Explanations of vote
President
The next item is clarification on the voting method.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, may I ask that the temperature in the chamber be set at a humane level. At times it is so cold in here that we almost need to put on our coats. I ask the administration to ensure that we have a decent temperature in which to work. Thank you.
President
I would ask the staff responsible for the heating in the chamber to increase the temperature. It might go up anyway during this item of discussion.
Oral clarification concerning voting
Zuzana Roithová
- (CS) Mr Chairman, I welcome the fact that we gave the green light to the modern framework for further development of the automotive industry in Europe. I am pleased that we have voted for objectives that are realistic and that make provision for the increase in the price of oil and for our great ambitions regarding safety and protection of the environment. The objectives do not hinder Europe's ability to compete. Increasing requirements for safer and safer car designs and for more efficient engines that should emit one third less greenhouse gases are all objectives that already imply an increase in prices as well as an increase in the running costs of cars. We are aware that these requirements in themselves are not the main motivation for the middle classes and for the less affluent to change their cars more frequently. The elimination of old cars from the European roads is therefore the basic requirement if the CARS 21 is to prove its worth. The key is to change consumer motivation. Taxes and fiscal policies are not, however, entrusted to the European Union. It will therefore be up to the Member States to carry the responsibility for setting the parameters. It will be up to the Member States to determine whether and when safer and more environmentally-friendly cars will start taking the place of the old cars on our roads. That would also be real proof of the effectiveness of CARS 21.
Written clarification concerning voting
Jean-Pierre Audy
in writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my Polish colleague Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, asking Parliament to approve the amendment to the Council Regulation of 2004 on the establishment of partnerships in the framework of the stabilisation and association process. The change entails renaming the partnership with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: instead of a 'European partnership' it is to be called an 'accession partnership' in order to align this with the name of the Partnerships with the two other candidate countries, Croatia and Turkey. In addition, Montenegro's independence had to be taken into account. As I compose this question, I am also thinking of Kosovo, in the hope that we may find a peaceful, European solution to the difficult situation there.
Erik Meijer
in writing. - (NL) In December 2005 the Council granted the status of candidate country to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and in June 2006 Montenegro was recognised as an independent state. In an urgent procedure without debate, it is now proposed in Article 1 of the Regulation that Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, including Kosovo, be granted a European Partnership and in Article 1(a) that Croatia and Macedonia be granted an Accession Partnership. The definitions of those two arrangements are more or less the same. The rapporteur supports the Commission proposal and asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to depart from that proposal. It seems to me a real possibility that it will depart from it. It is not specified how account is to be taken of the anticipated recognition of Kosovo as an independent state in the next few weeks.
It is also not clear whether that means that Macedonia will have to wait longer for the start of accession negotiations, or whether Serbia is being offered the prospect of accession as a priority. It is well known that the Netherlands and Belgium are opposed to that for as long as the war criminal Ratko Mladić has not been handed over to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. I therefore expect that point to be put back on the agenda, but am not voting against the report.
Andrzej Jan Szejna
in writing. - (PL) I would like to vote in favour of the report of Mr Liberadzki on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 95/50/EC as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission.
Mr Liberadzki has prepared an excellent report. I agree with the rapporteur, who is in favour of the Commission's proposal, and would also recommend that the proposal should be approved without amendments.
Directive 95/50/EC sets out procedures for checks carried out by Member States as regards the transport of dangerous goods by road. For the purpose of these checks a list of infringements has been proposed, in respect of which vehicles may be immobilised and required to be brought into conformity before continuing their journey. In addition, it is important that each Member State send a report on the application of the Directive for each calendar year.
Andreas Mölzer
in writing. - (DE) Tolls imposed on heavy goods vehicles, supposedly introduced in order to shift traffic from road to rail, have predictably failed to make rail transport more appealing but have been offloaded onto consumers. Particularly on the busiest routes and in large conurbations, the focus on road transport will exacerbate existing problems such as congestion, noise, environmental pollution and particulate concentrations.
Another cause for concern is the cavalier manner in which some transport operations are carried out. Weekly targeted spot checks on lorries in Austria have greatly improved the safety of road haulage operations and should accordingly become standard practice throughout the EU. If the European Union cares about the health of its population and protection of the environment, it must waste no time at all in ensuring that major pollution sources such as commercial utility vehicles with ageing diesel engines are replaced, that piggyback rail services are made economically attractive and that the Alpine Convention is implemented.
Bogusław Liberadzki
in writing. - (PL) The rapporteur, Paolo Costa, has shown how discrimination in transport rates and conditions can be abolished. It is true that one can quickly achieve significant benefits by introducing just a few changes into existing legislation.
As a shadow rapporteur I would like to note that a common approach was reached by the Council, the Commission and the Parliament.
Jean-Pierre Audy
in writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on airport charges, following the report of my German colleague Ulrich Stockmann.
At the point when European airports, which are mainly publicly owned, are being privatised, when users do not always wholly appreciate their consumption of services, and when companies are developing in a context involving many variables, it was quite natural to regulate the determination of airport charges.
I welcome the creation of independent national regulatory authorities to supervise this market, and I hope that European coordination will be rapidly established and that, in due course, an independent European regulator will come into being.
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) The Commission proposals contain a long list of detailed rules on how airport charges should be collected. It is one of the Commission's responsibilities to monitor compliance with Community competition legislation. The proposals in question, however, mean excessive bureaucracy and detailed regulation, which is disadvantageous to those Member States which have chosen to deregulate the aviation sector.
The European Parliament considers that the common principles on airport charges should only apply to airports with over five million passenger movements per year, or to those at which annual traffic amounts to over 15% of the number of passenger movements in the Member State in question. This position is preferable to the Commission proposal, which also includes smaller regional airports. We are often called upon to decide whether to support common EU rules aimed at ensuring equal treatment of all interests participating in the internal market. In this case it is clear that the Commission's line involves unjustified bureaucracy.
On the basis of these arguments, we have voted in favour of the proposal of the European Parliament, but against the legislative resolution in the final vote.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) Although it includes some points that improve the Commission proposal, the report continues to reflect and is an integral part of the process of air transport deregulation in the EU.
An improvement in transparency in the method of calculating airport charges is certainly to be welcomed. However, we disagree with a policy that seeks to deregulate and privatise a strategic public service such as air transport, in this case promoting 'a truly competitive airport market', or the incorporation of principles such as the 'user pays' and profitability in a service that should be public. What is more, efforts are even being made to remove its 'regulatory role' from the public arena, creating 'independent regulatory authorities' to that end.
The privatisations that have taken place in the sector have not added value to the services provided and have caused job losses and a deterioration in workers' rights, and in some cases technical and operational problems.
We regret that our proposals have been rejected. They sought to ensure that the directive included recognition of the constraints faced by regions that suffer permanent geographic and natural disadvantages, such as the outermost regions, and therefore established appropriate exceptions for fulfilling universal public service obligations.
Timothy Kirkhope
in writing. - British Conservatives are very much in favour of larger airports being subject to extra scrutiny where they hold a dominant market position. However, we already have a strong regulatory system in the United Kingdom and we therefore feel that this is an unnecessary interference which could have an adverse effect on regional airports, which have a vital impact on local economies.
We have tried to improve the measure in order to maintain an 'opt out' on a national basis or at least to lift the threshold so that most regional airports are excluded, and although these attempts have not yet been successful, we will return to them at Second Reading. In the meantime we will reserve our position.
