Russia-EU summit (debate)
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the Russia-European Union summit.
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the eighteenth EU-Russia Summit was held last week in Helsinki. In accordance with established practice, the Summit dealt with the 'four common spaces' the two sides share, as well as international issues more widely. The Northern Dimension Summit between the EU, Russia, Norway and Iceland was held at the same time.
Our wide-ranging discussion on matters crucial to relations between the EU and Russia was conducted in a constructive atmosphere. With regard to the new EU-Russia treaty, we saw that the process of establishing a negotiating mandate had been an intensive one over the previous few weeks. The EU will continue to deal with the issue of the mandate, with the aim of commencing talks as soon as possible. Four Permanent Partnership Council ministerial meetings have been held this autumn to enhance concrete cooperation. These have been between the EU and Russian Ministers for Transport, the Environment, Justice and Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs.
With regard to the Common Economic Space, we found that there had been positive developments in many sectors of cooperation. Agreement was reached at the Summit on charges for Siberian overflights and putting an end to them. Furthermore, European Union and Russian Heads of State or Government recognised the enormous common interest that they had and the dependence on both sides in energy relations. The European Union highlighted the importance of the principles of transparency, predictability, reciprocity and openness in energy markets, investment and the transit infrastructure. These principles should also be incorporated in the new EU-Russia treaty. The Union insisted that the parties must guarantee their commitment to comply with the Energy Charter.
Other themes of the discussion were the growth in trade and investment between the European Union and Russia, traffic congestion and the development of an electronic customs clearance system, on which we made very obvious headway. We said that progress in the talks on Russia's membership of the World Trade Organisation will have a very positive effect on the economic space shared by the EU and Russia. Negotiations on extensive and comprehensive free trade between the EU and Russia can be started when Russia has joined the WTO. The dialogue on the environment endorsed at the EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council (Environment) in October will create a basis for wide-ranging cooperation.
Cooperation in the area of justice and home affairs has made progress in many sectors. We considered it of major importance that the agreements on visa facilitation and the readmission of illegal immigrants signed in May should come into force as quickly as possible.
On human rights, the European Union voiced its concern regarding the situation in Chechnya, and was of the opinion that it was important that all human rights crimes should be investigated thoroughly and individuals guilty of them brought to justice. The EU also mentioned the matter of preconditions for developments in the rule of law, for freedom of expression and for an independent media, including investigations into the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and the Mikhail Khodorkovski case. The EU referred to the human rights consultations organised at the start of November, which went more deeply into these issues and examined the human rights situation in Russia more exhaustively. The EU said that it was committed to closer cooperation on human rights and developing consultations on the subject.
The European Union and Russia stressed the importance of direct contact between their citizens as a basis for a strategic partnership. This partnership can be enhanced in particular in the domains of education and culture. Cooperation between universities, as well as student exchange programmes between the Union and Russia, have been high up on the agenda this autumn, and we want to put effort into this in the future too.
Our view was that cooperation in international matters is important for security and prosperity in Europe as a whole. We recognised how positively relations had developed in the context of several international matters. Cooperation between the Union and Russia must nevertheless be made to move in a more obvious direction. Some of the international issues raised were the Western Balkans, the Middle East peace process, the situation regarding North Korea, Georgia, Belarus and Moldova.
A Northern Dimension Summit was held to run alongside the EU-Russia Summit. At this summit, new basic documents, the Political Declaration and the Framework Document, were approved. With these decisions in place, the Northern Dimension will be renewed from the start of next year. The renewed Northern Dimension represents the common policy of four equal partners: the European Union, Russia, Norway and Iceland.
The Northern Dimension policy covers a vast geographical area, including the Baltic Sea, Northwest Russia, and the Arctic regions. It supports the implementation of the four common spaces between the EU and Russia in this geographical area. Moreover, the Northern Dimension focuses on special issues in northern regions, such as the vulnerable environment, indigenous peoples and health.
A joint steering group of partners is to be set up for the Northern Dimension to speed up practical cooperation. The existing Northern Dimension partnerships - that is, the Environmental Partnership and the Partnership in Public Health and Well-being - we want to continue and develop further. We shall also aim to examine the potential for applying the partnership model in the transport and logistics sector and strengthen cooperation in the area of energy efficiency.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I am most grateful for the opportunity to inform you about the EU-Russia Summit, which took place in Helsinki. This was the third EU meeting with President Putin this year, following the one in Sochi in May and the dinner in Lahti, which gave us a good opportunity to speak about energy issues.
Like my colleague, I greatly welcome the fact that Commission Vice-President Barrot and Minister Levitin were finally able to sign the Protocol on Siberian overflights. We have been working on this issue for many years and this is an important achievement, bringing an end to a persistent irritant in EU-Russia relations. It was also one of our conditions for Russia's WTO accession. Therefore I warmly welcome this achievement and thank Mr Barrot for his efforts.
Immediately before the summit, we had a very good discussion on closer economic integration with EU and Russian business leaders. They delivered a message of strong support for the benefits this would bring to the business communities on both sides. Later, at the summit, there was a consensus that we should carry forward work on this subject over the coming months. Our vision is the creation of a common economic area, essentially operating the same rules and providing for fair trade.
On energy, President Putin confirmed that the Energy Charter Treaty would not be ratified as it stands, but he also clearly expressed willingness to come to a deal that would respect the interests of both sides and include the principles of the Energy Treaty, as he said in Sochi. He called for reciprocity, including access for Russian capital to key strategic industries in the European Union.
It is unfortunate that it was not possible to announce the opening of negotiations for our new strategic agreement. However, I am confident that the remaining difficulties will be resolved shortly. President Barroso made it clear, after the inspection carried out by officials of our Food and Veterinary Office, that we consider that the ban on certain Polish exports is not proportionate. He pressed President Putin strongly to lift it and, in any case, to agree to tripartite talks between Poland, Russia and the Commission to settle this issue. President Putin made it clear that the issue was not Polish meat as such, but the transit of meat from other countries through Poland to Russia. Finally, as far as the new agreement is concerned, it was reconfirmed, vitally, that there will be no legal vacuum when the current agreement reaches the end of its initial ten-year period. Even though we have not yet started negotiations for an agreement, we can continue and we have a legal basis.
Another important issue already mentioned tonight is that of the long queues of vehicles waiting to enter Russia at EU borders. We agreed to give urgent attention to that. A mission involving the Commissioner for Taxation and some Member States had already taken place at the various borders between Russia and the Member States. We all noted that the origin of this problem was the growth in trade, namely the increase in trade between the EU and Russia, on the one hand, and the overall increase of trade with Russia, including transiting, on the other. But the infrastructure is already at maximum capacity and Russian procedures are cumbersome. For instance, there are currently seven security procedures, which Mr Putin has promised to reduce to two. That is very important. For its part, the Commission will shortly be making proposals in its report to address some of these customs issues. We also offered to cooperate on a pilot project. The question is whether data can be dealt with on the basis of a computer-based system.
There was also a generally positive assessment of cooperation on Freedom, Security and Justice. The Russian side said that the agreements on visa facilitation and readmission would be sent for ratification soon. This is very positive, because readmission also helps the European Union.
I would like to express my appreciation for the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee's input on Kaliningrad. On this matter, Russia raised the future of the Lithuanian scheme for cost-free visas, aluminium export duties and the treatment of minorities in Latvia and Estonia. We made it clear that these issues have either already been resolved or, in the case of visas for visitors from Kaliningrad to Lithuania, can be addressed.
On external security, the European Union pressed for more cooperation in the common neighbourhood, while Russia emphasised non-proliferation and disarmament, particularly with regard to Iran and North Korea. President Barroso outlined progress towards meeting the Kananaskis commitments. It was agreed that new ways to cooperate on crisis management should be pursued.
We also raised concerns regarding the human rights situation in Russia, notably the killing of Mrs Politkovskaya. President Barroso indicated that the perceived lack of due process caused concern in the European Union. As requested by the President of Parliament and other honourable Members, he also raised the case of Mikhail Khordorkovsky. President Putin defended the situation in Russia.
