. I know that the Commission has the same aims as the European Parliament, but what is the Commission planning to do?
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, before answering each of the questions you have asked, I would like to remind you what the EURES system is.
It is a system, a unique system, whose great advantage lies in combining a network comprising over 800 qualified advisers with an efficient portal, facilitating easy data access and interactive data exchange.
Since 2006 the EURES portal has offered easy access to all of the job offers in the European Union as well as to the national public employment services in the countries belonging to the European Economic Area in 25 European languages. On average the portal offers access to more than 1 200 000 offers. At the same time the EURES advisers are on hand to help workers and their families who are planning to make use of the opportunities that mobility offers.
I would now like to answer your questions one by one.
I will start with your first question concerning the possible expansion of EURES to third-country nationals.
As you know, EURES was originally introduced to benefit the citizens of the European Economic Area by helping them to find work outside their own countries and thus increase mobility. At present the Commission is planning to make the EURES system accessible to workers from other countries as well: this will not only meet their expectations but also benefit the Union. In view of the ageing population and demographic decrease in Europe we must be ready for shortages in the European workforce in the near future, which will affect key sectors of our economy and our lifestyle. Apart from that, the EURES system could also contribute to a more global solution to the problem of migration from third countries.
As a result, a new direction was added to the general EURES principles for the period 2007-2010, which provide for the possibility of widening the scope of information offered through the EURES network to cater for the needs of workers from third countries.
Following the Commission's action plan on legal migration we now want to analyse in detail the possibilities of expanding the EURES system in that direction. In the initial phase we could consider supplementing the existing sections providing information on 'Living and working conditions' with information tailored to the needs of citizens from third countries who want to enter the European market, and provide that information in the languages of those countries as well.
Your second question concerns the inclusion of seasonal and short-term temporary job offers in the EURES system. It is true that the initial analyses that were carried out for the EURES system did not indicate the need and level of demand for short-term work abroad. The statistics at our disposal covered only the minimum span of one year and the demand for seasonal work or work experience and study placements was not taken into account.
However, following the recommendation of the European Parliament on the increase of the EURES budget for 2007, research was carried out within the system to determine the need for, and feasibility of, introducing such a service. The reaction of a number of countries was very positive. Some partners had already experienced this type of service in the areas of tourism, building and agriculture. In future, when plans for further development of the EURES system are being developed, the possibility of extending this service will be automatically considered.
As far as your third question is concerned, the Commission also believes that both professional and geographical mobility can play a positive role in improving how the European labour market works, and therefore it is important to support and enhance that mobility.
To that end, the Commission is developing an action plan based on the results of the European Year of Workers' Mobility 2006, which aims to increase mobility within the European labour market and do away with the main obstacles to its further development.
This action plan will recommend reinforcing the role of EURES, making it the main instrument for supporting worker mobility throughout the European Union and increasing awareness of it. It will have three main objectives:
1. enhancing the strategic dimension of EURES by reinforcing its analytical potential as regards mobility flows and changes in the European labour market;
2. enhancing the quality of its services by offering mobile workers and their families a more comprehensive service;
3. increasing its operational coverage by reinforcing its relations with other providers of similar services - or with the private sector - and gradually opening up its activities to workers from other parts of the world, as I already explained in my answer to your first question.
Your fourth and final question concerns the EURES cross-border projects and their role in helping the Member States to do away with temporary measures.
Dealing with the specific problems that arise in cross-border relations has always been an important priority for EURES. We now have as many as 20 cross-border cooperation projects, the latest being the projects between the Czech Republic and Germany and between Slovakia and Hungary. Apart from that, 14 feasibility studies are being conducted at the moment with a view to identifying new projects and services, be they between the 'new' Member States or between the 'old' and the 'new' Member States.
However, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the time has come to abandon the idea of 'old' and 'new' states: in a certain sense Spain is undoubtedly a new state, and so is Greece, and I could go on. I wonder how much longer we are going to use this kind of classification for equal Member States of the European Union.
In any case, 14 feasibility studies are being carried out with a view to identifying new projects. These are all practical projects designed to facilitate citizens - employers and cross-border workers - in their everyday lives. The partners could consist of trade unions, employers organisations, public employment services or any other participants working at a local or regional level. Through these projects we hope to facilitate the exchange of workers between the partner states and encourage them to take the necessary steps concerning temporary measures.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to conclude by pointing out another important aspect of the EURES work, and that is limiting the possibility of social dumping. It is obvious that people who are well informed when they arrive in another country are in a much stronger position than those who lack that information. In this regard, too, EURES is a unique and very efficient tool.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, may I start by saying that I agree substantially with the comments from my colleague, Mr Andersson, on the opposite side of the House, but I would ask that this would not be regarded as a precedent for future occasions. It is worth recording that there was substantial support for this resolution in committee. We, as a group, are not tabling any amendments to this resolution and I hope that colleagues from all political parties and all nationalities will support something that is worthy of support, which is the principle that the EU is about people and about providing more opportunities for more people, and EURES has a particular role to play in fulfilling this concept.
However, I have two subsidiary questions which the Commissioner could either answer in his follow-up remarks or by letter. They are two small points, but hopefully not insignificant.
One concerns the actual use of the portal. If you key in 'job mobility in Europe' you go straight to the EURES portal, which is a very good portal and easy to navigate. However, in order to get there you must have the key works 'job mobility'. If you simply key in 'jobs in Europe', you get a whole list of other portals, such as Eurojobs, Jobpilot, Topjobs, Careers in Europe, etc. They may be very worthy, but the key is to connect into EURES. Therefore, my question is: can anything more be done to make certain that the EURES portal is more widely available to those individuals who do not necessarily go through job search centres, but just want to access the net themselves.
My second point is that I see that one of the aspects of EURES - which I also applaud - is the subportal about life-long learning and there is a portal within that called PLOTEUS. I was intrigued to hear about PLOTEUS because this, for the benefit of colleagues who may, like me, have been ignorant until today, is the portal on learning opportunities throughout space. Wow, this is really a big endeavour, not just in Europe but throughout space! I was looking at this because, whilst a lot of the mobility issues are to do with giving opportunities to our friends and colleagues in Eastern and Central Europe to move west, I also believe more attention should be paid to opportunities from the west to move to Eastern and Central Europe. One of the blockages - and I speak clearly as an Englishman - is language learning and adaptability to languages, and anything that the PLOTEUS project can do to encourage language learning is, and I hope the Commissioner will agree, a very important part of job mobility.
What I am saying in both these points about PLOTEUS and access to the net is: by all means think about opportunities in space, but bring this portal down to earth so that it connects with real people on more occasions.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, EURES has tremendous potential, but much of that potential has yet to be realised. It still has a number of limitations. Our question says that the portal should become a one-stop-shop for workers' geographic and occupational mobility, but we should be honest in accepting that it has a long way to go before it could become such a thing. It should, however, be possible to build such a one-stop-shop in this advanced electronic age.