Astrid Lulling
in writing. - (DE) I did not vote for this report on the Airport Charges Directive, because what is being proposed here amounts to unacceptable discrimination against Luxembourg Airport. This is no way to treat a small country. The application of the directive to Luxembourg Airport, with its 1.6 million passengers a year, and the fact that its provisions do not apply to either of Luxembourg's direct competitors, Frankfurt Hahn and Brussels Charleroi, which process more than three million passengers, is intolerable discrimination in a single market and is based solely on the fact that a national border lies between Luxembourg and these other airports.
The key factor in this directive must not be national borders but objective criteria if its purpose is to ensure that no airport abuses a dominant market position.
Smaller airports, even if they are the only air terminal in their country, do not run the risk of perpetrating such abuse, especially in the case of Luxembourg, where the aforementioned rival airports lie within easy reach and, moreover, are used by budget airlines. Luxembourg is so small that three different countries lie less than half an hour away from the airport by car.
This proposal is an imposed infringement of the proportionality principle which cannot be accepted as it stands. That is why I am voting against the proposal by way of protest.
David Martin
in writing. - I welcome the report and what it seeks to achieve. Through the introduction of greater transparency in the way airport charges are calculated I feel it creates a level playing field and stimulates competition in the sector. The plans will help Scotland's airports in competing with its British counterparts, especially by reducing the dominant position occupied by major travel hubs like London.
Luca Romagnoli
in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to say, as a Member of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, that I am in favour of the Stockmann report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on airport charges.
I consider it advisable, however, to make some comments in particular as regards the link between airport charges and the costs of the services offered. In this respect, the delegations from France and the Netherlands, with Italian support, called for a clear reference to costs. It should be noted here that Italian domestic law makes provision for a specific relationship between the costs of the services supplied and the charges levied by the managing body. The provision of paragraph 5 makes the Italian system more consistent with the scheme of the directive, enabling current procedures to be maintained, provided that the independent regulatory body provided for in Article 10, which monitors the correct application of the charges, and the body which approves charging levels nationally are combined into the same authority. That body, it has to be stressed, will have to be independent from both managing bodies and airline companies.
Alyn Smith
in writing. - While this report has a number of good ideas on making airport charges more transparent and bringing environmental considerations into the calculation for the first time, we must, as ever, be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. In my constituency, Scotland, we have dozens of small airports, and air travel is not a luxury - it is a necessity serving fragile communities. I have therefore supported amendments to exempt airports in the outermost regions from the new regime, and look forward to the production of a framework that takes account of the fragile nature of many communities.
Lars Wohlin
in writing. - (SV) The big air transport companies have pressed for a specific EU arrangement to regulate the collection of airport charges by airports. They think that the airports are local monopolies and exploit their monopoly position in order to impose unreasonable charges. The Swedish air transport agency LFV and the smaller air transport companies, however, have misgivings with regard to new legislation. For the smaller air transport companies new legislation and harmonisation are more of a threat, since they often choose to fly to competing airports which apply lower charges.
I have voted against the directive for several reasons. Airports are already regulated by national authorities, and their action is limited by existing competition legislation in the EU. Those countries which choose a business model that leads to higher airport charges resulting, for example, from investment or transfer of ownership must be allowed to do so as long as the charges are not contrary to existing legislation. It is then up to the Member States to judge whether their charges are competitive or not.
The European Parliament has reduced the scope of the directive. Along with others, I voted for the amendments limiting the directive to 67 airports (compared to around 150 which would have been affected before). However, I cannot support price regulation at EU level.
Jean-Pierre Audy
in writing. - (FR) In the first reading in the codecision procedure, I voted in favour of a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation on the export and import of dangerous chemicals, based on the report by my Dutch colleague Johannes Blokland.
I am delighted that a compromise has been found, since there is a fairly urgent need to regularise the legal situation ensuing from the annulment by the Court of Justice of the previous Regulation dating from 2003, while at the same time improving the regulatory situation to take account of developments since that time.
Liam Aylward
in writing. - I have voted in favour of the compromise amendments agreed by the vast majority of the political groups, which are intended to promote joint responsibility between parties with regard to international trade in hazardous chemicals.
Rules adopted at EU level are vital for the provision of a high level of protection of the environment and public health, and we aspire to these rules being extended internationally.
Awareness of risks is paramount for exporters and importers. Countries, by virtue of exchange of information and best practice and compulsory national decision-making on the acceptability of chemicals, can heighten such awareness while also making legislators and stakeholders aware of such risks.
The proposed legislation implements the Rotterdam Convention, the underlying principle being to help participating countries learn more about the characteristics of potentially hazardous chemicals and pesticides. This provides countries with the information and the means to stop unwanted imports of toxic chemicals, putting the requirement and onus on the exporter/exporting country to comply with the laws of the importing country. I very much welcome and support this legislation and the European Parliament's compromise package.
Alessandro Battilocchio
in writing. - (IT) I welcome the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention, as it shows that Europe is well aware of its commitments to protect the environment and health of third countries and, in particular, developing countries. From today it will no longer be possible to export hazardous chemical products to countries outside Europe without prior authorisation from the countries of destination (the so-called PIC - prior informed consent procedure).
We had to put an end to the double standard that existed when a substance was strictly regulated in the European market to protect the environment and the health of European citizens, but could be freely traded with third countries without any precautions or any obligation to provide information on risks. A measure of courtesy and solidarity especially towards countries with fewer information and risk analysis resources than the European Union.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade was approved in September 1998 and entered into force on 24 February 2004. Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals implements the Rotterdam Convention.
The Commission considered it necessary to bring an action against the Council and the European Parliament at the Court of Justice because it did not agree with the change in the legal basis (environment rather than common commercial policy). In its Judgment of 10 January 2006, the Court of Justice annulled the Regulation on the grounds that there should have been a dual legal basis including both Article 133 and Article 175(1) of the Treaty, and ruled that the effects of the Regulation would be maintained until a new regulation founded on appropriate legal bases was adopted.
The European Commission submitted a new draft regulation based on the above-mentioned dual legal basis. In today's vote, at first reading, the European Parliament approved a range of amendments to the European Commission proposal that will now be negotiated with the Council. Hence our vote in favour.
Françoise Grossetête
in writing. - (FR) I welcome the agreement reached on this Regulation at first reading. There are 75 000 different chemical products on the market and 1 500 new ones are added to that every year. So it is difficult for governments to monitor and manage all the potentially dangerous substances that cross our borders on a daily basis.
The Regulation will help to ensure that these dangerous chemical products are used in a more rational way, by facilitating the exchange of information about them. Importing countries will thus be properly equipped and informed so that they can identify potential threats and keep out those chemical products that they are not in a position to manage safely.
We do have to recognise the difficulties that exporting countries sometimes face in seeking to obtain explicit consent from the importing countries. However, derogations granted to exporting countries awaiting consent may no longer be valid for more than 12 months. I am pleased that we have adopted this measure, which aims to prevent uncontrolled imports of dangerous chemical products into third countries.
The Regulation will enable us to avoid repetition of the many errors committed in the past, which have caused damage to the environment and to public health.
Bogusław Liberadzki
in writing. - (PL) The rapporteur, Johannes Blokland, is right in noting that adequate rules should be adopted worldwide and at European level in order to provide a high level of protection for the environment and public health.
The development of a specific infrastructure in less developed countries could certainly combat the irresponsible use of chemicals which would otherwise damage the ecology, economy and working conditions.
David Martin
in writing. - I voted in favour of the report. I see the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) as a positive step in this policy area. Ensuring that prior consent is given from third countries receiving dangerous substances helps ensure that developing countries do not fall victim to the dumping of restricted chemicals in their backyard without their agreement. Though this is an encouraging move in the right direction, the implementation of the measures needs to be closely followed by the Commission.