I will not repeat the comments made by the Presidency on foreign policy issues other than to note the importance we attach to cooperation at the United Nations on Iran, to promote the six-party talks on North Korea and to work with Russia in the Middle East through the Quartet. Russia asked for an urgent meeting of the Quartet, which we hope will take place before Christmas. We also need to work intensively to reduce our differences on Georgia and Kosovo, on which an exchange of views was held.
Finally, as my colleague said, the special Northern Dimension Summit took place for the first time. It was a success and I welcome Russia's involvement in that overall idea.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, a close partnership between Russia and the European Union is of vital interest to both sides, but for that partnership to be viable it must be based on balance: balance between the interests of the Union and the interests of Russia, and balance as regards economic issues and issues of democracy and fundamental human rights.
Looking at recent summits, some progress was made. As was mentioned, rights in respect of Siberian overflights will meet WTO standards. That is a good thing. The visa facilitation of last year is also a good development. However, in general, the summit was disappointing. The Polish veto plays a major role. Although in general we are against vetoes and we must all work together to get this veto from the table, I must say that the European People's Party understands the Polish position. We agree with Commission President Barroso, who has called the ban on Polish meat by Russia an excessive reaction. He saw no reasons for maintaining this ban. That is why the European People's Party calls upon Russia to work constructively with us to get this veto from the table by finding ways to lift the ban on Polish meat.
We would like to see the same attitude to Georgia. We hope that, as regards Moldova, the ban will go from the table - we saw an announcement about that today and we would ask Russia not to threaten to have bans on all of the European Union when Romania and Bulgaria enter.
If we can proceed with the negotiations, let us talk about balance and economy. If Russia wants to invest in our industries, we must be able to invest in the same way in Russian industries. Let us talk about the energy chapter, where we hope, after the agreement in principle, that the basic principles of the chapter will be accepted.
Last but not least, let us talk about human rights. I hope the human rights dialogue can take place in public. I really hope that Russia will send good signals after the recent suspicious assassinations by first of all catching the killers of Anna Politkovskaya. Let us, as Europe, be united on this more than ever before.
(Applause)
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, as the representatives both of the Council and of the Commission have indicated - without, however, spelling it out explicitly - there is no doubt that relations between the European Union and Russia have become problematic. My group was in favour of embarking on negotiations with Russia, on the grounds that this would have been the test of whether or not that country really was willing to engage in fair negotiations and arrive at fair outcomes, but we do very much understand what motivated Poland to exercise its veto, and, if discriminatory action is being taken - for that is how I understand what the Commissioner said - then Poland deserves our full solidarity. We cannot tolerate discriminatory or unfair treatment of any one or more Member States of the EU.
Secondly, what is absolutely necessary now is that the European Union should act as one. It is not acceptable that individual countries should set off on solo jaunts and make it possible for Russia to cherrypick certain countries with which to carry on separate negotiations. I trust that solidarity within the European Union will remain unimpaired.
Thirdly, our common neighbours need support, for they are in a difficult position where Russia is concerned. It is the idea of offering them support that underpins our ideas for an EU/Black Sea community, which we will be discussing in this House in December.
Fourthly, there is the human rights issue, about which we will not be silent, whether or not we now start negotiations, but we cannot possibly accept it when President Putin says, on the one hand, that he has nothing to do with all the things that are going on, while, on the other, doing nothing to ensure that those who are responsible end up before a judge. It is the President of Russia who now needs to deal with this matter - him and nobody else. None of us - certainly none of the members of my own group - wants another Cold War with Russia, but we will not be silent for as long as such violations of human rights are going on as we see at present, resulting in the deaths of people who are contending for the free expression of opinion in Russia.
(Applause)
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FI) Mr President, a new atmosphere of cooperation has emerged between the European Union and Russia in recent months: the Spirit of Lahti, as it was called after the informal summit in the autumn. Furthermore, it was in this selfsame spirit that we were able to bring off the recent EU-Russia Summit.
A feature of the Spirit of Lahti is the ability to deal with difficult matters openly. There were also frank discussions in Lahti and Helsinki on questions of human rights and democracy. At the summit meeting in Helsinki, agreement was hampered by a row which prevented the recommencement of talks on the new partnership agreement. The parties might nevertheless have realised that they could work together on the basis of the current agreement, which is still in force for the time being.
Talks on the new partnership agreement must get under way as soon as possible. New ideas on how to improve cooperation, on the other hand, can be generated on the basis of the current agreement.
There was a positive outcome at the Summit in two important areas. First, payments for Siberian overflights will gradually start to be reduced, and they will be phased out entirely by 2013. Next, agreements between the EU, Russia, Norway and Iceland on the Northern Dimension were signed while the Summit was being held. Thus, in the north we reached a new agreement which will provide a framework for cooperation in the four 'spaces' which the EU and Russia have agreed on establishing.
Lorry queues on the border between the EU and Russia were discussed. Discussions on this have been taking place today at talks between the Finnish and Russian Prime Ministers in Moscow. The problem is that checks on the Russian side can be carried out by as many as seven officials. Now that number is being dropped to two, and border checks will be speeded up in other ways too. In any case, we need a quick solution to this urgent problem.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the relations and discussions between Europe and Russia are like surrealist art or a Woody Allen film.
One of two things is true. Either Polish meat is bad, in which case Mr Putin is right and this meat must no longer be distributed in Europe. Or Polish meat is good, in which case it can be distributed in Europe and what Mr Putin and Russia are doing is unjust and sanctions must be taken against them. There is no question of exaggerating or not exaggerating: either it is true or it is not true, that is all.
Secondly, with regard to human rights, Mr Putin, with his angelic face of a judoka trained by the KGB, repeats to us time and again: 'I have nothing to do with this business'. Assassinations take place all over Europe, a woman is assassinated in Moscow, an ex-KGB agent is assassinated in London and Mr Putin repeats: 'I have nothing to do with it'. Evidently, it was Mr Khodorkovsky who, from his prison, organised the assassination of Mrs Politkovskaya and it was Mr Lebedev who, from his prison, organised the assassination of the ex-KGB agent.
Only one thing is certain: the laws passed in the Duma are laws that have been passed by Mr Putin's party, with the result that the opposition no longer has the right to speak, that non-governmental organisations no longer have the right to voice their opinions and that European foundations no longer have the right to exist. Again, on this subject, Mr Putin tells us: 'I have nothing to do with these events. I was at a conference in Paris, in London or I do not know where and I do not know what has been passed in the Duma.'
We must not be taken for fools. I would prefer it if there were no prospect of cold war. No one wants cold war, but everything has its limits. We cannot accept that a public politician should lie to us continually: either Mr Putin chooses to be polite and to answer our questions, or we will take a different tone with Mr Putin. We may need his energy, but we do not need someone who constantly mocks us.
(Applause)
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, it would be very bold to claim that the last summit in Finland was a success, although we made our own contribution to the summit. Our so-called solidarity was of absolutely no use. Whilst it is true that Russia needs the Union, it is also the case that the Union needs Russia. As long as we pursue an increasingly fierce Russophobic line, Russia will pragmatically continue to work together with the no-less-pragmatic EU Member States that are her biggest economic partners, that is to say, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, among others. This cooperation continues apace, to no one's great surprise. We will not integrate a Community perspective into the energy agreement with Russia if we simply favour European firms and help them to make profits from Russian energy supplies. We will not enjoy mutually advantageous and much-needed relations with Russia, if, for example, in official negotiations between EU and Russian parliamentary delegations, some of the seats reserved for the EU Parliament's representatives remain empty. It is hard to negotiate properly with one's eyes and ears closed.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, there is every indication that Russia does not wish to accept the implications of the 2004 enlargement. It is failing to proceed with the signature of border treaties with Latvia and Estonia, and has resorted to the use of gas to blackmail some Member States. Most recently, Russia has been conducting discriminatory trade policy against Poland, on the basis of forged veterinary certificates. Poland cannot tolerate such discrimination. More importantly, Poland cannot agree to opening talks under conditions dictated by Russia.
I am grateful to the Commission for recognising these problems and seeking solutions to them. I would point out also that the tension surrounding the latest summit involves much more than relations between the Union and Russia, and how that is resolved will determine the standing and future of the whole Union. If Russia succeeds in dividing us, the chances of developing a political Europe and of institutional change will be much reduced, particularly as regards a common foreign policy. It does not make sense to create new institutions if they are not underpinned by common convictions, and if a common political will is lacking.