Workers planning a move across the EU in pursuit of work need access to detailed and localised knowledge to give them the confidence to move with their families - detailed information right down to the level, for example, of schools to be found in a particular locality, the performance of those schools, student numbers and vacancies. The same applies to healthcare, housing and a host of other issues.
The portal includes information under these headings, but it is of a very general nature and gives only a brief national snapshot. It might seem like a huge task to build detailed and localised information into the portal, but that is not necessarily the case. A lot of this detailed information already exists on the websites of local authorities, health authorities, local education authorities and government departments. Web links to these sites can be embedded in the portal to take users requiring more detailed information to those sites.
Increasingly, information being made available at local level is also held in a range of languages. In my own area, for example, we have everything from information on how to register to vote to finding accommodation available in Polish and a range of other languages.
Finally, that information is often held in a range of languages of third countries, which ties in with the point addressed by the Commissioner. Inward migration from third countries cannot solve the difficulties demographic change poses for the EU, but it can help. I have therefore been pleased to hear what he said about the plans to equip EURES to play an important part in that process.
Free movement of workers is one of the four conditions essential for the existence and successful functioning of the EU Single Market. The single labour market, which is not yet developed, would enable jobseekers to gain new skills and experience and would provide them with an opportunity to choose a job and realise their skills, and employers would be able to choose from a larger number of employees in order to secure the specialists required. The EURES (European Employment Services) network is an instrument aimed at creating a single labour market by facilitating the movement of workers in the EU, the countries of the European Economic Area and Switzerland (I will not mention third countries here). National employment services, trade unions, employers' organisations and regional and local authorities cooperate in the network. Their activity is coordinated by the European Commission. The role of the EURES network is to inform, advise and assist potentially mobile workers on opportunities to work abroad and on the living, working and studying conditions in the countries of the European Economic Area and to help employers wishing to recruit workers from other countries.
The EURES portal was launched in 2006 and offers one million job vacancies across Europe. To date, 8 000 employers and 184 000 jobseekers have registered on the portal. Although the right of free movement while seeking to live and work abroad is one of the basic rights of European citizens established in the Treaty of Rome, many of the old Member States still apply transitional periods for the countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. Germany is planning to extend the transitional period for opening the labour market until 2011 owing to the high level of unemployment in the country. Some sources of information state that we are facing a shortage of labour in the EU but others report a high level of unemployment. There are one million job vacancies on the EURES portal, but at the same time free movement of labour is restricted. How effective is EURES? I will give the example of my country, Lithuania. According to official statistics, 34 000 workers left Lithuania within four years, but only 405 did so within two and a half years with the assistance of EURES services. The media often present staggering information about the slavery of migrants in Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, where workers from the new countries encounter inhuman working and living conditions. Is this not a shortcoming of the EURES system? People do not receive sufficient information about working and living conditions and do not know where to turn when they encounter problems. Activities in 2006 indicated that new obstacles to the free movement of labour have emerged; these are practical problems, accommodation, language, employment for a partner or spouse and psychological difficulties while adapting to a new country and planning to return home. It is gratifying that that the Commission will start implementing an action plan for mobility in 2007, which will help to solve the problems that have arisen. An information system on geographic and professional mobility based on the one-stop-shop principle would also contribute to this.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, I promise that unlike Mr Bushill-Matthews, the previous speaker, I shall not speak about cyberspace and the opportunities that navigating around it could open up for the citizens of Central and Eastern Europe.
The draft resolution is full of praise for EURES, the European Employment Service. We should be aware, however, that for some observers EURES is an example of overgrown European bureaucracy. As my fellow Member from Lithuania pointed out just now, barely 8% of Lithuanians who went abroad to work used the instruments offered by EURES. This amounts to very few indeed.
Perhaps this is not actually a case of overgrown bureaucracy, but the matter would be much more straightforward if the European labour market were eventually fully liberalised. Europeans would then be able to go job-hunting in the normal manner, and would not necessarily use EURES.
Of course all methods should be supported, including official information about vacant jobs for seasonal or temporary workers. This should concern citizens of the Member States of the Union in the first instance. Citizens of third countries should come second, including nationals of countries working with the Union in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
Two years and two months ago, as we adopted the guidelines on employment policy in the Member States we emphasised the need to remove all obstacles to the free movement of workers in Europe as envisaged by the Treaties. It is unfortunate that Germany, Austria and certain other Member States failed to heed that appeal and still retain barriers preventing access to the labour market. This is contrary to the fundamental freedoms on which the European Union is based, as my fellow Member stated. Free access will eventually come about, but much time will have been wasted in the interim. We should discuss general solutions hic et nunc, not half-measures.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, my fellow Members are absolutely correct to say that EURES is creating a European success story. Without the EURES network, geographical and occupational mobility in Europe would not be possible to the extent that it is today and would not be available to workers who know their rights and are therefore able to exercise them. The European Union's fourth freedom would only exist on paper if EURES did not exist.
Therefore, I do not understand, Commissioner, why you are not showing more commitment in order to improve EURES, in other words, creating more centres and improving quality, e.g. through best practice models in the border regions. Really, they should be shooting out of the ground like mushrooms in order to pursue your objectives in the European Year of Workers' Mobility and increase geographical mobility in Europe. More commitment really is needed here. Regions affected by a shortage of skilled workers would benefit particularly if mobility were made easier in Europe. However, it is of course the Member States, first and foremost - and the Council is notable for its absence here yet again - which are applying the brakes.
Mutual recognition of social security systems still has a very long way to go before it achieves the level which would enable workers to take up employment in another Member State without forfeiting some of their social security. It is even more difficult for workers in Member States - such as my own country - which still insist on restricting mobility for a transitional period. In these countries, mobility takes place in illegal and fragile employment conditions; the black market determines wages and security. However, the battle against social dumping can only take place on the basis of legal mobility.
For that reason, I am mystified as to why governments such as Germany's on the one hand make the shortage of skilled workers a hot topic, but on the other, do not have the courage to allow people from the Eastern Europe countries to exercise their freedom of movement, thereby also defusing finally the sometimes absurd situation at the borders. I also appeal to the social partners to do more for mobility in the various countries and to impose public controls to bring to light the black sheep and stop them from profiting from social dumping.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, Europe comprises a widely diverse geography, terrain and climate, giving rise to a wide variety of lifestyles and economies. In particular, there has always been a variety of working practices, and labour laws have developed differently. Different people work in different ways. Variety is the spice of life. You tamper with this at your peril, for it is at the heart of full employment and of labour laws.