Andreas Mölzer
in writing. - (DE) Unscrupulous traders are trying to evade the special requirements that apply to the transport of chemicals and other hazardous goods, requirements such as specialised driver training, labelling and the like. Vans belonging to parcel services carry highly corrosive acids, explosive liquids or ammunition, often without the driver even knowing. If items are not labelled and waybills do not indicate the true nature of the goods, staff may be risking their lives in the event of an accident. A fire would have unimaginably dire consequences, not only in the form of permanent damage to health but possibly of environmental contamination too.
It makes sense to simplify the requirements for the transport of dangerous goods without compromising safety. There is also a need to think about ways of speeding up the switchover to double-hull tankers in order to reduce the incidence of environmental disasters. Above all, however, more targeted spot checks on HGVs are needed throughout the EU so that the black sheep who drive with unsecured, unlabelled or dangerous loads, defective brakes, etc., can be taken off the road.
Bogusław Sonik
in writing. - (PL) I voted in favour of the report by Johannes Blokland on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals.
The report raises the issue of permitting transport without explicit authorisation. From the economic point of view, the existing situation is unsatisfactory for European exporters of chemicals if they do not receive any response from importing countries about substances listed in the Annexes. As a result of this regulation, European exporters of chemicals which are severely restricted in Europe can export these substances outside the European Union more easily. This more flexible approach could result, especially in less developed states, in countries no longer enjoying any protection against imports of chemical substances. In order to avoid the uncontrolled export of hazardous substances to third countries, and in order to protect those countries that are less able or even unable to assess hazardous chemicals, the period of tacit agreement should be shorter.
It is important that the Commission's proposal should apply to the issue of introducing tools making it easier for customs authorities to carry out the provisions of the Regulation. For the mechanisms proposed in this new regulation to function correctly and effectively it is vital to have close cooperation between customs authorities and selected national authorities. The introduction of the new regulations should be preceded by drawing up guidelines concerning the use of computer products and documentation and providing training in accordance with EU standards, particularly for the new Member States.
Jean-Pierre Audy
in writing. - (FR) In the first reading in the codecision procedure, I voted in favour of the legislative resolution amending the proposal of the European Commission amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, on the basis of the report by my excellent Hungarian colleague Csaba Őry, which introduces technical amendments to the European Commission's proposal with a view to making the Regulation clearer or easier to read.
He is pleased that this Regulation sets out to give an accurate impression of the evolution in the legal situation of national social security schemes, and hence to ensure appropriate coordination at Community level.
Adam Bielan
in writing. - (PL) With reference to the principle of the four basic freedoms in European economic integration, I would also like to draw attention to the meaning of Regulation 1408/71, which aims to promote the free movement of workers in the European Union.
Whilst it is true that the report in question relates to strictly technical issues, these very issues, in serving to update the above-mentioned Regulation by making it take into account social insurance changes at national level, have a direct impact on the everyday life of citizens who are travelling, working or living in another Member State.
I would also agree with the rapporteur that, when implementing the principle of free movement in Europe, social conditions should be set out in a precise manner.
Finally, I would like to emphasise how important the proposed changes and the transparency of the guidelines are for thousands of Polish citizens who are living and working outside of Poland. This is one of the principal reasons why I support Mr Őry's report.
Bogusław Liberadzki
in writing. - (PL) Mr Őry is right in acknowledging that, on the level of the European Union, effective coordination needs to be ensured between Member States as regards benefit payments.
This Regulation, by introducing updates that take into account the latest changes in certain Member States, holds out the possibility of guaranteeing to citizens who are travelling from one Member State to another the possibility of benefiting from social insurance.
Jean-Pierre Audy
in writing. - (FR) On the basis of the own-initiative report of my German friend and colleague Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, I voted in favour of the Resolution on a Competitive Automotive Regulatory Framework, following the Communication from the European Commission based on the 'CARS 21' high-level group.
I should like to begin by welcoming the method involving the holding of a genuine industrial audit with all the stakeholders, with a view to specifying an industrial policy for the automotive sector involving parameters as important as not only the impact on purchasing power, employment, safety, mobility, the environment and the regulatory burdens the industry has to shoulder, but also innovation, competitiveness, the problems of second-hand cars, disposing of old cars, etc., in an internal market which is far from complete.
It is essential that, having created the internal market in the interests of consumers, the European Union should devote particular attention to manufacturers, implementing a European industrial policy with them. The automotive sector, in which we have a great tradition, must be given support as it undergoes the major changes taking place today.
Gerard Batten
in writing. - While I do not disagree that it may be desirable to reduce CO2 emissions in an overall environmental context, it is not for the undemocratic EU to decide these issues.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) The European automotive industry, which represents around 3% of the EU's GDP and 7% of its manufacturing output, is one of the most important economic sectors, producing around one third of global production.
It is also one of the EU's leading export sectors and invests 4% of its turnover in R&D. The sector is one of the largest employers, with over 2 million direct and 10 million indirect jobs, and is therefore a key factor in Europe's economic, social and cultural life.
The sector is facing serious challenges, however. Rapid technological progress, coupled with fierce international competition, means that it must change rapidly. Furthermore, considerable social expectations weigh upon the sector, particularly in terms of the environment and road safety. This close interaction between the industry, the environment, energy and transport makes it one of the EU's most regulated areas - it is covered by around 80 directives and 115 UNECE regulations.
We cannot support all the proposals presented in this report, however. Too much emphasis is given to defending the internal market and competition, while little attention is paid to social and labour issues and the development gap between Member States.
Bruno Gollnisch
in writing. - (FR) The Chatzimarkakis report is supposed to be about the main factors that will make the automotive industry competitive in the years ahead, taking account of environmental constraints, product and safety standards, competitors in the international context, etc.
Yet, threaded throughout the text we find evidence of the ongoing urge to persecute drivers. Surely curbing traffic in urban areas and the cross-border enforcement of fines for infringement of traffic rules have no place in such a report? Are Europeans now to be required, on pain of sanctions or higher taxes, to buy 'clean' vehicles fitted with expensive safety-related technologies, while the reality in a country like France is that the high average age of cars on the road (eight years) is a reflection of people's financial difficulties and low purchasing power? Why are private cars yet again castigated, when they are responsible, in France for example, for just 13% of CO2 emissions, and that figure is certainly lower in countries that do not use nuclear energy?
There is a basic paradox here in seeking to have a competitive automotive industry in Europe, when the overall thrust of European policies is to push up the price of cars and to impoverish consumers, while at the same time introducing new forms of persecution to dissuade people from buying and using vehicles.
Françoise Grossetête
in writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the report proposing a competitive automotive regulatory framework.
It is a road map for making cars cleaner and safer and for simplifying the legal context for the development of European vehicle manufacturing.
We must make it possible to reduce the impact of road transport on air quality as vehicles currently in use are gradually replaced.
I welcome the adoption of the deadlines that Parliament has set, coinciding with the date of 2015, to achieve an emissions limit of 125 g/km for new cars coming onto the market. The date is the same as that for the entry into force of the Euro VI standards.
Additional measures (involving alternative fuels, eco-driving or tax incentives, for example) could contribute to this effort, and particular attention should be paid to biofuels and hydrogen.
CARS 21 recommends a holistic approach to road safety, involving vehicle technology, infrastructure and road users (suggested measures include electronic stability control, seat-belt reminders and emergency braking systems).
The first requirement of effective legislation is that it should be realistic, and environmental concerns have long been central to policies within the industry.