Should Russia succeed in dividing us now, it will go one step further next year, and in the meantime our common foreign policy will be two steps behind. We should not therefore be surprised if NATO is assuming the political initiative, for instance regarding a common energy policy. NATO is already drawing up a detailed outline of its future role on this vital issue.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, the latest EU-Russia Summit did not bring any specific results. Nonetheless, the way the meeting unfolded allows us to draw several conclusions which could be relevant to future negotiations on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.
Firstly, it is standard practice for Russia to resort to tactics aimed at shattering the Union's unity, by presenting current disagreements as bilateral problems with particular Member States. This is what has happened with regard to the ban on imports of Polish foodstuffs. The same tactic had been applied previously to Latvia and other Baltic States. This approach has proved successful because certain groups within the Union joined in with the criticism of Poland, drawing on elements of the rhetoric used by Russia.
Secondly, whilst the Union is very sensitive to the issue of respect for human rights in the Member States and throughout the world, such as in relation to the war on terror, it applies different standards to Russia in this regard. EU decision-makers deliberately avoid posing difficult questions, and if such questions do arise, for example, concerning politically inspired murders or the situation in Chechnya, they unreservedly accept President Putin's evasive responses.
It is worth emphasising that good political and economic cooperation between Russia and the EU is highly desirable, but the unduly submissive attitude the EU has adopted in its dealings with Russia so far will not help attain that objective. Ratifying the Energy Charter Treaty and a more determined response to human rights violations should be deemed priorities in relations with Russia. Maintaining European Union solidarity in dealing with a difficult partner is just as necessary.
Mr President, Russia, in its four common spaces engaging with the EU, remains our strategic partner. We need a strong, united and stable Russia as an ally against rising Islamist terrorism, working with us through the Quartet in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict, preventing in the UN Security Council Iranian and North Korean nuclear proliferation, as well as being a reliable trading partner in its supply of 30% of the EU's gas needs.
Nevertheless, we take a dim view of the atrocities in Chechnya, the deterioration in human rights and democratic freedoms - in particular press freedom, and contract killings of journalists and opponents of the Government, such as my constituent from London, Alexander Litvinenko.
We also reject the traditional Russian habit of cosying up bilaterally to big Member States such as Britain, France and Germany, in order to pressurise others such as the Baltic States and, most recently, Poland, by banning its beef exports. Russia all too frequently invokes phytosanitary regulations to bully troublesome 'near-abroad neighbours' such as Moldova and Georgia, where wine and mineral waters were banned.
Otherwise, Russia uses differential gas pricing by Gazprom as a foreign policy instrument to put pressure on neighbours such as Ukraine. Recently, NATO released a report suggesting that Russia is planning a 'gas OPEC' with Algeria, Qatar, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, which would be a serious threat to the EU's external energy security interests. One way of responding to this, particularly after Russia's refusal to sign the Energy Charter Treaty, is to tell President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, on his visit to Brussels next week, that his country, like its ethnic cousin Azerbaijan, would be welcome in the European Neighbourhood Policy, rather than Kazakhstan joining Russia, Ukraine and Belarus in the Yalta Treaty's Single Economic Space.
(FI) Mr President, Minister, I will only speak about energy, because one cannot speak about everything, and I want to raise half a dozen points or so. For us, it is vital to have security of energy supply, but what is important for Russia is that it has the security of a permanent customer. We need the market to be opened up on both sides. We also need long-term trade agreements. Russia needs them too, as it has to invest in its energy industry, which is almost in tatters.
The energy debate needs more political guidance on our part. Energy is a very political issue. Despite that, we talk about all manner of things here, but we do not even go to Russia to familiarise ourselves with the energy situation. We need to go there. It has been a long time since anyone went there with this in mind.
Finally, I want to say that energy is now a source of conflict for us with Russia. It cannot be taken care of with electricity or gas, but is a job for the politicians. So we have to act as politicians in the domain of energy, and together with Russia find a form of cooperation that is satisfactory to both sides.
(Applause)
. - (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, the conclusion of the new partnership agreement with Russia is a significant step in our cooperation, which will also help to resolve the energy issue. In the name of good relations, however, we should not disregard the package of demands which we need to put forward to Russia in order for this cooperation to be possible. We should not ignore the fact that in Russia democracy is being squeezed, and there are shocking restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Intimidation of political opponents and the murder of journalists are becoming more frequent. In the last seven years, 13 journalists have been killed, but not one contract killing of a journalist has been uncovered. At the same time, Russia's authorities are doing nothing to tackle racism and xenophobia. Quite the reverse: in Russia, violence has become part of the system of government. Russia is using the trade sphere as a foreign policy tool, by putting forward very high standards for its partners, which it, however, uses selectively. The European Union must ensure that Russia displays a genuine will to resolve these issues, and that it concludes border agreements without delay with Estonia and Latvia. This requirement must also be stated in documents, and I would like to thank the Commission for addressing these questions.
(DE) Mr President, our relations with Russia are of strategic importance. Looking at the developments in the Middle East and considering the use made of Russia in the Security Council in matters relating to problem areas such as Iran and North Korea, we know that it is in our interests to have Russia on our side when dealing with these. We also know that mandate to negotiate a new partnership and cooperation agreement is to be extended to include the incorporation into that agreement of matters touching on energy security, democracy and human rights in Russia, and, if that is to be done, then negotiations are necessary, and a veto, by preventing the resolution of such issues, is not helpful.
At the same time, though, it strikes me as of the utmost importance that the Commission and the Council, in the course of their negotiations, should bear it in mind - and you can use this as an argument, if you like - that any such agreement must, at the end of the day, be ratified by Parliament and that we will not accept an agreement that does not include certain conditions that are decisive in terms of solidarity between all Member States of the European Union.
I would like to address one thing that makes it clear that it is self-evidently in our own strategic interest if the European Union acts as one in foreign policy matters, while also making clear that solidarity can be manifested also in smaller matters such as, for example, the issue of trade with Poland. If the impression is given that we are up in arms about the trade measures of a third country when they affect Germany, or the United Kingdom, or France, and make a great song and dance about it, smaller or newer Member States get the idea that their problems are not treated as being equally important, and we end up with a credibility problem. In view of the way in which this issue of trade between Russia and Poland has been handled so far, I can quite understand what the Poles are getting at. No actions are now being taken against a single country, quite simply because there is now only one trade policy.
I therefore ask the Commission, and the member of it with responsibility for trade matters, to put this on the priority list in future, something that was not done for Poland, or, indeed, in the matter between Iran and Denmark three-quarters of a year ago. I think the Commission has to come to understand that this sends an important message to the people living in the Member States, that message being that we take their concerns seriously and care about them. That makes it easier to achieve agreement on other matters.
(PL) Mr President, the Russian Federation applies double standards to Member States of the European Union, dividing them into good and bad states. The good ones are rewarded with normal relations, whereas the bad ones are penalised with sanctions such as trade restrictions. This is the age-old policy of divide and rule.
We do not have any influence on the Kremlin's ambitions, because it is enjoying a renaissance of its imperialist outlook. Its leaders can afford to think this way as the prices of oil and gas are rising and we have to pay them. The way we react to this policy is crucial. If we do not all stand shoulder to shoulder in our response, we will simply be fuelling Russia's imperialist approach to international relations. I am not saying this to put the fear of Russia into us, but to ensure that improved relations between the European Union and Russia are based on a sound and stable footing, and all divisions between the good and the bad, the victors and the vanquished are done away with.
(PL) Mr President, the outcome of the summit in Finland was not what it might have been. Our esteemed Russian partners would do well to learn the lesson of that experience.
Russia and the European Union must recognise that this spells the end of a certain method of resolving issues between Moscow and the EU, and in particular between Moscow and some of the stronger and richer Member States. There can and must be an end to bilateral schemes between Russia and Germany, Russia and France or Russia and the United Kingdom and there must instead be honest debate with the European Union as a whole.
The European Union also needs to learn from this experience. Any issues that might be an obstacle to inclusive agreements should be fully resolved in advance of such a summit. The Russian embargo on Polish meat was a case in point. The rest of the EU should not be surprised that Poland dug its heels in over this issue, which is of great importance to us. We saw it as a kind of litmus test not only of Russia's intentions towards Poland, but also of the intentions of the other Member States towards our country.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that we must never allow European solidarity to be an empty slogan.
Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for raising these human rights issues with our Russian partners. However, in the present situation, it is not enough to raise delicate issues. We are also entitled to receive meaningful answers, and then to see changes in the negative pattern that can currently be observed. Only such changes, by means of positive reforms, could stimulate the new trust we badly need to continue our strategic partnership.
At this point, the Commission has to convince the Russian administration that democratic values do not have a second-rate status in our negotiating package. This is just what the democratically minded citizens of Russia expect from us, and we cannot betray them.
Secondly, I encourage the Commission to be more active in standing up for EU solidarity - our basic principle. All too often, the EU regards Member States' relations with Russia as merely a bilateral issue. The EU's message to Russia at this point should be that if political or economic pressure is put on one Member State, then that will be a problem for the whole of Europe. This could convince our partners to change their behaviour.
Finally, the EU does have leverage over Russia. Russia does not care any less about its relations with the EU than we care about them. Russia cares about its image as a global partner, so we should also make Mr Putin work to convince and prove that Russia could get rid of this negative pattern, or at least stop lying to us.
. - (LV) Thank you, Mr President, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner and Mrs Lehtomäki. I think that the work which you have accomplished at the summit and what you discussed was all very good. Of course, we wanted talks to be begun on the new agreement. Why? Because, of course, we want security of energy supplies. I do not think, however, in any case, that we should ignore any of our Member States. What we need here is solidarity. I would just like to point to a few examples from the past year which, in my view, show that Russia's attitude is selective. It began on 1 January by the cutting of gas supplies to Ukraine, and after that we learnt that wine from Moldova was no longer acceptable, but that wine from Transnistria, where the technologies are the same, was acceptable. Next, Georgia failed to obey - suddenly some scoundrel blew up the gas pipeline near Georgia's border, and Georgia had no gas supply for a week or two. Lithuania - the country is selling its shares in the Mazeiku oil refinery to the Poles, not the Russians. Suddenly an oil pipeline cracks, and oil no longer reaches the Mazeiku refinery. Just a short while ago, some of Latvia's canned fish was withdrawn from circulation in Russia. Our food health inspectorate checked tinned food originating from Russia in our country and in Germany, and found the same increase in these substances for which Russia had taken us to task. So I mention these examples of how Russia, unfortunately, always finds a reason to reproach others or suspend supplies or impose an embargo. Thus it seems to me that it is extremely important to include security of these energy supplies in the new agreement. I wish you success in your task.
(HU) Mr President, trade is a very important element of the relations between Russia and the European Union. The basis for trade is legal security and predictability, and to this end, joint trade agreements must be respected.
The EU must insist on full compliance with the principles and rules laid down in the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The Russian import ban on Polish meat products and other agricultural produce is an infringement of these principles and rules. These measures are excessive and unjustified. They should have been withdrawn long ago. The debate on trade remains unresolved because Russia does not show any willingness to cooperate.
The EU must insist on the observance of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, and must stand in solidarity with our Polish friends, speaking with one voice in order to encourage the Russian party to honour the trade agreements. We must make it absolutely clear that the EU does not tolerate any of its trading partners using discriminatory measures against one of the Member States. A unified position is important as well because Russia is now threatening to impose an import ban on all meat products from the EU because of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria.
This matter also has particular significance from Hungary's point of view, since large quantities of wine are sold in Russia under the label of 'Tokaji' although they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Tokaj region. Russia is thus infringing on the various rules protecting origins laid down in the partnership agreement. It is because of this as well that the EU must take a unified stand on this issue.
(PL) Mr President, the European Union must show solidarity in its dealings with Russia. Moscow wishes to divide the countries of the Union into good and bad partners. The good ones are the largest and richest countries such as Germany and France. Those are the countries with which Mr Putin wishes to conduct his European policy. Bowing to such treatment will mean the end and the enslavement of the European Union. We must speak with one voice in our dealings with Russia. The European Commission should have intervened earlier over the issue of Polish food. Poland's concerns over the building of the northern gas pipeline should also have been taken more seriously.
Russia is an important partner for the EU. We must insist on respect for freedom of expression and association within Russia, and also on respect for human rights and freedom of activity for the opposition.
It is not true that all Poles are anti-Russian. We appreciate Russian culture. We believe Russia is a remarkable nation that has produced outstanding figures in culture, science and music. It paid a very high price for the madness of Bolshevik-Communist utopia. We shall always support those who like Hertzen, Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, Bukovski, Kovalev or Politkovskaya dared to speak openly about the need for a free and democratic Russia determined to devote all its energies to its own development and to improving the lot of its own citizens, whilst refraining from imperialist subjugation of its neighbours.
President-on-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, thank you for this intense but worthwhile debate. A sign of good cooperation is that everything, even problematic issues, can be discussed. This prerequisite for good cooperation was met at the EU-Russia Summit. We were able to discuss even these difficult issues in concrete terms, and not just in terms of the principles involved.
It is very obvious from this debate that we need a balance in cooperation between the EU and Russia. In the opening speeches of the Summit, both sides laid great emphasis on the fact that we, the European Union and Russia, exist in a state of great mutual dependence. We are dependent on them for many things, and they are dependent on us.
Part of this balance is the notion that one approaches the partner on an equal footing and, furthermore, with respect. Moreover, the best results in cooperation with Russia are achieved specifically through dialogue and working closely together. That will not come about if we approach the partner in the belief that everything is right with us and everything with them is hopelessly wrong, and that we will teach them what they need to do. The best results are achieved through open dialogue on all issues, at the same time maintaining respect for the partner. The European Union's basic values are not up for negotiation in this dialogue. Our values are not for sale.
The matter of human rights is central to the dialogue between the Union and Russia. Absolutely crucial to their practical implementation is progress in the area of the rule of law in Russia. The Union will be working closely with Russia in many ways to establish the principle of the rule of law.
Our four 'spaces' for cooperation are a good opportunity for closer cooperation, not just in the energy sector, but in many other areas too. Now that we have to work to achieve a new mandate for a new partnership agreement, it is worth remembering that the existing agreement also allows us to cooperate more closely and effectively. So we do not have to just wait around for a new mandate: we can move on on the basis of the present one.
The debate also made much of the importance of solidarity within the European Union. In this case solidarity is very evident in the fact that, right to the last, the Commission and the Presidency of the Council did their utmost to find a solution to the remaining areas of discord and to start talks on the new agreement. In that, unfortunately, we failed, however.
President Putin said very clearly several times that Polish meat is welcome in Russia. From their point of view, the problem is that meat produced elsewhere with Polish labels on it is coming into the country, and that they cannot accept. Continued efforts need to be made to resolve this problem and reach agreement.
Just prior to the Summit, the news broke that the United States of America and Russia had concluded a bilateral agreement on Russia's membership of the World Trade Organisation. As this major step on the road towards Russia's membership of the WTO has now been taken, it is clear that Russia will be joining the WTO in the near future. That will also bring with it new and really positive prospects for economic cooperation between the European Union and Russia. Commissioner Mandelson and Russian Trade Minister Gref also put forward their views at the Summit. We therefore have plenty of excellent opportunities, but also plenty of problem areas where cooperation has to be continued. Cooperation has to be on an equal basis, and one where there is mutual respect.
Mr President, EU-Russia relations are indeed highly complex. On the one hand, Russia is a strategic partner, and on the other hand it is a common neighbour. We have to find a balance between these two very important elements.
Second, with regard to the issue of meat, we have worked very hard with the Poles and with the Russians, but we as a Commission do not even have an official responsibility for that. We are responsible for imports, but we are not responsible for exports. Sometimes these things matter; for instance we have asked for trilateral committees. That is what we have offered. We have asked why we do not sit down together trilaterally and try to find a solution. At the end of a lengthy discussion, as regards illegally imported meat from third countries to Russia - it was not about Polish meat, I can only subscribe to that - Mr Putin agreed that he will now instruct his agriculture minister to work more intensively with the Poles. I hope that means the path towards finding a solution is clear.