The Employment Committee is properly known as the Employment and Social Affairs Committee, and surely the greatest social benefit of all both for the individual and for society is for people to have jobs. In April 2005, Germany had 10% unemployment, while the UK figure was 4.5%, but then the UK has taken less of the EU's labour laws. Many Eastern European countries have high unemployment rates. They have made progress, they have improved somewhat, but the last thing they want is to exchange the Soviet command economy run by the unelected commissars for the centralised rulings of the unelected EU Commissioners.
Europe does not need the EU to impose a common set of labour laws on all. A straitjacket like that can only result in rising unemployment, leading to the kind of social unrest we have seen before. I hope none of us wants to see that again.
(HU) There has been much talk about growth in geographic and occupational mobility within the Union as a key factor in reducing unemployment and increasing economic competitiveness.
The 27-Member Union has a very large labour reserve, yet because of the unequal regional division of jobs available it cannot provide employment opportunities for a significant proportion of career-starters and employees over the age of 50. As a result the acceleration of the inward migration of workers arriving in several Member States from third countries, even though there is a suitable and skilled workforce available within the Union, is now an urgent issue.
The EURES network plays an outstanding role in the relationship between supply and demand but it is unfortunate that it has not, even yet, been given the appropriate support from the EU resources available for development purposes. It is very clear: I have heard that there are 700 EURES advisors, while Mr Špidla mentioned 800 - if we consider this number in relation to 20 million citizens unable to find a job in the 27 Member States, then this is obviously a trifling figure in comparison. Only 25-26 advisors per country, a mere drop in the ocean, and in no way sufficient for the task in hand.
Another issue I see as problematical is that while information on job-seekers is accessible on the portal, there is much less information on companies providing job opportunities. There is a total of 11 000 companies represented on EURES, according to the latest information. There needs to be a much bigger information campaign if the economic players are to be more involved than at present. I feel that the development of the EURES network and portal and the stimulus for it is a common European interest and so I would urge that the proposals be adopted.
Mr President, there is no doubt that the EURES programme is very important and is working well, but it needs to be improved.
I want to deal with a specific issue relating to mobility, which we all agree is necessary and is good for Europe. The problem I refer to specifically is that of EU citizens who come to Ireland and have a spouse who is not originally from an EU country.
In the last number of weeks, the Irish Government has issued deportation orders for 120 such spouses. I know that many more have been informed by the Irish authorities that their application for residency has been suspended pending the outcome of a court case, which is not likely to happen until 2009. This is clearly an obstacle to mobility in Europe for those European Union citizens who want to move to Ireland to take up the work that is available there, and who find they are restricted because they are married to non-EU citizens.
It seems to me that this is unfair to those who might want to move, but it is doubly unfair to those who have already moved and are living - in some cases for a long time - in Ireland with their spouses and who are now being deported. I would urge the Commissioner to make contact as a matter of urgency with the Irish Minister and urge him to withdraw the deportation orders and to allocate interim residency to the families concerned and to end the uncertainty that they currently face with regard to their future.
If we are serious about mobility in Europe, then these kinds of issues should not arise. I am convinced that the current Irish law that is operating in this regard is in breach of the European Union Directive of 2004 on mobility and on residency and also in breach of European Union anti-discrimination laws, because this is being applied only to the spouses of non-Irish EU citizens. These are two serious issues, and I would urge the Commissioner to make immediate and urgent representations to the Irish authorities, specifically Minister Brian Lenihan, to have this matter resolved without delay.
(PL) Mr President, I should like to draw attention to two issues in the course of this debate. Firstly, it is necessary to fully implement one of the fundamental freedoms underpinning the European single market, namely free movement of the labour force. In the case of workers from the new Member States, this freedom is being severely restricted, for instance by Germany and Austria. Clearly, this situation is detrimental to the mobility of workers across the territory of the European Union.
Secondly, strong support is needed, especially for new Member States, in order to bring about an increase in the employment rates in those countries. For example, in my country, Poland, the rate is 51% for men and barely 46% for women. By way of comparison, in the United States and the Scandinavian countries, for example, these indicators already exceed 70%.
Mr President, I think there is widespread understanding of the importance of increased mobility and all the experiences are extremely good regarding workers, researchers - you can look everywhere. The success is very much in the mobility and European cooperation and we know it is important for the quality of employment, for the efficiency of labour markets, we know it is truly a European idea and we also know it is of utmost importance for the opportunities of the individual. But, having said that, we are still facing a number of obstacles.
It is important to support EURES and to ensure that it can do a good job. But at the same time we must ensure that the obstacles, for example the transition rules, are removed as soon as possible, because it is a paradox that one side tries to increase mobility and the other side accepts that mobility is hindered.
The second thing that I think is important to say in this respect is that even when we remove these obstacles we still have too little mobility. That goes for our domestic labour market as well as across borders. I think that EURES could be used not only in order to inform and improve the security for those who would like to move to another country and another labour market, as Mr Andersson pointed out here earlier today, but it could also be used in order to inform all the decision-making institutions of the remaining obstacles we have in the European labour markets because the gap between vision and theory on the one hand and the reality is quite big. And I think EURES could have an information role in two ways: to those who are trying to move to other labour markets but also to all of us and the Member States in order to make it much easier in reality to move. That is the challenge that we could discuss further here tonight.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think that the debate has clearly shown that EURES is a good tool, which has a function and is useful: it genuinely contributes to the free movement of the labour force, helping mobility, helping people to find out about the labour market across the European Union and find out about their rights.
On the other hand, and this was also highlighted in the debate, we have not reached any perfect or definitive situation and it is necessary to continue to develop EURES further.
There were some issues raised in the debate that I will not comment on individually at this time because they are of a very specific and organisational nature, and I believe that each and every one of them is worthy of an expert assessment as to its merit.
What emerges clearly from the debate is the fact that the Commission's general idea of developing this portal and the European Parliament's general vision of the purpose and development of this portal are more or less identical and afford us the opportunity of truly efficient and beneficial long-term cooperation and mutual inspiration.
I would also like to point out that there were many ideas voiced here that went beyond the scope of this parliamentary question, for example the issue of national legislation, but these are questions that I have certainly noted and I will give them further consideration.


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


Voting time (continuation)


Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes


Competition Policy 2005 (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs E. Ferreira, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on Competition Policy 2005.
I have been informed that the rapporteur has had problems with transport and will be arriving late. I propose, therefore, that we start with the Commission and then continue with the other speakers. As soon as the rapporteur arrives, she will be given the floor.
Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Ferreira, and the committee for this excellent report. Once again, this annual report proves the added value Parliament brings to competition policy development, and I am grateful for that.
As you rightly point out in the report, an effective competition policy plays a key role in achieving the Lisbon Strategy goals. To remain effective, competition policy needs to keep up with the evolving world around it. I am very pleased that Parliament supports the Commission's efforts to modernise competition policy, and in particular the work we did in 2005 to pursue a more refined economic approach.
I agree with the report on very many issues, so I shall just mention three points where your comments really struck me.