Kartika Tamara Liotard
in writing. - (NL) I have voted against the Chatzimarkakis report, because the Commission proposal is more environmentally friendly. The rapporteur suggests a target of 125 g/km of CO2 in 2015. The Commission proposal suggests a maximum emission of 120 g/km of CO2 in 2012. I tabled an amendment to have that withdrawn, but it just failed to go through. I wonder where the rapporteur has got the less environmentally favourable proposal from without being influenced by the motor industry lobby. For years now there have been voluntary agreements between the Commission and the motor industry to reduce CO2 emissions. The Commission target does not just come from nowhere and it is, according to the motor industry, technically achievable and from an innovative point of view an export product. They will, however, make less profit temporarily in order to be able to stabilise their competitive position in the future.
It is wrongly argued that jobs will be lost. I might point out that only 6% of the production costs of new cars are staff costs. The choice of labour cost savings is separate from the shift to 120 g/km of CO2 in 2012. If the motor industry decides to move its operations to low-wage countries, it will do that anyway.
David Martin
in writing. - I voted in favour of the report. I strongly believe that the CO2 target of 120g/km by 2012 is one that must be met and is essential in fighting climate change. Though I acknowledge that Member States need to engage in the funding of research and development for the automobile sector in this area, I feel that the industry itself should also contribute and demonstrate a further commitment to reducing the effects of climate change. I also approve of the directive calling for the information and consultation of workers on this issue.
Erik Meijer
in writing. - (NL) Together with my colleague, Mrs Liotard, I voted against the Chatzimarkakis report, because the original Commission proposal is more environmentally friendly. The rapporteur sets a target of 125 g/km of CO2 in 2015. In the Commission proposal, the maximum emission was 120 g/km of CO2 in 2012. My group tabled an amendment today for that to be withdrawn, but it just failed to go through. I wonder where the rapporteur got this less environmentally favourable proposal from, if it is not influenced by the motor industry lobby. For years now there have been voluntary agreements between the Commission and the motor industry to reduce CO2 emissions. The Commission target does not just come from nowhere. According to the motor industry, it is technically achievable and can generate an innovative export product. Certainly car factories will temporarily make less profit, which they see as interference with the strengthening of their competitive position.
It is wrongly argued that jobs might be lost. Only 6% of the production costs of new cars are staff costs. Any lower labour costs are separate from the shift to 120 g/km of CO2 in 2012. If the motor industry wants to decide to move its operations to low-wage countries, a less strict rule will not prevent it.
Luís Queiró
in writing. - (PT) The future of the competitiveness of the European automotive sector is extremely important. The EU should therefore continue to adopt a long-term approach based on investing in research and development and improving the operation of the internal market by means of the necessary legislation and by simplifying administrative procedures, making them quicker and less costly. The report suggests that an integrated environmental approach should be adopted, allied to new engine technologies and the use of less polluting fuels, and that additional measures should be taken in the area of traffic management, driving behaviour and infrastructure so that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced even further.
I consider these aspects to be essential, and the investment required should be funded largely through public-private partnerships as a new tool for industrial research and technological development. Finally, the international dimension highlights the need for urgent measures to be taken to improve access to markets, particularly in Asia, by means of multilateral negotiations and bilateral trade agreements.
I therefore voted in favour of the report on the CARS 21 initiative.
Brian Simpson
in writing. - I will be voting in favour of the Chatzimarkakis report, even though I believe that the car industry has to do more to reduce emissions from the vehicles it produces.
It is very easy on the one hand to pick out the motor car as the chief sinner in all things environmental, and certainly the motor car that we have at the moment leaves a lot to be desired in this area. But we must work with industry and educate them on the need to produce more environmentally-friendly cars.
The motor industry is a big employer of people and contributes considerably to local, regional and national economies. It therefore cannot be treated in a cavalier way, as some Members of this House believe.
One area that concerns me is in this report is the clear view that fiscal measures, and fiscal harmonisation, should be used as a way of promoting the Car 21 concept.
For me, this is a move too far, and the one area I cannot support. However, I welcome this report and support it because overall it adopts a balanced and practical approach.
Renate Sommer
in writing. - (DE) The report entitled CARS 21: A Competitive Automotive Regulatory Framework has my full support. This report can help to enhance the competitiveness of the car industry.
Besides imposing new obligations on the industry in the form of environmental requirements, we also need to give it simplified procedures, to cut red tape and to apply the principles of better lawmaking. In addition, the automotive sector must benefit from more research and development funding.
With regard to the achievement of the target CO2 values, it is important that we base the phased reductions on the parameter of vehicle weight rather than the 'carbon footprint'. The only physical correlation that exists is between the weight of a vehicle and its CO2 emissions. The carbon footprint does not offer this kind of correlation, and its use would only serve to put the German car industry at a competitive disadvantage.
We have come out emphatically in favour of an integrated strategy that takes account of all possible means of reducing CO2 emissions. We want factors such as individual driver behaviour, the creation of various incentives to drive environmentally clean cars, the use of biofuels and the promotion of new forms of vehicle technology to contribute to the reduction of emission levels. This poses a challenge not only to car manufacturers but to all stakeholders.
Søren Bo Søndergaard
in writing. - I voted against the Chatzimarkakis report, because the Commission proposal is more environmentally friendly. The rapporteur sets as target 125 grams of CO2 per km in 2015. The Commission proposal suggests a maximum emission target of 120 grams of CO2 in 2012, which was retabled as an amendment. This amendment has regrettably been dismissed. I wonder from where the rapporteur got the proposal, which is environmentally and technically inferior, without having been influenced by the car industry lobby. For years there have been voluntary agreements between the Commission and the car industry to limit the CO2 emissions. The Commission target does not come out of the blue and is, according to the car industry, technically feasible and, innovatively speaking, an export product. They will, however, temporarily be making a lesser profit in order to stabilise their competition position in the future.
There is unjustified use of the issue of loss of employability. I point out the fact that only 6% of the production costs of new cars are personnel costs. The choice of cost-cutting on labour is unrelated to the move to 120 grams of CO2 per km in 2012. Should the car industry decide to move to low wage countries, they will do this nonetheless.
Bart Staes
in writing. - (NL) The transport sector accounts for one fifth of greenhouse gases. Sustainable, efficient and clean cars can make a serious contribution in the fight against climate change. Efforts to achieve that can make the motor industry considerably stronger in the future. Unfortunately there is no sign of that message in the response to the CARS 21 document by the Commission and Parliament.
In our amendments, we have tried to note a number of core points. Individual mobility and the motor industry need to be looked at in the broader context of sustainable mobility. We emphasise that the escalating worldwide demand for transport fuels can lead to the exploitation of oil sources with serious adverse effects on the environment, such as tar sand and synthetic coal gas. Steps also have to be taken to improve fuel efficiency in the sector. The choice of biofuels can only be developed if the Commission establishes a binding comprehensive certification system with strict social and environmental criteria.
Finally, we would also like to remove, firstly, the paragraphs suggesting that motor sport and Formula 1 racing can possibly contribute to more environmentally friendly technologies and, secondly, the paragraphs that allow manufacturers to produce vehicles that emit extra CO2 if those emissions result from legally binding measures at EU level.
Most of our amendments have been rejected. I am therefore voting against this report.
Jean-Pierre Audy
in writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations, based on the own-initiative report by my excellent colleague Piia-Noora Kauppi in response to a communication from the European Commission on the same subject. I am very concerned about the unfavourable repercussions of the large number of regimes applied by the Member States to cross-border losses on the workings of the internal market.
In the context of the recent decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Marks & Spencer case, this is a particularly opportune time, since, in the absence of cross-border deduction of losses, compensation for these losses is generally limited to the profits realised in the Member State in which the investment was made. This distorts the decisions of undertakings within the internal market. It would seem to be essential to instigate direct coordination of Member States' tax systems within the internal market.