Unfortunately, I do not think we have more legal possibilities. Our colleague's comments on the WTO were very true. This will give us more legal possibilities.
I am also happy to tell you that today we adopted the Neighbourhood Policy communication, which will be coming to Parliament in a few days' time. I will officially present it to the media on Monday, because today we had the discussion on Turkey.
We are also talking about cooperation around the Black Sea. I wanted to mention that, because it came up in the debate. We think it is highly important to have the neighbours to the east together with the Black Sea cooperation - that means Turkey and Russia together. In the end, we have to re-engage and find solutions together.
In this new agreement, there will also be the whole issue of energy. Many of those issues have already been addressed. The other day we had a very important energy conference in Brussels, and there is a whole set of different ideas on transparency, reciprocity and legal certainty for investments. That progress was made at Lahti, and that progress also has to be incorporated into our agreement, because we need a stable market of technology and a stable market that will help all of us using Russian revenues and resources, and help our own possibilities as consumers.
Let me also say that we have shown the highest possible level of solidarity with Poland. I do not accept that this has not been done at the maximum possible level. On the other hand, we want to go on working, so I think we have to have this complex, balanced relationship.
It was a very frank and open meeting. That is always good. I prefer a frank and open talk, and having a chance to solve one issue, maybe solving others the next time around.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place during the December part-session.
Written statements (Rule 142)
(PL) I would like to express my grave concern about the ban on the import of plant and animal products from Poland that the Russian Federation has imposed over the last 12 months. I appeal to the European Commission to take more decisive action to resolve the problem. In view of the impasse in relations with Moscow it would seem that the best way forward is for this matter to be dealt by Russia and the European Union at the highest political level.
Given the difficulties concerning trade in agricultural products with Russia, I believe it would be appropriate to empower the European Commission to determine trade policy as a whole, encompassing not just import-related, but also export-related issues. The whole of the EU may well experience difficulties trading with Russia, not just Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. The existing principles of separation of access to third country markets by individual Member States result in an uneven playing field for exports and discriminatory treatment of certain Member States.
The division of competences regarding imports and exports appears to run counter to the principles of the single market and the provisions of Article 133 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, according to which the common commercial policy must be based on uniform principles, relating to export policy amongst other matters. In addition, current European Commission practices should be improved, so that it does not take unduly long to resolve any problems that may arise, and to allow a swift response to unexpected situations.
(FR) Those who take the hardest line against Russia today are often those who, for a long time, denied the existence of the gulag, the totalitarian nature of communism and the threat of Soviet imperialism.
For 74 years, the communists violated the most fundamental freedoms and solidarity, going as far as to force children to denounce their parents. It is not surprising that, coming out of this nightmare, Russian democracy is not yet perfect.
Our democracies are no better. In France, for example, the Front National, representing over 15% of the electorate, has no representatives in the National Assembly, and the parties in power want to prevent its candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen, from standing in the Presidential election.
Unlike Turkey, which the Europe of Brussels wants to welcome, Russia is a fully European nation. United by the same Helleno-Christian roots, our peoples are also sadly united by the same threats: falling birth rates and immigration, materialism and Islamism. The time has now come to reunite the Eastern and Western branches of our civilisation, beyond the dividing line of Theodosius, to reconcile the heirs of Saint Benedict with those of Saint Cyril.
(PL) Russia is a very important neighbour of the European Union, and the European Union is an important partner for Russia. For this partnership to be sound and genuine, Russia needs to understand the nature of the EU, and the EU ought to help it to do so. The European Union is based on the principle of solidarity among its members. Consequently, this policy of sowing dissent between Member States of the Union and Russia's use of bilateral contacts to exert pressure on certain Member States is something we cannot tolerate.
To put this another way, Polish meat is also European meat. The unjustified ban on the export of Polish meat to Russia is a problem for the EU as a whole, not a matter for bilateral relations between Poland and Russia. Upon investigation it emerged that the doctored meat certificates, which served as the pretext for placing the embargo on Polish meat, involved meat produced in the USA and exported to Russia via Lithuania. The embargo was therefore a political measure.
I am glad the Finnish Presidency is choosing its words carefully and describing cooperation between Russia and the EU over energy in terms of positive interdependence. The question arises, however, as to what that really means and how the Russians would understand being positive and interdependent. In order to avoid disagreements over interpretation it would be best to include the main elements of the Charter and the Transit Protocol in the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between Russia and the EU. This would ensure liberalisation of gas supplies from Central Asia through Russian territory.


Written statements for entry in the register (Rule 116): see Minutes


Toy safety (debate)
The next item is the statement from the Commission on toy safety.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, we always discuss toys just before Christmas, and quite rightly so, as this is the time when people are most interested in toys. I am grateful that we are doing so once again this year, as the safety of toys is a matter that is of interest to Parliament, the Council and the Commission and for which we all set the highest requirements.
The debate this evening has been triggered by media reports in one particular Member State - Germany. They originate from the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and from the Technical Supervisory Association (Technischer Überwachungsverein). Neither institution has approached the Commission directly. The German Government has not, as yet, come to the Commission with regard to this matter either. Thus, we do not know any more than what was stated by these two institutions in their press releases and what could be read in the German media. Nevertheless, it is a subject that needs to be taken so seriously that, even if all we have to go on is reports in the press, we still need to address the matter.
The analysis in the reports we have before us indicates that we need to deal with four different issues. The first is a question that is very easy to answer. According to the statement by the German Technical Supervisory Association, a considerable proportion of the toys on the German market that were tested did not comply with the European Union's current legal provisions. In this case, ladies and gentlemen, the rules are perfectly clear. If a Member State makes such a discovery, it is obliged to inform all the other Member States and the European Commission of this immediately and put the necessary measures in place. They can go as far as taking these products off the market immediately, and indeed this means throughout Europe, and also imposing an import ban if these products are manufactured outside the European Union. I hope that the German authorities will very quickly notify the other Member States and the Commission accordingly via RAPEX. Should import bans be necessary, then I assure you here and now that the Commission will approve such bans directly and without delay. However, as I said, as yet, no such information has been submitted to us by the German authorities.
Market surveillance - and I have to say this very clearly at this point - is the sole responsibility of the Member States. Neither the European Commission, Parliament nor the Council have any market surveillance instruments at their disposal. These are the sole preserve of the Member States. However, they are obliged under law, including under the current Toys Directive, to carry out this market surveillance. When I read news from Germany that it is doubtful that the country's market surveillance is in a position to meet the requirements of the new Toys Directive, then there is only one thing I can say, and that is that the German Government is under obligation to ensure that the German market surveillance authorities can meet these requirements. Thus, I think the answer to this question is fairly clear.
The second question is simple, too. It is an old topic on which Parliament has had intensive debates in connection with the adoption of the Toys Directive and where the crucial vote in this Parliament resulted in a clear and unambiguous majority decision in a roll-call vote. It related to the question of mandatory certification of toys by a third body. This proposal was put forward by Germany. The German Technical Supervisory Association was behind the proposal, which was quite rightly rejected because certification by a third body would not provide any additional safety at all in the case of toys, which are normally not technically complicated, as it would be the prototype that would be certified in this case.
When it comes to toys, however, the problem is not the prototype, but, as we know from experience, the problem is whether the high requirements that we set are actually complied with during the entire manufacturing process by all suppliers and all of those involved in the supply chain. As in all other areas, when it comes to toys, we abide by the principle that the manufacturer must take full responsibility for a product being in compliance with the law in force. Regardless of where in the world they are, we must not release manufacturers from this responsibility.
If there is a problem with reliability in a particular country, we need to talk to this country about improving its production conditions, and that is exactly what the European Commission is doing. I am talking about China. We are in close and intensive contact with China with regard to the question of how we can actually ensure that the production conditions in this country, which is by far the largest toy manufacturer in the world, meet our requirements. Progress has indeed been made here, but there is certainly still more that needs to be done.
The third complex of issues relates to chemical substances and heavy metals in toys. This is an extremely difficult and thorny issue. The political guideline that I gave to my colleagues when work was being carried out on the Toys Directive was to lay down the most stringent rules possible - the most stringent possible! This view was also shared by the Council and by Parliament. As a result, the limit values that we included in the new Toys Directive, which will be introduced in stages from 2011 onwards, represented the state of the art in terms of scientific knowledge at the time the directive was adopted.