First, as you note, state aid control is essential to maintain a level playing field in the internal market. Through our ongoing reform, we are redesigning our rules to make them more simple, more transparent, more user-friendly, more coherent and more predictable. Our rules focus on the areas where limited amounts of aid can have most added value - competitiveness, the environment, training, regional cohesion, research, development and innovation. We have made good progress with the reform, but Member States must also do their share, as you say, particularly when it comes to recovering illegal state aid quickly and effectively.
The second point that struck me was that 2005 was the year we launched two major sector inquiries. I agree with you about the value of these tools for a forward-looking policy. In the energy sector, you are right to be concerned that the facts show serious barriers to competition. The Commission will continue to pursue individual competition cases, working in cooperation with our colleagues in the national competition authorities. Regulation in this sector needs to be improved, with the requirement of ownership unbundling a priority.
Third, you are right that, in today's globalised world, competition authorities need to cooperate more than ever before. Europe has a key role to play in encouraging strong competition cultures elsewhere in the world. At the same time, Europe needs to be able to respond to unfair foreign subsidies. The common commercial policy - rather than matching aid - is the proper tool to address this. Subsidy competition would undermine Europe's cohesion, create damaging subsidy races within our internal market, and bring serious risk of WTO litigation.
I am looking forward to the debate.
Madam President, Commissioner, as you know, this meeting between the European Parliament and the Commission is an important event in terms of competition policy, for it is the time when we evaluate one of the most important policies in the Commission's hands, whilst defining only the general outline for the others, on the basis of which you will take this or that decision.
While the report that we are putting forward this year is a balanced one, it does need to be completed by an answer to the question as to what is meant by 'fair and undistorted competition', as the Treaty itself puts it. In fact, the situation in the business world, in which there is an increasing and underhand trend towards a way of working in which, no doubt for the sake of flexibility, trainees' contracts are renewed month after month and, for the sake of providing the trainees with access to professional training, the difference between them and those subject to labour law is accentuated, is a real issue in terms of competition, and one that you need to consider closely.
We in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs are also concerned about the conclusions that are going to be drawn from the sectoral surveys that you have been carrying out, and specifically in connection with the potential impact on the structure of this or that segment of the market. I am thinking, for example, of the situation of local banks, or of mutual banks in relation to the retail banking sector, but we would also like you to consider other sectors, which may well be more difficult to tackle. Three sectors about which we are particularly concerned are investment banks, rating agencies and auditors' firms. We think that, if competition is to be required to be free and undistorted, one must also be bold enough to take a look at these sectors in the same way as the Commission has sometimes done with actors of equally considerable weight.
If this takes place, you can count on our support, although you must never forget that competition policy can never be an end in itself, but is in the service of a strategy of the European Union which is, today, defined not only by the Lisbon Strategy, but also by the objectives set out on 8 March 2007, those being the fight against the effects of climate change and the will to endow the European Union with the capacity for shaping its own independent energy policy.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Madam President, first of all, I should like to pay tribute to the absent rapporteur who has, as I see it, compiled an excellent document which meets with broad support in our committee. I should also like to give Mrs Kroes credit for what she has done, because, as Mrs Berès said a moment ago with very good reason, competition policy is not an end in itself, and I think that the European Commission, precisely under the guidance of Mrs Kroes, has launched a new pragmatic approach, something which we greatly appreciate.
Sometimes, people overlook the fact that competition rules are not there to bully businesses or thwart national governments. Competition rules are designed to ensure that the same rules and equal opportunities apply to everyone who operates in the internal market. These competition rules are therefore there to ensure that Europe can adopt a strong position in the world, in the face of global competition. As such, we should not compete with each other, but instead ensure that we create an internal market that functions well.
I too am a staunch supporter of the sector inquiries, and where energy policy is concerned, you can count on this Parliament's support. I should nevertheless like to make one observation. At the moment, everyone in the Member States is busy preparing for the summit that is coming up this weekend, where once again, energy policy will feature as one of the new key areas on the agenda. One of the few positive points in the whole discussion. At the same time, I have noticed that, whilst the leaders of the national governments are saying that we should have a common energy policy, they are not prepared to stop protecting their national favourites. Perhaps they should practise what they preach.
With regard to state aid, as rapporteur for state aid for public services and for innovation, I can say that we have discussed this subject before. Actually, I cannot wait to see if there is a first assessment of the impact of these exemption regulations and if, more generally, an assessment is being made of whether state aid is suitable or not.
Finally, as for the matching clause, this too has been the subject of previous discussions. It is, of course, a problem if generous levels of state aid are made available outside of the European Union. At the same time, I would prefer to reinforce Europe's competitiveness by other means. It is highly improper, to my mind, to start giving out generous levels of state aid and subsidies, whilst we have not yet sorted out other measures, including patents, making the labour market more flexible, opening up the market for services and many other measures of this kind; mistakes like this cannot be put right with state aid.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, it has always been my contention that, far from encouraging competition, the EU in its drive for the mythical 'level playing field' wants to stamp it out altogether. This report does little to change that perception.
Paragraph 13 supports a common consolidated corporate tax base, which is another step towards a compulsory EU-wide corporation tax, which is fundamentally anti-competitive. This idea is enthusiastically supported by France and Germany, two countries with higher corporate tax rates, which must be salivating at the idea of getting everybody else's rates up to their level.
One of the most stupid pieces of EU jargon that I have ever heard is 'unfair tax competition', which is what this clause is all about. There is nothing unfair about some Member States having more business-friendly taxation regimes than others. This encourages competition. State aid gets a bashing in this report, as you would expect, but the report makes the false assumption that all state aid is bad. In Britain, because of EU state aid restrictions, we are rapidly losing the Royal Mail postal service, to the detriment of consumers, particularly in remote areas.
(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, in my speech I plan to use the so-called case method, that is to say, I am going to try to draw conclusions from a single specific event that may be applicable in a general sense.
As the honourable Member knows, on several occasions I have concerned myself with the issue of the takeover bids that have taken place in Spain against the Endesa electricity company. My fellow Member from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has referred to national champions and I believe that this case fits perfectly within that context.
As you know, the current Spanish Government did everything it could to prevent a German company, E.ON, from acquiring a stake in Endesa, and that conduct has already led the Commission to open up two procedures. One against the general decision empowering a particular committee to lay down specific conditions, and the other relating to those specific conditions. The Commissioner is perfectly aware of what I am talking about.
Then a stake in Endesa was acquired by an Italian company, which is partly public, incidentally. I put a question to the Commissioner and received a reply today in which she says that the restrictions to the right to vote laid down by the Spanish Government are being investigated.