However, this must be a temporary solution, since in the longer term we must adopt a common consolidated basis for taxation of companies that constitutes a global solution and eliminates the tax obstacles involved in cross-border compensation of losses and profits.
Proinsias De Rossa
in writing. - I voted in favour of the Kauppi Report because there is a need for continued detailed debate on the various contentious issues that arise in this report. It is necessary to ensure that different corporate tax regimes do not enable companies to evade their responsibilities to support society by a share of their profits through a fair corporate tax regime.
However particular attention needs to be given to the negative impact that a CCCTB could have on small countries such as Ireland, whose prosperity and employment levels depend to a large extent on its capacity to attract foreign investment.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) Unfortunately the amendments tabled by our Group were rejected, in particular certain positions contrary to those that were finally approved.
This included the opinion on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the Marks & Spencer case, which constitutes excessive interference in the right of Member States not to have their tax systems weakened. In cross-border situations fiscal competence must be fairly distributed between the Member States concerned, avoiding the double offsetting of losses and risks of tax evasion.
There is also considered to be a risk that, by allowing cross-border losses to be offset, companies tend to ensure that their profits are taxed in low-tax rather than high-tax countries. The possibility of offsetting cross-border losses can thus only be justified when parts of the same enterprise are genuinely interlinked, or, in other words, when those parts are economically and organisationally integrated.
Above all, the conditions for appropriate and equal tax treatment which avoids tax evasion and which also ensures that public services function and that income is apportioned and distributed more fairly must be safeguarded.
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) The internal market is the EU's greatest contribution to democracy and prosperity in Europe.
The intention of this report is said to be to make the internal market work better by bringing about the harmonisation of tax bases, in this case by the harmonisation of ways in which company losses are to be treated when several countries are affected. However, the report rests upon a premise which has not been thought through. Harmonisation of tax bases has very different effects in the different countries depending on differences in the structure of their industries. In some countries there is a preponderance of heavy primary industry with huge long-range investments, whereas in others industry is dominated by service businesses and light engineering.
We therefore consider that the question of harmonising tax bases should be investigated more thoroughly before a report such as this is debated in Parliament.
Małgorzata Handzlik
in writing. - (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, taxes must be one of the most sensitive EU topics. Whenever discussions on this subject take place in international fora, there is a chorus of critical voices, chiefly because Member States jealously guard their right to set taxes.
In the discussions concerning Mrs Kauppi's report on Tax Treatment of Losses in Cross-Border Situations, the issue of taxes was thoroughly analysed. The report draws attention to the major problems associated with branches of companies that benefit from different tax systems, frequently within the framework of a single company, but in different countries.
There is no doubt that the European Union needs competitive tax regulation. This does not at all mean harmonised, but competitive. This means regulations that do not create an excessive burden but, on the contrary, will provide an incentive to start a business.
I believe that the European Union should definitely not think about the harmonisation of taxes on legal persons, but it should coordinate taxes on the EU level so as to create real benefits as a result of tax competitiveness. I am very pleased that the rapporteur puts forward the same view in the report that has been presented.
David Martin
in writing. - In my view the tackling of the obstacles apparent in cross-border trade does not lie in harmonisation of taxation, which should fall under the remit of individual national legislatures. I therefore, abstained from the vote on this issue.
Alyn Smith
in writing. - Mr President, sometimes I do wonder if the effort we put into reports in this place is worth it. Taxation policy must remain a competence of member states and any moves from anywhere to extend Community competence to this policy field will be met with opposition by our constituents, national governments and businesses. Accordingly, while I do not denigrate the hard work that has clearly gone into it, I disagree with much of this report and even question the need for it.
Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelström
in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats welcome the Community strategy on health and safety at work and have therefore voted for the report. It is important that targets now be set for the number of labour inspectors in Europe. According to ILO recommendations the number of inspectors should be one per 10 000 employees. It is to be deplored, however, that following cuts imposed by the Government Sweden no longer meets the requirements laid down by the ILO and now the European Parliament. After the Government's savings Sweden will only have 0.7 inspector per 10 000 employees. Compare this with Denmark, for example, where the figure is a least two.
Jean-Pierre Audy
in writing. - (FR) On the basis of the report by my British colleague Glenis Willmott, I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on the Community strategy on health and safety at work 2007-2012, in response to the Communication from the European Commission on this subject.
Every year, almost 500 000 people die or suffer permanent disability for work-related reasons, and we must applaud the European Commission's goal of achieving an average 25% reduction in work-related accidents in the EU. I support the idea of increased activity by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in Bilbao (Spain).
In this matter and, more generally, in the development of social Europe, I regret the fact that neither the report nor, moreover, the Communication from the European Commission stresses that it is essential to support the social partners; we must always remember that under the existing Treaties, with Articles 137 ff. of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), and this has been confirmed by the Lisbon Treaty that is in the process of being ratified, legislative instruments are available to the latter to facilitate the development of European social law.
Philip Bushill-Matthews
in writing. - This is a non-legislative report which has undergone substantial revision in committee as a direct result of our input. As a result, there should be no automatic need to divide on party-political lines, though we have tabled a few additional amendments for the plenary session.
In its raw original form, it called for more prescriptive EU legislation in many areas. It now welcomes the Commission's greater emphasis on regulatory simplification and the reduction of administrative burdens, and the strong focus on helping SMEs. It recognises the prime role of Member States in promoting the health and safety agenda. We are proud of the role that we have played in significantly softening the original approach to make the report acceptable. Safeguarding the health and safety of workers is a concern for us all.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) The report approved by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs covers significant aspects of the struggle for better living and working conditions, with greater protection of health and safety. Unfortunately, however, on the PPE's initiative, several proposals were amended and paragraph 59, which stressed that permanent employment is an important contributory factor to health and safety at work, was rejected. Hence our final vote to abstain.
Concerned that the number of accidents and illnesses at work is not falling uniformly, since their incidence is much greater than the EU average among particular categories of workers (migrants, people on insecure contracts, women, the young and the elderly, for example) and particular Member States, the European Parliament calls upon the Commission to give priority to activities and/or sectors that involve particular risks.
However, we welcome the approval of the paragraph that considers excessive working hours and insufficient rest periods to be a key factor in increased levels of accidents and illnesses at work, and that calls for a proper balance of work and family life.
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) The June List considers that issues of health and safety at work are essentially a national matter. Obviously everything, from phasing out asbestos in the workplace to the protection of health care workers who work with sharp instruments, is important. But we have every confidence that the Member States are competent to formulate adequate national strategies on health and safety at work. We would therefore question what practical added value EU ideas in this area can bring. On the basis of the arguments made above we have voted in favour of the amendment to limit the strategy on health and safety at work and against the report in the final vote.
Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi
in writing. - (RO) I am in favour of this report and I support the proposal of using the Structural Funds to invest in mining infrastructure in order to prevent so many occupational accidents occurring in this sector.
The European Union cannot have a credible strategy of labour protection without providing financial support to the Member States. Mining is Romania's hardest hit industry, having the highest number of occupational accidents, but the insufficient national resources are available for improving working conditions. The European Union can remedy the situation by the funding it makes available to the Member States.
I would also like to propose that part of the European funding available under the human resources operational programme should be used for the training and equipment of labour inspection departments. It is important that all Member States should reach the minimum level specified by the World Labour Organization, of at least one labour protection inspector for every 10 000 workers.
Carl Lang
in writing. - (FR) The aims of the Community strategy on health and safety at work for 2007-2012 - while undoubtedly laudable in themselves - are unlikely to be realised, just as the Lisbon strategy is unlikely to be realised by 2010. Moreover, such is the degree of disparity in legislation on these matters in Europe that they are not readily manageable at Community level, and the big risk is that health and safety standards will converge towards the lowest common denominator.