However, we were aware that this is an evolving process - science is, of course, always progressing and there are always new research results and new findings - and, together, we deliberately framed the directive in such a way that new scientific findings that there are risks that we had not previously observed and that limit values have been set too high can very quickly be incorporated into the directive in a comitology procedure involving Parliament. According to the current legal situation, adopted by the European Parliament, the involvement of the competent scientific committee is needed for the assessment of the risks posed by products.
There have been indications twice this year that new findings may be available. The first was via a letter sent to me by Germany's Federal Minister for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection in the spring of this year. The letter concerned cadmium. I immediately arranged for this issue to be submitted to the scientific committee, not only with regard to cadmium, but with regard to other heavy metals, too. We are expecting the results of their examination during the first half of 2010 - by the end of June at the latest. If their examination does indeed reveal new findings, we will immediately bring forward a proposal to tighten up the directive, which has not yet entered into force, so that it enters into force in 2011 with the more stringent limit values in place.
The second case is rather complicated and difficult to explain. It relates to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, known as PAHs, which surround us all in our daily lives - we are not even aware of what we are coming into contact with. In this case, too, we received information that the limit values for these polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons may possibly be set too high. The scientific committee is looking into this. The results will also arrive in good time to allow us to make corrections.
At this point, let me point out that we are dealing with a problem here that, as politicians, we are not really able to solve. These are technical issues that are extremely complex. I will quite openly admit to you that I do not always understand the extremely complicated scientific analyses that are presented to me. I do not imagine that there are many Members of this Parliament, even if everyone were here this evening, who could claim to understand them. We cannot understand them because we have not received the relevant education. To a certain degree, therefore, we have to trust our experts. This is where the problem lies.
We all know, of course, that the history of science is full of examples of cases where the generally accepted teaching has turned out to be wrong. It is also full of examples of so-called minority opinions ultimately proving to be correct. As politicians, how can we decide when scientists disagree with each other? We cannot, and this is a risk that comes with our jobs as politicians and it is one that we cannot avoid.
The rule that we have in this regard in the European institutions is that we follow the recommendations of the competent scientific committees, and that is what we have done in this case, too. However, I would like to say quite openly that I take this issue so seriously that any indication, however small, that there may be new findings available - and even if we only find out about them in a newspaper report - is taken so seriously by the Commission that the issue is put to the scientists.
The last point is quite an annoying one. In this regard, I have to say that I really would have expected an institute belonging to the government of a Member State to observe the minimum requirements of good scientific conduct. The claim by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, which has been widely taken up by the German media, that, when it comes to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, we have a limit value for tyres that is a hundred times more stringent than the limit value for children's toys is simply scandal mongering. It is pure scandal mongering and the scientists there know that.
The truth is that the rules applying to the manufacture of tyres, in particular, to the oils used in this process, originate from the time before REACH and before the Directive on the safety of toys and that, in this case, one of these substances is taken as a reference value. However, this substance represents a group of around a hundred others. Thus, you need to multiply the reference value by one hundred. You then come to exactly the threshold value that also applies to other products within the European Union.
In other words, since the threshold value applying to the use of certain oils in the manufacture of tyres is based on the smallest content of these substances that is still measurable in the product, it is exactly the same for toys, too. The content is defined in terms of the smallest measurable content. I can only urge the Federal Institute to withdraw this misleading and indefensible claim. It really is intolerable that we have to deal with such things.
In summary, as regards the Toys Directive, we have produced a document which, to the best of our knowledge and belief, corresponds to what was possible at the time it was adopted. We have also framed it in such a way that new findings can be incorporated at any time so that our safety requirements for toys will always reflect the state of the art in science and research.
Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to thank you sincerely for the clarity and credibility of your statement with regard to the limit values under discussion here. On behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) - we also provided the rapporteur for the Toys Directive at that time in Marianne Thyssen - I would therefore like to make it clear that we, too, want to achieve and maintain complete protection in respect of all hazardous substances. We know that, in this regard, we have a particular responsibility for the health of our children and therefore our future.
Particularly before Christmas - you mentioned this, Commissioner - it needs to be possible for parents and grandparents to be certain which toys are safe for their children or grandchildren and which toys they can buy for them. Like you, I, too, call on the market surveillance authorities in the Member States, in particular, in Germany, to fulfil their obligations and remove dangerous toys from the market. I believe that we made the right decision at the time not to implement certification by third bodies as a general evaluation criterion for toys.
As regards the limit values, a similar appeal was made a year ago - as you mentioned. At that time, I wrote a letter to you asking you to refer the matter to the Commission's scientific committee, and that is something for which I am very grateful to you. I tried, back then, to obtain more scientific opinions from Germany and I have since received these. I would like to quote from one study by the Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt Stuttgart (the Stuttgart Chemical and Veterinary Testing Office): 'Comparisons of the higher migration limit values in the new directive with the fifteen year old values in DIN EN 713 are ultimately difficult to evaluate from a technical point of view.'
With this, I believe I can explain that it is not a cheap way of palming the issue off on to science and saying 'we do not want to examine this any closer because we do not want to understand it', but it is a genuine and difficult dispute among experts and one institute in Germany is clearly putting its point of view across particularly strongly. However, I urge you, Commissioner, to do everything possible to bring together the scientific institutes involved to enable them finally to agree on a scientifically objective opinion.
Madam President, at this time every year, parents intervene to ensure that letters are received by Father Christmas. Children ask for toys in these letters. One of these toys might be this one here, just as this one here might be one of the 104 toys controlled by the Federal German institute responsible for identifying dangers in consumer goods.
I have just listened to the Commissioner basically blame the institute for doing its work. I have listened to him heaping blame on scientists. I have listened to him heaping blame on the Member States, who are responsible for supervision. I have listened to all this with a great deal of interest, just as I have listened to him constantly telling us, with a great deal of honesty and solid data, that every previous directive is improved every now and then with new data. That fact alone confirms that the Federal German institute has done its job properly. So we need to bear that in mind.
As far as the directive is concerned, it is due to be applied in 2011 and, for chemical substances, in 2014, as you know. And another thing: on 17 December, in other words, the day after tomorrow, each Member State will go to the Commission in order to present its draft in connection with the market supervision regulation.
These relate directly to the Christmas market. These relate directly to the health of our children, who play with the toys that we buy them. Finally, it is very important that the debate on toys should not be held at this time every year. The debate on toys and safety should really be held throughout the year. That is the Commission's responsibility.
Madam President, Commissioner, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports the views expressed in the opinion of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment to the effect that the ALARA principle, in other words, the principle of 'as low as reasonably achievable', should apply in the assessment of carcinogenic substances.
Secondly, there is consequently a need for the Commission to examine whether this principle is also satisfied by the limit values laid down in the Toys Directive.
Thirdly, if this does not happen, we call on the Commission to ensure that, until the Toys Directive has been transposed by all the Member States in 2011, the limit values are laid down in the Toys Directive in such a way as to rule out any risk to the health of children from softening agents in toys.
Fourthly, the principle enshrined in the Toys Directive, whereby chemicals that are potentially carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction are impermissible, must be implemented with regard to accessible parts of toys. This must actually be achieved by the limit values set, as otherwise such a directive is worthless.
Fifthly, this calls, in particular, for better and more efficient market surveillance, because it is usually toys that have been imported into the EU that exceed the limit values set by the Union. However, efficient market surveillance would also enable toys manufactured within the EU to be tested to see whether they, too, comply with the limit values.
Sixthly, it is totally unacceptable, should this be the case, that lower standards should apply to imports into the EU than, for example, into the US. However, the threat by the German Federal Minister for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Ilse Aigner, to go it alone and prohibit so-called 'toxic toys' herself is, in my view, completely the wrong way to go about it and totally counterproductive when it comes to creating confidence in the European internal market. Merely cultivating national popular opinion not only destroys confidence in the European Institutions; it also damages the German Federal Government, because it approved the Toys Directive.
Madam President, Commissioner, we requested this debate in order to correct and clarify exactly what in these claims is true and what is merely cheap populism. That was the background to this. We would have expected the Commission to go to the press sooner, but if the matter can be cleared up through this debate, we will be very happy with that.