The third chapter in this case is that the person responsible, the President of the National Energy Commission, the Spanish regulatory body, appointed by the Socialist Government, has handed in his resignation to that same Socialist Government, in protest against what he considers to be violations of his independence. That is what he explained to the Spanish Parliament. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get him to explain it in this Parliament, although I have not given up hope that there will be full and open transparency here as well. I would like to know whether the Commissioner, the Commission, is worried about this issue that affects the proper operation of the entire European market, and is an issue for the whole of Europe, and which, if you will allow me, also affects legal security, the good name and good credit in the international markets of my country, and please believe me, Commissioner, that is what is of most concern to me.
I would like the Commissioner to tell me whether she has carried out any investigations, whether she intends to do so, whether she intends to address this problem with the Socialist government and whether she intends to carry out reforms with a view to combating it.
Thank you, Madam President, I have exceeded my speaking time somewhat because my spokesman, Mr Evans, has not been here and I felt that I could make use of his time; in any event I would like to thank you.
Member of the Commission. Madam President, I am as impressed with the report as everyone who has already spoken. I greatly appreciate the report itself, but I appreciate even more the annual debates, particularly with the honourable Members present at this sitting.
The report itself makes a vital contribution to the further development of this policy. I would like to assure you that I am not only listening to you, but am taking many of your remarks - which make a lot of sense - into account. Indeed, if competition policy is to really deliver in creating growth and jobs in Europe, we need to continue working together. That means involving all the stakeholders - Parliament as well as the outside world - and taking into account the point touched upon by Sophia in 't Veld. It is not a matter of making fun of anyone but rather to set a level playing field in which everyone, both the consumer and the business world, may finally share the advantages.
I would like to respond to a few specific issues raised in our debate this evening. Mrs Berès had some interesting ideas for new sector inquiries and I will indeed consider the subjects she touched upon: rating agencies, auditing firms and large investment banks. We have not yet made up our minds and are still discussing the matter, so I will put this on the list. It is more a matter of resources than a lack of sectors in which it might make sense to start a sector inquiry. At present the Commission has no grounds for a wide-ranging review of competition in these particular sectors, but this does not mean that we cannot take a couple of thoughts out of it. I would welcome further discussion with Parliament on these issues. Of course, the Commission is always ready to look carefully at any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour which is brought to our attention in individual situations.
Mrs Berès also spoke about competition on non-traditional grounds, for example salaries. The report also mentions tax. I note that many of you are concerned by so-called tax competition among the Member States. It is correct that the Commission has powers to assess tax measures affecting competition. However, and I would like to make this quite clear, that is the case only when these measures are considered to be state aid and essentially when they are selective in nature, meaning that they do not constitute general measures.
I now come to the point that Sophia in 't Veld touched upon. For the last 10 years the Commission has been reviewing potentially harmful tax schemes. We have challenged a series of national measures targeting, amongst others, offshore intragroup activities.
As regards salary competition, my answer is quite clear: if measures relating to salaries can be considered as state aid, the Commission will use its powers.
Turning to state aid issues, in particular in reply to Sophia in 't Veld, state aid is in principle, as we are all aware, banned by the Treaty to avoid distortions of competition in our single market. State aid can indeed be a legitimate tool to deliver outcomes which are in the general interest, for example regional cohesion, research and development, as well as innovation and high-quality public services which markets themselves will not deliver. That is why our approach is to design a new set of state aid rules, which we did with the review. It uses a more economic approach to assess where market failures exist and to target appropriate aid measures on them. That is a balanced and a realistic view. It reflects the need to help Member States get the best out of taxpayers' money - state aid is, at the end of the day, taxpayers' money.
The Commission publishes its state aid scoreboards twice a year. As you are aware, this presents data and analyses of Member States' expenditure on state aid measures. It includes a focus on Member States' progress towards the Lisbon goals of less and better aid. The next edition will pay close attention to the question of recovery. In addition, a series of indicators and statistical tables on our Europa website gives scope for further discussion. But Sophia in 't Veld is right: we need to do more to evaluate the effects of state aid, whether it makes sense and how. That is how the new more economic approach could help us.
I can be brief in response to Mr García-Margallo y Marfil: we have discussed this before and we know exactly what the dossier is about. We have taken the Member State concerned to Court for not respecting our two Article 21 decisions under the Merger Regulation. My colleague, Charlie McCreevy, is taking parallel action under the internal market rules.
I am always open to your suggestions for further improving the way in which competition policy makes markets function better. I badly need your ideas and your creativity. We are doing our utmost to complete this process, and I am grateful for your continued support and valuable contribution. We are not there yet but are on the right track.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, 19 June 2007.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in Parliament's report on Competition Policy 2005, we acknowledge the efforts made by the Commission to modernise competition policy.
I should like to highlight the main recommendations of the report.
In the crucial area of energy, we support the Commission's action on ownership unbundling.
We reiterate the call on the Commission to clarify at Community level the public service obligations to which operators of services of general economic interest should be bound, with regard to strategic security and universal coverage.
We also believe it is important to ensure that the EU's external dimension is consistent with competition policy when it comes to negotiating bilateral trade agreements.
In spite of the Commission's efforts at harmonising practices and guaranteeing transparency, it is a fact that there is competition in terms of incentives between EU regions and Member States, which, along with the absence of tax harmonisation, foments the artificial relocation of companies.
These and other challenges illustrate the need to strengthen the EU's ability to deliver effective competition rules and to improve flexibility of response to new challenges. Hence the importance of continuing to give the European Competition Authority the resources it needs.


Request for waiver of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes


13. (


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 1.45 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)


Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes


21. 2006 discharge: Translation Centre for the bodies of the European Union (


Commission expert groups and balanced representation and transparency (debate)
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question by Mr de Jong, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, Mr Cashman, on behalf of the S&D Group, Mr Canfin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, and Mrs Macovei, to the Commission on the revision of the framework for Commission expert groups and balanced representation and transparency (B7-0010/2011);
the oral question by Mrs Lepage, Mrs Wallis and Mrs Ries, on behalf of the ALDE Group, to the Commission on the revision of the framework for Commission expert groups and balanced representation and transparency (B7-0014/2011)
Mr President, at the end of last year, the Commission revised the rules for its expert groups. In the run-up to that revision, I was able to engage in good informal discussions with the Commission's representatives.
Nonetheless, it is strange that the European Parliament has never been formally involved in this. After all, transparency is a common concern of both the Commission and the European Parliament.
Can the Commissioner assure me that, in the future, we will have a formal dialogue on such questions before final decisions are made?
In the last week, I again contacted all kinds of civil society organisations. Unfortunately, they have not received any reassurances whatsoever that the composition of expert groups will be more balanced in the future. In fact, they have received information about the creation of new expert groups.
I know from my own experience, from the days when I myself was working for the Secretariat-General of the Commission, that Directorates-General are small kingdoms. However, if there is political will, then it must be possible for the Commission to decide to post on a single website all information about the new expert groups and about the accompanying notification procedures. Will the Commissioner ensure this is the case or will he bow to the Commission's official bureaucracy?