Instead of publicising the benefits and advantages it has to offer, Europe should be taking practical action and attacking the factors that actually place working people at risk, namely insecurity, unemployment and poverty. When these have been addressed, and only then, questions of health and safety at work can, of course, be resolved in the ongoing process of common standard-setting.
Our leaders in Europe are mistaken: encouraging immigration is not the way to reduce levels of poverty or its prevalence, or to promote growth. That much is plain from the fact that the last 10 years, with immigration at unprecedented levels, have seen lower than ever growth rates by comparison with the rest of the world. The Community strategy for health and safety at work has not taken these parameters into account. We shall therefore vote against the report.
David Martin
in writing. - I found that the report was a very encouraging step towards ensuring a safer workplace. The need for increased funding to guarantee health and safety measures are met in areas such as mining, steelmaking and shipbuilding is essential, especially in such high risk industries. The call to protect health workers from blood-borne infections, and to introduce new legislation on occupational diseases, takes account of the profound changes in the dangers that workers now face in their day-to-day work. I therefore voted in favour of the report.
Alyn Smith
in writing. - Mr President, I am delighted to congratulate our rapporteur on a balanced report taking account of an important strategy, as the EU has been instrumental in raising health and safety standards at work across the EU and the Community strategy to 2012 looks set to continue that work. However, we must always be mindful that there does come a time when standards are sufficiently high and the focus must go to enforcement, not new legislative or regulatory burdens. We must keep an eye on this area to ensure that a proper balance is struck, and this report takes us in that direction.
Bart Staes
in writing. - (NL) Health and safety at work have an extremely important part to play on the European agenda and in the Lisbon Strategy. Investment in them increases productivity and reduces social security costs. The previous policy plan, for instance, already significantly reduced the number of accidents at the workplace. For the new policy period (up to 2012), further efforts will be made to achieve a 25% reduction, and the Commission undertakes to help SMEs implement the existing regulatory legal framework.
The Willmott report improves considerably on the Commission proposal. It aims at a suitable mix of tougher and better labour inspections, effective prevention, appropriate incentives and sanctions, together with sharing best practice and increasing worker participation. With a few 'green' amendments such as greater attention to the group of agency staff (women, migrant workers), temporary and poorly trained workers, and attention to the underlying causes of mental illness and to mental health, to addiction and psychological risks at work, such as stress, harassment and bullying, as well as violence, I fully support this report.
Georgios Toussas
in writing. - (EL) The Community Strategy 2007-2012 on Health and Safety at Work does not deal with the actual causes of accidents and conceals the irresponsibility of capital. The proposed measures are piecemeal, limited to management of today's criminal reality at the expense of the working class and employees generally.
Accidents at work are the heavy price the working class is made to pay, within the scope of the barbarous spread of capitalism, all for the sake of profit.
Accidents at work each year are steadily increasing in Greece and in the other EU Member States, with the result that thousands of workers lose their lives and thousands of others suffer insurmountable problems.
The Εuropean Union, true to the anti-labour Lisbon Strategy, is shifting the weight of responsibility onto the workers, and is strengthening privatisation in the field of health and safety at work, proposing access to private external agencies, downgrading the role of public control mechanisms, and remaining silent about the responsibilities of enterprises.


Misleading 'Directory companies' (e.g. 'European City Guides') (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Council on misleading directory companies, (e.g. 'European City Guides'), by Arlene McCarthy, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection - B6-0152/2008).
Arlene McCarthy
author. - Mr President, the clear objective of this oral question is to get action and redress for the thousands of small businesses across the EU which are being defrauded daily out of millions of euros by sham European 'directory companies'. This Parliament has received hundreds of petitions and a mass of correspondence to our constituency offices from businesses who have fallen victim to these prolific scams against small businesses.
We must, of course, recognise that these scams have been in existence for over 40 years, according to the legitimate directory publishers represented by the EADP. But this is without doubt a scam which requires a European response. As an example, the structure of the Maiwolf holding company, which owns the European City Guide and other such companies, is a complex web of European scam companies registered, operating and domiciled in several Member States of the EU and in the EEA countries Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Despite legal action and fines issued by courts in several Member States, it continues to operate, making a mockery of EU cooperation on law enforcement. Indeed it took seven years through the courts for the company to be shut down in Barcelona, only for it to immediately restart trading in Valencia. Maiwolf Holding is a hub of a web of companies operating scams not just at EU level but at global level and continuing - I am afraid - to escape the long arm of the law.
By responding to the European City Guide, businesses were led to believe that they were simply responding to an information request or updating or correcting their data. They were led to believe it was a free service, and then suddenly they found themselves slapped with an invoice for thousands of euros which, if mentioned at all, had only appeared in very fine print in a confusing and misleading manner. The same Maiwolf holding company apparently also owns the debt collection companies which then proceed to harass, bully and threaten businesses to pay up. A website, 'Stop the European City Guide', that campaigns against the City Guide fraud, was also subject to legal threats and their ISP had to shut them down, although I am pleased to say that they are currently up and running again.
Many of the activities of this fraudulent company are clearly in breach of the Misleading Advertising Directive of 1984. We need better and more coordinated enforcement to close the loopholes or gaps which are exploited by such companies. I can inform the presidency that my committee will review the implementation and transposition of the Misleading Advertising Directive and, of course, the new Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. We are particularly interested in the example of Austria's transposition of the Misleading Advertising Directive whereby businesses cannot be bound by a contract unless they have clearly and explicitly signed up to its terms and conditions. This is a model, Presidency, which I hope you will follow in discussions with the other Member States.
Small businesses, of course, are not helped by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive as it does not cover business-to-business transactions - even for small businesses. Member States must make better use of the cross-border enforcement network to put these cowboy businesses out of business and out of operation once and for all. I certainly share with my colleagues here the sense of frustration of the many small businesses who for years, not months, have continued to suffer harassment and financial loss.
If we believe, as we say we do, that small businesses are the backbone of the EU economy, then it is time to stand up for them, to defend their rights and to defend them against these fraudulent practices. I certainly welcome Commissioner Kuneva's interest and her commitment to monitoring their activities, but monitoring alone does not get results and does not actively target these companies. It is unacceptable, I believe, that the business complaints have fallen on apparently deaf ears and that the sole trader behind the City Guide has been allowed to continue to peddle his fraudulent practices without facing the full force of European law. So I am calling today on the Member States to urgently take action, to recognise the serious and damaging consequences of allowing this fraudster to continue to rip off our businesses. I want the Member States, and indeed the presidency, today during our debate, to commit to taking action, not just to debate the issues we have known about for many years.
So I urge the presidency to answer these questions and to work together with us to find a resolution for the businesses who continue to suffer from this fraud.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office of the Council. - (SL) I should like to thank Mrs McCarthy for her question. My thanks go also to the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I shall try to answer the question within the framework set by Mrs McCarthy.
With regard to the first question, namely what Member States have done to close fraudulent directory services, I must inform you that as yet the Council has not received a proposed solution from the Member States. Similarly, it has not been informed either of action taken by the Member States to close such companies or of the intentions of their competent authorities as regards exchanging data on the companies.
With regard to the second question, about taking steps to close the loopholes in transposition of the Misleading Advertising Directive - the European Commission is responsible for this Directive and its implementation, as laid down in Article 211 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. So in my opinion, the European Parliament should address this question to the European Commission.
In connection with these two questions, I should also add that as yet the Council has not been informed of what action the Member States have initiated to make the business world aware of the risk constituted by fraudulent directory services.