I welcome the announcement that you are going to carry out tests with regard to heavy metals and softening agents. I believe that is urgently needed. I would like to point out that the number of new cases of cancer in children under 15 years of age rose by more than 50% between 1980 - when data began to be collected - and 2006.
Malignant tumours are the second most common cause of death in children. We therefore need to act, we need to check whether these figures are correct and we need to respond accordingly. If this latest study by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment shows that the revised Toys Directive does not provide sufficient protection from carcinogenic softening agents, we will have to take action.
It cannot be the case that children can take up many times the quantity of carcinogenic substances in just one hour of skin contact than are contained in the smoke from 40 cigarettes. These substances can be avoided. The study shows that this is technically possible. Seventy percent of toys sold are below these thresholds. Therefore, it is possible at any time to require the other toys to meet these limit values, too. It is presumably a question of price, but that cannot be regulated by the market alone when the safety of children is at risk. Political action needs to be taken to adjust and raise the threshold values accordingly.
Of course, Member States are responsible for market surveillance, not Europe, Parliament or the Commission. We have also called on Germany many times to take its duties in the area of market surveillance seriously and to take the relevant action. However, that does not, by any means, mean that we do not need to take action where there is doubt as to whether our threshold values reflect the latest scientific findings, and therefore it is my hope and request that the new Commission will present proposals to Parliament as soon as possible so that we can then adjust the relevant limit values in the comitology procedure.
(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the safety of children - our smallest and most vulnerable consumers - has always been a priority for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and indeed for everyone in this House, and it was for this very reason that, one year ago, we adopted a new, strict, Directive on the safety of toys. Thanks to the excellent cooperation with the Commissioner and his services, with the Council Presidency and with my fellow MEPs across all the political groups, we were able to complete that mammoth task; and quickly, namely in a single reading. All our institutions were convinced that we had drawn up legislation that was the strictest in the world and was being followed attentively as far a field as China and the United States.
Parliament acted sensibly as far as third-party certification was concerned, and took a particularly strict line concerning the standards on chemical substances such as allergens and heavy metals. With regard to the substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR), we opted for a total ban, with a few exceptions under very strict conditions. This legislation provides for a transitional period, but that goes without saying - it is inherent in the system - and, in any case, this transitional period is shorter than the industry had said it could cope with. Ladies and gentlemen, either we got it completely wrong and failed with regard to this act, or science and technology have evolved to such an extent that the act already needs amending, which can be done very quickly through the comitology procedure, or there is nothing wrong, in which case we cannot play unnecessarily on people's fears and on their justified concern for their children's safety. I have listened to and believed the Commissioner, and I see that the European Commission is doing what it has to do.
If further infringements should come to light in this field, I believe this shows we can rest assured that market surveillance is in place and that it is working. We have two questions, then: is the legislation still up to the minute, and is the market surveillance adequate? If the answer to both questions is 'yes', we must absolutely avoid giving way to populism and must make clear to people that there is no need to worry.
(DA) Madam President, thank you, Commissioner, for your introduction. If I have understood you correctly, you wanted to ensure that a study was started into whether there are, in fact, too many toxic substances in children's toys in Germany, as the study indicates. If I have it right, then I would say that your idea is a good one. It is extremely important for us to act quickly. If we have any reason to suspect that our children's safety is at risk, then we must act. Furthermore, we would, of course, appreciate it if the Commission could get back to us here in Parliament very quickly to let us know whether or not there is anything in these claims. However, I would like to point out that, when it comes to softening agents in toys, there are, in fact, a number of researchers who are saying that there is no safe limit. The only safe thing to do is to leave the softening agents out of our children's toys completely. I really think that we should take a stand on this and consider whether we should not have tightened up the rules. I am not sure that the rules are good enough, even those in the new Toys Directive.
However, there is another matter that I would also like to raise in this regard, and that is that, a month and a half ago, we received a Commission study into how the new market surveillance legislation had been implemented in each Member State. It is indeed right that it is the task of the Member States to ensure that market surveillance functions properly. However, this study showed that, despite the fact that we have tightened up the rules, only two Member States chose to put more money into market surveillance. We ought to be able to do better than this. It is precisely to prevent terrible stories of unsafe toys on the market that we need significantly better market surveillance. I therefore also hope that the Commission will ensure that the Member States achieve this.
(SV) Madam President, I would like to thank Commissioner Verheugen for coming here to tell us about this important matter. We have a huge responsibility to ensure that our children are not made unwell or put at risk. I would like to take this opportunity to put a couple of questions that I have concerning the commitments made by the Commission in connection with the negotiations ahead of the first reading vote on the Toys Directive, as well as ahead of our plenary vote.
The party groups that were involved in the negotiations agreed to remove certain limits on noise levels because the wording approved by the Committee contained specific decibel levels. The Commission said that these levels might be too high and promised instead to produce a standard based on maximum levels for sustained noise and short noises. How far has the Commission got with its work on ensuring that toys do not cause hearing impairment? When can we expect a standard stating maximum noise levels for toys?
I would also like to highlight the issue of the font size used for warning texts. Once again, we were told that this would be resolved via standardisation. What is the Commission's view on the rules that should be applied here? When can we expect a standard that includes minimum font sizes for warning texts?
(PL) The subject of toy safety arouses very great interest, especially during the pre-Christmas period, when we are thinking about which toys to buy for the youngest among us. In the previous parliamentary term, we prepared what is, in my opinion, a very good solution for increasing the safety of the toys our children play with. Unfortunately, we have to wait for the effects of these provisions. I do, however, believe they will bring tangible results.
I would like to thank, here, the Commission services for organising the Toys Road Show, because it is a very important initiative which is helping businesses to prepare for the changes which result from the directive.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am, however, disturbed by another piece of information. At the end of November, in the United States, the Consumer Product Safety Commission decided to recall over a million children's cots from the market. Another million will be recalled from the Canadian market. A cot is an item of everyday use, and children come into contact with cots more often, perhaps, than with toys. In view of the scale of the operation, I would be grateful if the Commissioner could comment on this matter. Can we be sure that the children's cots available on the European market are safe?
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I, too, would like to thank you most sincerely for the clarity of your words. Essentially, it should be said that, overall, the Toys Directive has brought a considerable improvement in the protection of our children. We all approached it with the intention of producing the most stringent legislation anywhere in the world. However, many parents and grandparents are now concerned - as you said - because of the studies by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. We now need to ask ourselves whether or not the Institute's statements and opinion are right. In any case, we need to examine the facts of the matter very closely. It is a question of the protection of our children.
At this point, I would like to thank you most sincerely for having stated that you are willing to do that. However, I think that things need to move more quickly. Not until next year, you say, during the first half of the year, will the findings of the scientific committee be available. It must be done quicker than that. It is a question of the protection of our children. I really cannot understand why the Federal Institute left it so long to come out with these statements. I want to make that point here, too.
(EL) Madam President, dozens of instances have been recorded over recent years - 36 in 2000 alone - in which children needed immediate surgical intervention due to harmful substances in toys. I would also remind the House that just last week, a report was published in America which says that one third of toys in circulation contain dangerous chemical substances.
We should therefore understand that the European mark of conformity (CEE) is not enough to guarantee toy safety. It is awarded following submission of a file by the company in question and not following preventive and spot checking of the product and, as a result, we cannot assume that toys are safe.
In order, therefore, to ensure that our children - I do not have any, but I hope that one day I shall - receive gifts from Father Christmas, as mentioned earlier, which are completely safe and need not cause parents to worry, we must put pressure on the Member States to carry out more thorough checks and, of course, to strengthen current legislation.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted at the broad consensus that this debate has shown. Allow me to make a preliminary comment. We are dealing with a scientific institute, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, which I have been aware of for some time as a result of its tendency to make alarmist announcements to the public without informing the Commission or any other European institutions of its findings. You can judge that for yourselves. The only thing that I know about this is that the continued funding of this institute from Germany's Federal budget is under discussion. Perhaps that is one explanation for the institute's intensive public relations activities, while it clearly sets no great store by allowing us to examine its findings in any appropriate way.