All civil society organisations are facing a huge lack of resources. That applies to the unions, consumer organisations and to representatives of SMEs. They are having to make do with a small office in Brussels, in contrast to large companies which have the resources to hire professional lobbyists. This means that, in the interests of workers, consumers and SMEs, people from outside Brussels, in particular, should be enabled to take a seat on expert groups.
However, this comes with a price tag. The Commission's website should indicate very clearly that travel and accommodation expenses will be reimbursed and, also, that a reimbursement scheme exists for other costs directly associated with work in expert groups. NGOs are often not aware of this nor do the Commission's officials bring this to their attention voluntarily. For a self-employed person, for example, it is impossible without reimbursement to just drop their work in order to participate in an expert group in Brussels. Such reimbursement should therefore be mandatory.
Directorate-General for Health and Consumers (DG SANCO) has a policy that experts who are recruited in a personal capacity should not be allowed to have any links to organisations which have a direct interest in the remit of a particular expert group. I call on the Commissioner to make DG SANCO's policy mandatory for all DGs.
Finally, I would like to hear from the Commissioner how it is possible that the Commission's website lists Greenpeace as a participant in Implementing Geological Disposal of Waste - Technology Platform, while I am in possession of correspondence between Greenpeace and the Commission which suggests that Greenpeace's application for participation was explicitly rejected by the Commission.
author. - Mr President, I should like to welcome the Commissioner to the world of politics, where no one is interested in what the Commission gets right, but is only interested in what it gets wrong.
This is a very good initiative, but Parliament, as Mr de Jong says, has some concerns. We have to ensure that expert groups are open to wider groups that can at least apply to get onto these expert working groups, and obtain information on how to do so.
We need to instil confidence in the expert working groups. To do that, we must have absolute transparency and, as has been said, they must not be dominated by big business, because this leads to the accusation of there being vested interests, and that undermines the work of the Commission and the work of the expert groups.
I say this as the rapporteur on the original regulation on public access to documents, which we implemented in this House in 2001.
As you well know, Commissioner, the whole principle of openness and taking decisions as closely to the citizens as possible emanates from the Amsterdam Treaty. We put this into practice with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which is currently under revision. I would have thought that this would have presented a good opportunity for the framework programme on expert groups to be introduced into the regulation - the recast proposal of 2008, which interestingly Parliament does not accept.
You will notice that Mrs Macovei is in the Chamber. She has a great history of challenging for greater openness and transparency. Most political groups attach high importance to this.
I would like to know why Parliament was not consulted. Is the Commission going to open a website giving greater information as to how citizens' representatives and civil societies can become engaged? If not, why not?
As I said at the very beginning, Commissioner, welcome to the world of politics, where everyone is obsessed with what has not been done rather than with what has been achieved.
Mr President, Commissioner, I have given my backing to this oral question because I think it is of the utmost importance for the European Commission, and the European Union in particular, to be transparent and irreproachable where lobbying is concerned.
As you know, Brussels is the international lobbying capital, before Washington. There are more lobbyists in Brussels than in Washington, and one of the ways in which they exert their influence on the Commission is through these famous expert groups.
I am a member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. You have, for example, a group of banking experts. Ninety-five per cent of the members of that expert group are bankers, and not just any bankers: only bankers from finance and investment banks, money market banks, and all the major US banks - J.P. Morgan, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs - are represented in it. On the other hand, there are no NGOs or trade unions in that expert group. The idea that the Commission should be advised only by investment bankers, and US investment bankers at that, with regard to changing banking rules seems totally surreal to me after the financial crisis we have gone through.
Hence there are some very precise questions and some very precise points in this oral question being put to you: are you going to change the composition of these expert groups? Are you going to ensure that the minutes are made public and that conflicts of interest are avoided? In the European Parliament, in fact, this is a completely transpartisan issue. There are left-wing MEPs, right-wing MEPs, Green MEPs and liberals who are very interested in these issues. Why were we not involved earlier in the reforms that you have introduced?
Mr President, Commissioner, I fully support what my fellow Members, and in particular Mr de Jong and Mr Canfin, have said. I can only regret that Parliament was not consulted before a final decision on the review was taken.
The issue of transparency and expertise is one that we debate on a very regular basis, in particular within the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, where my experience in my field is somewhat comparable to that which Mr Canfin has just demonstrated.
I should like, Commissioner, to emphasise two points. The first concerns the balance of the groups. This is an extremely important issue. The composition is very imbalanced: there are many very large companies, very few SMEs, and above all the industrial sector but not civil society. The fact is, the weight of the groups clearly has an impact on the decisions that the Commission has to take, since it relies on the experts' reports. If those expert reports were of no interest, they obviously would not be consulted. Consequently, restoring the balance so that it is representative of European society is absolutely vital, and I do not see any proposals in these new rules that favour either SMEs or civil society.
The second question concerns the selection of external experts. It is absolutely vital that we know, or at the very least that you know, exactly who is who and where those people who are talking to you come from. If experts present themselves as independent when in reality they are representing a lobby, the expertise they provide clearly cannot be regarded as a conclusive piece of information.
Extremely strict supervision and monitoring of declarations of interest is therefore absolutely vital to ensure that, if an expert is consulted as an industrial expert, things are at least clear. If he is consulted as a teacher when he is actually the representative of an industry, then things are no longer clear and they are not acceptable. I think that the issue of conflicts of interest is crucial. We have another example of this in the shape of a major problem at the Medicines Agency, which I believe we will have the opportunity to discuss again.
Therefore, I beg you, Commissioner, please restore our faith in the experts, as their opinions inform the decisions that are taken.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, of course, I do not know how much you know of the history of this issue, but I am particularly pleased to replace my colleague, Maroš Šefčovič, in replying to this question, because for the last five years it has been my domain. I was responsible for this area and am very pleased to tell you what has really been changed. It was an expert groups issue and, of course, unfortunately I have only three minutes to reply to your question. I will try to do my best.
As we mentioned, the new framework for Commission expert group was adopted in November 2010. It provides that, when defining the composition of these groups, the Commission departments concerned shall aim to ensure the balanced representation of relevant areas of expertise and areas of interest, while taking into account the work to be carried out and the specific expertise required.
The new framework for Commission expert groups provides for clearer and stronger horizontal rules on how to manage conflicts of interest. According to these rules, the relevant Commission services shall inform experts who are appointed in a personal capacity that, by accepting to be members of the group, they commit themselves to acting independently and in the public interest. These rules, which apply to all expert groups, constitute the Commission's sole policy on this matter and are requirements that all services must fulfil.