With regard to the issue of extending the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, I can, however, confirm to Mrs McCarthy that this Directive does not cover the cases described by the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. In other words, it does not cover cases of fraudulent commercial practices targeting small and medium-sized enterprises.
The reason for this is that the scope of application of the Directive concerned is restricted to business-to-consumer relations. With regard to the possible extension of this Directive to business-to-business relations, I can only say that the Council will adopt a position on this issue as soon as an appropriate legislative proposal is put before it.
I should, however, remind you that the Council has already debated the issue of whether the relevant Directive should also cover business-to-business practices, at the time when the Directive was adopted. I should remind you that in addition to the Commission, most Member States also rejected the idea of extending the Directive to cover unfair commercial practices that do not harm the consumer.
Irrespective of this, however, I must emphasise that companies, including small and medium-sized enterprises, are not without protection against such practices. They are protected by the Misleading Advertising Directive.
I should like to end by explicitly agreeing, on behalf of the Presidency, with the Committee's view that unfair and fraudulent business practices are unacceptable in any economic area. I also believe that action needs to be taken against such conduct.
The Member States deal with unfair business practices as stipulated by their legislation. The example of the European City Guide, which you mentioned in your question, has also been brought before the courts in at least one Member State.
I should like to thank you again for your question, and I shall in any case listen attentively to the debate.
Simon Busuttil
Mr President, when you open this directory - because this is a big, thick publication - you find hundreds of pages, with thousands of companies, very often small businesses that found themselves in this directory after being cheated. They did not want to be included in it, but were included against their wishes. Parliament's Committee on Petitions has received about 400 petitions from small businesses caught in this trap. I believe there are three aspects to this issue. Firstly, the small businesses involved are the victims of fraud. Secondly, there is a cross-border, transnational aspect, which should therefore be of interest to us in Europe, in the European Parliament, in the Council and in the Commission. Thirdly, companies like 'European City Guides' are profiting from shortcomings that exist in legislation.
What is the European Parliament doing, besides what the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is doing, as Mrs McCarthy has told us? The Committee on Petitions will be producing a report on this issue. I will be the rapporteur, and my report will have four aims. Firstly, it will aim to increase awareness of this problem, which is a big one. Secondly, it will continue to encourage the Council and the Commission, in particular, to take clear action, because if they cannot take action today, they need to be in a position to do so. Thirdly, we also need to determine whether there are legislative shortcomings, and this is the role of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Lastly, it also needs to offer these victims useful advice. The Committee on Petitions will hold consultations and meet with the victims and social partners, as well as with the Commission, before adopting this report, which is expected to be adopted by the end of this year.
Genowefa Grabowska
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the activities of companies that carry on dishonest commercial and marketing practices are worthy only of condemnation. We must surely protect consumers' rights against such pseudo-market actions and support them in their battle against companies that, in the current European reality, see themselves as completely beyond punishment. Thousands of companies throughout Europe are taken in by allegedly free advertising in business catalogues, for which they are in reality required to pay anything from a few hundred to a few thousand euros. The publishers of these worthless catalogues - from a business as well as an advertising point of view - not only target specific industries, such as tourist agencies, hoteliers, doctors, restaurateurs and even the world of science, but also, unfortunately, approach state agencies and institutions. This is why EU citizens are asking how it is that the originators of such practices, who have after all been identified by their first name and surname as the proprietors of the companies publishing these catalogues, have been able to make a fortune using fraudulent and dishonest practices profiting from the fears of small European businessmen in the face of vindicatory companies and courts.
I am consequently asking the Slovenian Presidency - and I am addressing the Presidency more than the Commission - to instigate coordination of action by Member States, mainly in the sphere of exchange of information and mutual warning against this type of fraudulent practice, to send out information concerning the owners and the boards of these companies, and also to propose the introduction of stricter penal sanctions for this type of activity. Continuation of the current situation will undermine the faith of businesses and citizens of the European Union in the idea of a European common market and will also, unfortunately, erode the differences between honest businessmen and quasi-Mafia activities.
Diana Wallis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, many thanks to Mrs McCarthy and the Internal Market Committee for presenting this question. I could wish that we had had a rather more robust answer from the Council, I have to say.
The situation is absolutely unacceptable and I am going to start by making a confession. In the early 1980s, I was a lawyer in the UK, but I founded a practice with a lawyer in Germany. We started getting these demands that we had advertised our practice in a European City Guide and, even as a lawyers, we felt harassed and frightened. So if lawyers feel frightened by these people, I am sure ordinary small SMEs must.
But the oddity of this is that EU law ought to be able to provide an answer and it is seemingly failing to do so, even after 20, 30 years that this has been going on. Indeed, if you read some of the letters from these people, they are even quoting EU law back at people to harass them even further as victims. And what do we get from the Council? I am sorry, it is not good enough: well, we might look at misleading advertising and we will think about it. Thirty years on we really need something more.
What are people meant to do? We need a thoroughgoing debate about whether we should redefine who and what is a consumer. We tried to raise it during the discussions on contract law. We need to go further and deeper if we are going to deal with this problem.
Lastly, if the Member States are too timid or too frightened to deal with this, let me make another suggestion that perhaps is a little contentious here. If the Commission gives us a substantial system of collective redress, let us call it class actions, then maybe citizens will be able to take action themselves if nobody else will do it for them. Now there is a thought.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, four years later we are at last having a debate on the European City Guides. I could not carry down the files of complaints I have, as other colleagues have outlined. Europe gets beaten about because it does not connect with its citizens and here we have a golden opportunity - and I direct this to the Council - to connect with people who have a real problem and who are coming to their MEPs for a solution.
It is not just businesses that are affected. I have heard from school secretaries who signed this in error and are terrified and who have paid over money. The tragedy with European City Guides is that it works because people are threatened and terrified. Whether you pay or not, they continue to harass and abuse people. But it is a European problem and therefore requires a European solution. I suppose I am celebrating slightly that we are having this debate and that my colleague, Simon Busuttil, is going to have a report and prepare information, but I think the Council needs to be a little more proactive on this, and indeed the Commission likewise.
The question is very specific and it raises five key issues that need to be addressed. In my view, this problem is enormous but we need to have it quantified. Exchanging information is a great idea but it could cause frustration if we do not have action as a result. We must close loopholes. For example, in Ireland, European law is being quoted to those who have signed up to European City Guides. They are being told that they will be taken to court in another Member State and fined and penalised. They are getting phone calls with huge amounts of harassment to themselves and their co-workers. This is not acceptable. We definitely need to redefine what a consumer is because, as I said earlier, this is not just about business. But I repeat the point. We have a golden opportunity here to show people all over Europe that we are active on issues that are hitting them directly. Let us seize the moment and let us not waste it today with just words and no action.
Marian Harkin
Mr President, the power of many of these fraudulent directory companies is that they are in another Member State, so they seem untouchable unless in some way the EU intervenes. They also instil fear in people, many of them very small businesses without any legal help or advice and many, after being harassed for years, eventually give up and pay the money.
Like many of the other speakers, my office has been inundated with complaints, but usually from sole traders: plumbers, dentists, doctors, people who have been targeted by European City Guide. These people feel as if they are on their own, that they have just made a bad decision, that they got caught out and in some way they almost blame themselves.
I find it unbelievable when I hear that the majority of Member States do not want any extension of the Directive to do something about the relations between companies. I just wonder, is it because the companies that are being targeted are small businesses, that it is not the big corporations that are being affected? I believe citizens need more and better from the Council and the Commission than they are getting at present. I think the current situation is not good enough and I call on the Council to do something about it immediately.