Nevertheless - and it seems I have been misunderstood on this point - even if we only read something in the media, we still regard it as an indication of possible new scientific findings and I have already passed this on to the scientific committee. The call for me to do this that has been expressed here is not needed. The moment that I receive an indication that there may be new scientific findings available concerning the safety of toys and the limit values that we have set, this information is sent to the scientific committee.
However, I must reiterate that you cannot expect me, and likewise I cannot expect you, to make a decision in respect of the disagreements among scientists regarding methods. You cannot do that. I cannot do that and neither can you. I can do nothing more than say that the question of methodology in the measurement of possible limit values has been rigorously debated here in Parliament, in the Council and the Commission. Furthermore, the opinion of this German institute is not shared by any other scientific institute in Europe - not one! If you believe that I am obliged to follow the opinion of a single institute and ignore that of all the others, then please tell me so and you can reprimand me for this. I cannot assume this responsibility. Not one of you can do that either. However, I will say it once again: if any new findings come to light, the process will be set in motion.
Mrs Weisgerber, you said that the process should go quicker - unfortunately, it cannot go any quicker. These are very complicated scientific issues. Tests are needed. You are perhaps not aware of this, but extensive animal tests are needed, for example, in order to be able to verify this sort of claim. You cannot force scientists to produce findings within a particular timeframe. I am sorry, but that is not possible. I must therefore simply ask you to be satisfied with me telling you that the scientific committee has told us that it will be able to provide substantiated results by the middle of next year, and it will indeed do so. On the basis of these results, the Commission will immediately prepare new proposals if it should emerge that there are indeed new findings. I hope that makes it clear.
Mr Creutzmann, the principle of using the lowest possible risk is valid. I do not need the help of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment to find that out. The requirements that you derived from this are therefore also met.
Mrs Rühle, you say that I should have gone to the press sooner. It will surprise you when I say that I did exactly that. Just as I do not think that what I have said here this evening in Parliament will make it into the European media, and particularly not the German media, so my factual and, I thought, calm statement of the facts was not taken up by the German media. However, I issued the necessary statement and explained the facts of the matter. I would be happy to provide you with the text.
Mrs Davidson, we have the most stringent legislation in the world. That is something we can take pride in. This Commission will not allow itself to be outdone by anyone in the world when it comes to providing the highest possible level of safety for toys.
Mrs Schaldemose, I can only agree with you, and say that the responsibility of the Member States for market surveillance must not be called into question. I agree with you entirely that the question of implementation is crucial here. In this regard, too, we have made appropriate preparations.
The last question from Mrs Hedh is a very important one. With regard to the standards for different areas, you mentioned two examples, one of them being sources of noise. The relevant instructions have been sent to the European standardisation organisations. However, for standards, it is no different than for other scientific work. You cannot expect them to be available in a week or in one, or indeed several, months. It takes time. However, all of the standards that we have talked about are in progress and will be available in good time, and they will also allow us to develop an exact comparability of the products and to strengthen market surveillance.
There is one last point I would like to address. Baby seats, which have been mentioned here and with regard to which there have been some safety problems in the US, are not toys. They do not, therefore, fall within the scope of the Toys Directive, but rather within that of the General Product Safety Directive. We need not hide from the Americans in this regard. The system that we have in Europe with regard to the general safety of products has continued to prove its worth over the last few years. If unsafe products appear on the European market, we can now assume with a degree of certainty that all the other Member States and the Commission will, in fact, be informed about them and that the appropriate steps will also then be taken.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - I welcome the fact that the new Directive 2009/48/EC on toy safety will come into force in 2011, although it is regrettable that the directive will not be in force for the Christmas 2010 period next year, when the majority of toys made or imported into the EU, are sold. I hope that Member States will see fit to transpose all elements of this important directive before the final deadline for implementation in order to give parents, as consumers, greater peace of mind.
Taking the opportunity of this debate, I would like to draw attention to the need to improve the functioning of the European Union's register of consumer accidents, which anticipates, among other things, collection of information about fatalities and bodily injuries resulting from the use of various products intended for children. The register should be an important element of the mechanism of the system for protecting consumers, including the youngest and most helpless. Unfortunately, according to an expert from the Technical Committee on products for small children and toy safety of the Polish Committee for Standardisation, rapid exchange of information between Member States and the European Commission on products which pose a hazard, and steps taken in particular countries to prevent or restrict their coming onto the market, is still not functioning satisfactorily. I would like to ask that this matter be thoroughly investigated.


Voting time
The next item is voting time.
(For details of the outcome of the votes, see Minutes)
Before starting the vote, I am going to give you some important information in this regard, particularly in relation to the vote on the Fava report.
As you know, the Fava report, which we debated on Monday evening, is a report for which there are many amendments. I am used to chairing the vote, but I have never seen such a thick dossier for a single report. However, we might be able to speed things up.
This has nothing to do with any foreign power intervening; the Union for Europe of the Nations Group is simply proposing that some collective votes be held in order to enable us to save at least half an hour. The problem is that this proposal arrived very late in the day and that your voting lists could not be adapted to incorporate it. Therefore, if you agree to some collective votes being held, you are going to have to pay very close attention to your voting lists. The layout itself of the list has not changed, we will follow the same order, but we will go a little bit quicker.
I should like to know whether the House agrees with this proposal, which is going to save us some time.
(Applause)
Mr Pirilli, I believe that you are going to present this proposal, on behalf of the UEN Group.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am making this proposal on behalf of my group and under Rule 155(6) of the Rules of Procedure: I propose a block vote on 122 amendments that are complementary to each other, in order to simplify procedure. In any case, these amendments are workable in relation to those that I propose should be put to the vote individually. Each of these in fact makes its own main point: from violation of State secrecy, to the security of European citizens and States, to the faked kidnapping of Abu Omar, a CIA spy, who was picked up to save him from certain death and not deported to Guantánamo, but sent back to his own country, where he lives under suitable protection and gives interviews.
The amendments to be put to the vote separately are therefore the following: 71, 73, 113, 114, 115, 121, 122, 124, 210, 212, 213, 214 and 216. I also propose individual votes, amendment by amendment, from 38 to 69 and from 245 to 256. All the other 122 amendments can be put to the vote as a block.
(DE) Mr President, much as I would like to make the vote a shorter business, I do have to point out that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has submitted to the Tabling Office a list of the votes that we want to split, and this list - which has also been endorsed by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group - must be followed in the voting process. Everything else can be voted on en bloc. We can agree to things being handled in this way, but, if they are not, we will have to take everything one thing at a time.
I can confirm that the request by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has been passed on and that we will in fact hold some collective votes, except for the separate votes that you have requested and that have been incorporated in the announcements that I just made.
Mr Guardans Cambó, you have the floor to speak on procedural issues only.
(FR) As regards the procedure, I cannot accept the principle of collective votes on certain amendments without having first received the list in writing and without having a break so that I can study it.
So, I am sorry, but there are blocks in which we want to keep some things and reject others. Every sentence in this report counts, Mr President.
If we had known about this proposal beforehand, we could have gone ahead with it. However, we have a list of votes that is calibrated virtually to the last centimetre, and our group is not going to risk an erroneous vote just for the sake of saving five or ten minutes. I am sorry.
The comment made by our fellow Member is entirely valid. That is why it is the House that is going to decide.
I am therefore going to give you a first option to vote on: to accept the Union for Europe of the Nations Group's proposal, which would enable us to hold collective votes while keeping the separate votes that were requested by certain groups.
(The House indicated its agreement to the proposal)
I would also point out that we will be taking a break at around midday in order to welcome a prestigious guest, the President of the Italian Republic. In view of the thickness of the dossier, we will probably break during the vote on the Fava report. I would ask you right now to kindly excuse the services, but we have no other option.
(IT) Mr President, so as not to interrupt the vote on the Fava report, which as we all know will be a complex vote, I should like to ask whether it might be possible, if the House agrees, to invert the order of business and thus vote first on the simpler and briefer reports and go on to vote on the Fava report after President Napolitano's speech.
It is clear, Mrs Muscardini, that if we do not start with the Fava report, we will not conclude it today, which means having to interrupt the vote on the Fava report in order to conclude it the day after, which I believe would be even more disastrous. You will understand why I cannot act on your request.
Let us try to proceed allegro vivace, ma non troppo.