In October 2005, in an example of good cooperation with Parliament and Jens Bonde, MEP, the Commission launched an online public register of expert groups which provided valuable information on different aspects, such as the group's mission, tasks and composition. Since 2007, the Commission has been gradually publishing the names of expert group members, whether formally or informally established. This goes beyond the commitment made by the Commission in the 2005 framework for expert groups, which applied only to members of formal groups.
In 2009, the composition of expert groups was fully disclosed in the register. Thus, in principle, the names of all members of expert groups are available. This was a very strong requirement that Parliament imposed in 2005 and it has been complied with.
Following the adoption of the new framework for Commission expert groups, the Commission drew up a new version of the register in December 2010. This new version enhances transparency by providing new and more accurate information, notably on the type of entities listed and the procedures used to select members.
Furthermore, the new register increases transparency on the activities carried out by each group by allowing Commission departments to either publish relevant information in the register, or to provide a link from the register to a dedicated website where information can be found.
Finally, the presentation and readability of data encoded in the register has also been improved. Given the huge amount of information to be treated, the transition from the old to the new version of the register is still ongoing. Thus, some of the data still needs to be validated. The transition needs to be completed over the next few months.
Moreover, because for five and a half years I discussed these issues with various civil society organisations and Members of Parliament, I would ask you not to mystify the experts. There is no arithmetical link between the composition of expert groups and a decision. The decision is the Commission's political responsibility.
Parliament's committees have the same political responsibility when they meet in the presence of the same lobbyists. Do not forget that in 2005 we also launched a transparency register, then called the 'lobbyist register' and now the 'register of interest representatives', which has now developed into a joint register with Parliament. That is a great step ahead.
So something has been done. Things do not look so bad.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his response. I am glad that I am speaking after him.
I would like to say that we would rather look to the present and the future than back to the past. We would rather see bigger steps being taken towards transparency. I join with my colleagues on this question and recall that Parliament has asked the Commission to take action to ensure the balanced representation of interest groups in the membership of expert groups.
As the Commissioner mentioned, we have a revised framework. In our view, however, there are still major shortcomings which undermine people's confidence. I will mention some of them.
Procedures to detect and eliminate conflicts of interest are missing. We need a procedure to detect and eliminate these. It is not enough to send a letter to the experts asking them to decide if they have a conflict of interest or not. Professional secrecy clauses have been extended beyond Commission staff to include members of expert groups so that, instead of moving towards more transparency, we are moving towards more secrecy. The lack of transparency persists with regard to the disclosure of expert groups' documents. Next, small and medium-sized enterprises and civil society organisations are not properly represented. Safeguards against industry dominance are insufficient. There is a risk of 'corporate capture' of expert groups.
So we ask for all information about the existing expert groups to be placed on a website in a timely manner, including information about membership and members and all calls for applications.
I take this opportunity to insist again on the need for transparency concerning EU fund beneficiaries. Finally, I would like to say that transparency ensures good governance and trust in the institutions. If we want people's trust, more - and full - transparency is the only way to go.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, we know that there are many clichés concerning European decision-making.
The first one is that it is not transparent, but the EU is a tricky political system even for those who understand its functioning. Standard definitions hardly apply, therefore. Transparency and simplicity should be a basic aim for all actors in the EU. Our political system is sufficiently difficult on its own; we are not here to make it more difficult. Finding a legislative proposal somewhere on an EU website should not require special skills, so the user-friendly website the oral questions mention is not just an option - it is a must.
Another accusation is that the role of lobbying is unclear, and the role of big business is disproportionately strong. I know that lobbying can be useful for the Commission, as lobby groups often think up important points and provide information or even whole, ready-made, policy solutions. Here again I believe that transparency is a must and I am hopeful that this will be reflected in the future lobby register.
When it comes to expert groups, they should be seen for what they are: another playing field in which participants can put their interests forward. If the composition of those expert groups is biased, then expert groups merely provide one more opportunity for interest groups to succeed. However, these players are usually already good at putting their interests forward without the additional help of public authorities.
I can only repeat my colleagues' question: is it obligatory or not for the Commission to obtain balanced advice?
Mr President, it is obvious that transparency in the work of every official body should be guaranteed in every democratic society. This is needed for good decisions to be made objectively and to take account of all of society or the whole country or organisation which will be affected, and not some particular interests.
Therefore there is all the more reason why we should stress, whenever possible, that bodies connected with the European Union or the European Commission, as well as all other bodies which perform an official function, and this includes the European Parliament, should work as transparently and as openly as possible. This means the proposals that expert groups, too, should work in line with these requirements and with as much openness and transparency as possible are fully justified and warranted. This is necessary to eliminate possible conflicts of interest and to eliminate possible activity on behalf of particular interests when we do not know of this and when these actions may influence decisions which are important for the whole European Union.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, last October this Parliament introduced six new directives giving the EU powers to regulate the UK financial industry. On 7 February, I submitted a written question to the Commission advising it of one aspect of the UK Companies Act 1976. Section 27 of the Act gives a significant exemption to just one company, the Bank of England Nominees Limited. This exemption means that the identities of the shareholders of the Bank of England are kept secret.
I have asked the Commission if this exemption contravenes EU law and if the new regulatory bodies will have the power to require the disclosure of the names of the Bank of England's shareholders. Of course, I and my party do not want any EU law, but the Commission and the British Government do. Presumably then, the Commission should ensure that its law is equally, consistently and transparently applied throughout its empire.
(DE) Mr President, I am delighted that you are here today, Commissioner, because your efforts over the years for which you were responsible for this area achieved widespread recognition. Nonetheless, you know from your own experience that there is still a very long way to go.
It is vitally important that people who sit on expert groups are subject to a procedure and that sanctions can be imposed on them if they make incorrect statements. It is outrageous that people can claim to be independent when in reality they are clearly not independent. There must be sanctions for this; otherwise, what we have is a paper tiger.
My second point is the issue of who is being represented; you will be familiar with this from the business world. Here, in particular, it must surely be in the interests of the Commission to open up the groups at last to representatives of civil society. Looking at what has been achieved in respect of the financial scandals and the economic crisis it is clear that a great deal of poor advice has been given. This is something that we need to work on urgently.
(SK) Mr President, I would like to thank the group of Members for raising this urgent issue. The issue of experts does not only concern the economy. The Commission does not respect the principle of impartiality and balance in other fields either, and the resulting composition of expert groups is one-sided and does not represent the interests of all citizens.
The first example I would like to give is that, according to Eurostat, 90% of EU citizens are in favour of families consisting of a wife, a husband and their children. The Commission, however, selects only experts from organizations such as the European Women's Lobby or the Family platform, which seek to break this family model. The Commission has, in contrast, long rejected those women's organizations and experts who, just like the majority of EU citizens, do not agree with one-sided feminist theory.