Malcolm Harbour
Mr President, I want to get straight to the point. Let me address this to the Slovenian Presidency; I think they have been great in their presidency. Minister Lenarčič, just let me give you four things that I would like you to bring up at your next meeting of the Competitiveness Ministers.
The first thing, is for you to ask the Commission to take the SOLVIT mechanism - which is supposed to deal with every single internal market complaint, not just market-related ones - and put this firmly on the agenda. Get them to circulate the information that is already available on independent websites - and we should be ashamed of the fact that it is actually the people affected by this who have taken this up on their own - there is a lot of comprehensive information, and make that part of their remit. That could happen straight away. So that is your first task.
The second task is that you should be saying to all your colleagues that their business information services (because they have services that reach out to SMEs) should also be circulating that information to them in their own languages and you should be putting just a modest amount of your budget behind to actually explain to businesses what is going on.
Thirdly, give those to your law enforcement authorities. And, also say to the Commission and to the people who are running your consumer protection cooperation: put this on your agenda. It will not take very much to do. The information is there. It is not a difficult thing to do. So that is three things you should do.
And the fourth thing you could do as well is to say to your colleagues this: these practices, if practised on individual consumers are absolutely illegal under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Everybody knows that is the case. And the companies affected are essentially taking on the role of private consumers. But, in individual Member States, in your process of implementing that (and I have to say by the way the Member States have not done very well in implementing it, and even my own Member State is actually well behind), you could easily include a clause specifically including directories and small businesses in your implementation. It would not take much to do.
So there are four specific actions there. So I look to you, Minister, and we will look at the agenda, and we expect it to be on the next agenda of the Competitiveness Council. How can we go round saying to small businesses, 'participate in the internal market', if we cannot even give them the simplest of safeguards on a simple act like this? It is a disgraceful neglect by all of us of our duties in the single market.
Richard Corbett
Mr President, the European City Guide and the similar guides are essentially a bunch of crooks, but our legislation has not been good enough to enable us to deal with them. This question should equally have been asked of the Commission in terms of initiating a new legislative proposal to tighten up the relevant legislation so that we can deal with them, but pending that my advice to any small business faced with demands from European City Guide and similar guides is simple: do not pay; ignore them; ignore the pressure.
An organisation has been set up called 'Stop the European City Guide', an association of victims of this guide. Their website had to be removed because of pressure and legal threats against their internet service provider to make them shut down their website. I now therefore host their website on my website so that they can continue to disseminate information as to how businesses can protect themselves. We need firm action on this. We need it soon.
Marcin Libicki
(PL) Mr President, may I congratulate Mrs McCarthy on an excellently prepared oral question on the subject of the dishonest practices of advertising companies based on 'European City Guides'. The Committee on Petitions, which I chair, has appointed Mr Busuttil to draw up a report on this matter. We have received an enormous number of petitions complaining about precisely this practice. The Commissioner said that the Commission has not received such complaints that might spur it on to launch an investigation into this matter but, the way I see it, this debate, along with the debate to be held on the basis of Mr Busuttil's report, will serve as an adequate reason for the Commission to take action in this matter, as these practices are hugely dishonest and harass small business and ordinary people - in other words, people who do not have armies of lawyers at their disposal to protect them.
I urge the Commission to take action in this matter.
Brian Crowley
Mr President, I have dealt with 19 cases of people who have been fraudulently exposed to expenditure and to debt actions because of European City Guides. Of those 19, 17 were small businesses that employed three people or less. And of those 17, six of them were elderly people over the age of 60 who were afraid of seeing a solicitor's letter coming in the door.
The reality was that what actually happened here was a misrepresentation under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act or the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as Mr Harbour was talking about. That in itself is a fraud because, if you agree to do something, you expect to get something in return that should be offered in consideration. What actually happened was a misrepresentation as regards the service that was being provided. I think, as some of my colleagues have said, this is probably a matter best dealt with at Commission level. However, it would be right that the Competitive Council and each Minister be made aware of it, and would be empowered to introduce legislation at a national level which may be quicker to do than to actually try and bring forward a revised European directive on this matter.
Arlene McCarthy
Mr President, I just want to echo my colleagues. We have to stop passing the buck on this issue. We must stop allowing these companies to 'catch me if you can'. That is the game they are playing with this. I am not leaving the plenary, Minister, without some commitment to action.
Mr Harbour gave you some ideas, but what I want you to do is to raise specific things that I did actually raise in my intervention at the beginning. I want you to raise at the Council working group the Austrian model where, under the Misleading Advertising Directive, they already ban these practices. Not all Member States do it. You could ask other Member States to follow suit, take the Austrian model and ban these practices by introducing amendments in their national legislation.
I also want you to ask the Council to agree that we have cross-border enforcement networks for consumers. I want you to instruct them to accept, investigate and act on the directory companies in the context of the cross-border enforcement network. That, I believe, will enable us to have some action across the border and to stop these people escaping the long arm of the law. So, please, if I could have that from you, I think we can all go away somewhat happier.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office of the Council. - (SL) Thank you very much, Mr President, for allowing me to speak. I should also like to thank all our colleagues who have taken part in the debate.
Let me start by making one thing clear. Nobody in the Council, neither the Presidency nor any Member State, supports the continuation, or even the occurrence, of fraudulent conduct in the internal market constituted by the European Union. Quite the reverse, and that is why this debate is so welcome, and why I personally welcome it on behalf of the Presidency.
Secondly, I can assure you that the Presidency has taken note of the unanimous demands for increased activity and immediate action. You can rely on us to pass these demands on to our partners in the Council.
Thirdly, I am delighted that the Committee on Petitions has decided to prepare a special report, and we look forward with pleasure to this report by Mr Busuttil. This should generate additional impetus for appropriate activities at European level.
However, I should like to emphasise one thing. Mrs McCarthy, you mentioned the example set by Austria. Good examples certainly serve to encourage others to follow them. And I also believe and hope that this debate will play a part in this. I must stress, however, that the Commission is responsible for transposition of the directives.
As has already been mentioned, and as you also thought in your question, this issue involves two directives. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive does not cover this segment. One solution would be either to redefine the concept of the consumer or to extend the scope of application of the Directive. I expect both these options to be on the table when a decision is taken on these matters.
We are aware that the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive has not been in place for long. It has only been in force since December, and I think we shall soon have to assess how it is being applied.
Secondly, I wish to stress again that the Misleading Advertising Directive covers this area. Swindles and fraud of this kind definitely involve misleading advertising, which means that certain legal remedies are already available.
Finally, let me stress again that I have followed the debate very attentively, and that the Presidency will convey the mood of this plenary to Council members.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 142)
James Nicholson
, in writing. - The 'European Cities Guide' and similar outfits are fraudulent operations which specifically target SMEs. They urge companies to sign up to directory services which are presented as being free of charge.
However, due to dubious and complex 'fine print', theses schemes then proceed to harass people for money in an extremely threatening and malicious manner. Ironically, these fraudulent companies quote EU law in order to intimidate their targets further.
Of course, these scams represent no value whatsoever to the consumer or businesses. In fact, they flout numerous examples of EU legislation, such as the 1984 Directive on Misleading Advertising. This problem is evident in countries throughout the EU and therefore requires urgent action.
The solution lies in EU level cooperation, namely in the form of some tough legislation. We must ensure that any EU directive tackling this issue contains no loopholes and that it is satisfactorily implemented in all member states.
I call on the Council and Commission to assist the work of Parliament and take action which reflects the urgency of this situation. If we are encouraging our SMEs to compete within the single market, we must at least be able to guarantee their protection against these appalling scams.