Another example is the Agency for Fundamental Rights, created and financed by the Commission. The experts of this agency support a one-sided policy agenda, without trying to reach balance and objectivity. This is evidenced by the speeches of its Director in this Parliament. Even the European Commission has distanced itself from the attitudes to freedom of religion and conscience promulgated by the chairman of this agency's independent panel of experts, because it was drafted by lobbyists for pro-abortion organizations.
I believe that if an official European expert agency elevates political interests above professionalism and impartiality, it should be abolished. I could mention many more such cases. I would therefore like to add my voice to the questions that have been submitted to the Commission by the Members. I would like to ask the Commission to throw open the windows of the cabinet of experts, because the air in there is not clean, and this applies not only to the field of economics.
(FR) Mr President, the cooperation and consultations of experts put in place by the European Commission really must be irreproachable from the point of view of transparency, because this is a dangerous exercise. Indeed, members representing an interest, who are chosen according to their specific tasks and their type of expertise, may represent the same interests without, however, reflecting the general interest.
The Commission must therefore be particularly careful to ensure that they are representative, but even more so, it should encourage contradiction. I find it unacceptable that these members should include numerous NGOs that have similar interests and a similar scope. The working papers, acts and agendas of meetings should also be made public so that they can be consulted by the general public, elected representatives and entities for which the group's work does not have immediate implications but which will be affected from time to time. The unclear content of the expert groups' work cannot possibly lead to reliable results, and here I am thinking in particular of the expert groups coming under the DG Sanco.
Lastly, I believe that, in an effort to ensure the transparency of its operations, the Commission must involve Parliament in reviewing the supervision of its expert groups and similar entities.
As Article 9 of the Treaty makes clear, transparency is not just a matter for the European Commission; it concerns the people of Europe, too.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in our daily parliamentary activities we realise that added value is given by access to selected information that supports our legislative role and our work of providing political direction. We make use of outside human resources - although the Commission does so much more often - to supply us with analyses and guides to the current political, social, industrial and entrepreneurial situation.
Policy, however, is made up of decisions and choices, and these remain fully in the hands of politicians. It is a matter of making choices that may be supported by expert groups endowed with a high degree of professionalism and specific levels of competence, who are capable of expressing their opinions objectively.
Hence there is a need to identify effective instruments and transparent procedures that will allow the Commission to fulfil its role with the support of these autonomous or independent expert groups. We are aware that this is an extremely problematic aspect. The 2010 plan is certainly a significant step forward, but much more needs to be done. The experts' impartiality and authority also depend on how autonomous they are and on how able they are to support political decisions fairly and loyally.
Publicity mechanisms, the web and other effective methods can be simplified even further in both the Commission and Parliament. Therefore, the right of access is good; transparency is certainly good; the balance between the right to transparency and those things that cannot be handed over or passed on or made recognisable is good; and the register of lobbyists that is to be set up soon is good.
However, we must emphasise once again that it is policy that is paramount. If the policy is credible and competent, the experts' role is one of consultancy and support. The decision will always be made by the one who takes responsibility for it.
(SK) Mr President, the European Commission has recently revised its framework document governing the operation of expert groups. Given that we are all interested not only in the best possible functioning of the institutions of the European Union, but also in the transparent and fair creation and functioning of expert and advisory bodies, we would welcome a higher degree of openness on the part of the European Commission regarding implementation of the mechanism for the selection of experts for European Commission expert groups.
Reference was made here a few moments ago to the example of the European Medicines Agency, where the list of experts actually raises doubts as to the provision of independent expert advice. Therefore, Commissioner, we should work together to prevent any doubts as to the expertise, balance and independence of our advisory bodies. If we feel that the framework for expert groups still has certain shortcomings, despite the current revision, let us give the matter some thought and try to improve it even further.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Barnier has admitted that some of the Commission's expert groups in the financial area are unbalanced and one-sided in their composition. At present, 11 of the 25 expert groups in the financial area are dominated by the financial industry. Some groups have more representatives of the finance industry than responsible officials. Moreover, these representatives merely have to sign a preprinted declaration that they will act in the public interest if they see a conflict of interests. Such ridiculous platitudes are hardly conducive to creating transparency and neutrality.
The situation where the reports of the European Food Safety Agency are concerned is equally concerning. The statements on risks posed by genetic modification cite manufacturers' reports and the involvement of genetic modification lobbyists is clear. The Executive Director of the most important specialist EU authority on genetically modified plants is thus working for the industry-funded International Life Sciences Institute.
In other words, EU legislation that is primarily based on statements by banks and large groups is irresponsible and dangerous for EU citizens, and should therefore be stopped immediately.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, it really warms my heart to listen to this discussion. In fact, it would be good to have some kind of memo about the history of this issue.
The Commission takes note of all these good ideas and advice on how to increase transparency. I should point out that in 2005 we launched a transparency initiative which included the question of expert groups. This was very largely my brainchild, as Mr Hans-Peter Martin has just recalled.
There have, of course, been huge changes in relation to this question, with all the websites and information now available. But you should never regard the experts as some kind of decision-makers. They are not decision-makers and they clash with each other.
It is the same issue as has just been raised in relation to genetically modified organisms. One knows that it is not just industry that is concerned. There are different groups of experts. In the last months of the last Commission I also had responsibility for security, so all information about demonstrations came to my desk. One of the last huge demonstrations was against the abolition of subsidies for tobacco producers.
So there are different views, but we are the decision-makers: the Commissioners and Members of Parliament and our Institutions. Agencies also make decisions, as do the Council and the Member State governments. Experts are not the decision-makers. There is no arithmetical link.
Yes, I am in favour of greater transparency. It is clear that some very high-level expert groups were set up only to quietly disappear because they were not able to give any advice as they held such contradictory views.
So let us work with this transparency register, which I also consider to be a great achievement, because experts and advisers are everywhere. No politician survives without advisers. Political groups have advisers and are approached by different interests, and finally it is for political decision-makers to take one stand or another. There will always be subjects where the experts will say that now you must take this or that position. This is a matter for the political decision-makers: Commissioners, parliamentarians, political groups, in accordance with the democratic system.
There is also the question of the composition of the expert groups. Many issues have been raised about composition. Who should assess whether their composition is balanced or not? The composition of the expert groups is determined by specific cases. Some people may mistakenly want to enter these expert groups to be part of the decision-making process, but expert groups are not decision-makers.
Back in 2005, as some of us remember, there really was an element of opacity and the Commission, together with Parliament, has introduced substantial changes in this regard. By this I mean the transparency register, which registers representatives of interest groups. This applies to lobbyists at Parliament and the Commission, and a lot of information is now available to assess how great their influence is and the composition of the expert groups.
Let us develop our response in this issue, but let us also not underestimate the efforts which have been made so far.
The debate is closed.
(The sitting was suspended at 11.45 and resumed at 12.00)


5. The European Ombudman's activities (2008) (


Petitions: see Minutes


5. Conclusion of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Tajikistan (