Rapid Border Intervention Teams (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Deprez, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 as regards that mechanism - C6-0253/2006 -.
Joe Borg
Mr President, the Commission strongly welcomes the excellent compromise reached by the European Parliament and the Council on the Rapid Border Intervention Teams Regulation.
As you know, over the last few years the European Union has experienced an increasing need for providing operational assistance to the Member States which, due to their geographical location and the complexity of their external borders, have to shoulder the heaviest burdens in terms of border control. In response, the European Union created the Frontex Agency in 2004 as a measure for channelling the solidarity between Member States and the Community in terms of operational cooperation. Moreover, a new External Borders Fund will be used from next year for ensuring financial solidarity, by boosting the capacity of all Member States to deal with the challenges posed by their different external borders.
The establishment of a mechanism for the creation and deployment of Rapid Border Intervention Teams is a further measure of solidarity. It is an important step forward in the cooperation between Member States and the Community, by controlling the external borders of the European Union and performing checks on people at these borders.
The Rapid Border Intervention Teams will become a highly trained and specialised reserve of border guards, which will be deployed at short notice, by the Frontex Agency, to a Member State in need of such assistance. As something new and ground-breaking in this regard, the rapid teams will be enabled to carry out all necessary functions related to the checks on people at external borders, in the same way as checks are performed by the national border guards of the host Member State.
In this context, the Commission would like to make the following oral statement on the International Law of the Sea and international protection obligations.
Each Member State participating in operations coordinated by the Frontex Agency on the high seas remains fully bound by its individual obligation to respect the principle of non-refoulement as enshrined, in particular, in the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees of 28 July 1951 and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment vis-à-vis all people under its jurisdiction. When an interception or rescue operation is carried out in the territorial waters of a Member State, the Community acquis on asylum is applicable. This includes the Dublin Regulation. Consequently, in the absence of any other relevant criteria, the Member State on whose waters the interception or rescue operation is carried out, would be responsible for examining any asylum claims. These principles remain fully valid in cases of future deployments of Rapid Border Intervention Teams following the adoption of this regulation.
As the Commission underlined in its communication of 30 November 2006 on reinforcing the management of the southern external maritime borders, it is not clear under what circumstances a state may be obliged to assume responsibility for the examination of an asylum claim when the interception or rescue operation takes place on the high seas or in the territorial waters of a third country. Similarly, it is unclear under what circumstances the Member State hosting an operation coordinated by the Frontex Agency could be considered as ultimately responsible for compliance with this principle.
Evidently, the further development of an integrated system for managing the external maritime borders should be based on a clear common understanding of the Member States' protection obligations. To this effect, the Commission suggested that Member States should address these issues collectively and pragmatically, either in the context of broader bilateral or regional agreements or through the development of practical guidelines in close cooperation with the International Maritime Organisation, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other relevant stakeholders.
In order to support this process, the Commission will soon publish a study on the Law of the Sea addressing these and other relevant issues. The publication of the study will be followed by an expert meeting with Member States to identify the practical follow-up, having regard to the limits of the Community's responsibility in this area as well as the oral statement.
Finally, I would like to stress once again that the Commission is very pleased with the good cooperation between the three institutions involved in reaching agreement on this extremely important piece of new Community legislation and would like to warmly thank the rapporteur, Mr Deprez, the shadow rapporteurs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for their excellent contributions to achieving success on this file.
Gérard Deprez
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to express my pleasure by saying straight away that, if the RABIT draft regulation can be put to the vote in this House tomorrow with a view to an agreement at first reading, it is thanks to the fact that our three institutions have cooperated in what I would describe as an exemplary fashion.
It is thanks to the Commission, firstly. Its initial proposal was of a high quality, and throughout the discussion process it has continually shown a great capacity for smoothing things over and for easing the way for compromise. It is also thanks to the Council, particularly during the Finnish Presidency and now during the German Presidency. It has continually affirmed its desire to succeed and has spared no efforts in order to convince all of the Member States. It is thanks, in particular, to the most recent presidency of Mrs Monika Schmitt-Vockenhausen. For my part, on behalf of Parliament, I have been able to rely from the start on the solid support and confidence of the majority of the shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and I should like publicly to thank them. I hope that they find, in this, the expression of my gratitude.
The root of the problem to be dealt with, Mr President, is both simple and urgent. It consists of organising assistance from the Member States for those of the Member States that have to cope with the sudden arrival of huge numbers of illegal immigrants, who are anxious to cross the Union's external borders. This problem now affects, as we know - and tragic images constantly remind us of the fact - the countries of the south of the Union. Yet, no one can rule out the possibility that, in the future, other borders - particularly those to the south-east and to the east - will be under the same sudden, recurring pressure.
The draft regulation that has been submitted to this House confirms four major principles, which I have always vigorously defended on behalf of Parliament. The first principle: solidarity in the area of external border control is not an option, but an obligation. It is for this reason that the draft regulation stipulates that the Member States must contribute to the rapid intervention reserve and must make border guards available to Frontex, at its request, unless they themselves are faced with an emergency situation to which they must attend.
The second major principle: when deployed on the territory of another Member State within the rapid intervention teams, border guards posted to the reserve are not auxiliaries or second-rate agents compared with the border guards of the Member State. Of course - and this goes without saying - members of the teams will receive their instructions from the Member State that is hosting them but, otherwise, they are on an equal footing with the national border guards. The tasks that they may carry out are the same. They have the right to wear their own uniform, with the addition of a European badge. They may carry their service weapons, in accordance with the national law of their own Member State, except in the event of a disagreement between the two Member States concerned. They may be authorised to consult European and national databases, and their accreditation document, which was provided for in the initial draft, has been stripped of all the cumbersome elements that I feel it contained.
The third major principle - and I say this, in particular, for Mr Catania's benefit - is that respect for fundamental rights applies in all circumstances. It is for this reason that the draft regulation stipulates: firstly, that the members of the teams, together with the national border guards, must abstain from any discriminatory behaviour; secondly, that they must act in accordance with the Member States' obligations with regard to international protection and non-refoulement; and, thirdly, that the members of the teams must act fully in accordance with the obligations of international maritime law, especially in relation to search and rescue. That is what the Commissioner has just reaffirmed to us here. Therefore, Mr Catania, the amendment that you are tabling is unnecessary. I would even say that it is insulting because it makes the assumption that, when they discover ships that are in distress, border guards, including those from Spain, Italy or Malta now, would not be particularly concerned about saving people. Lastly, the draft regulation stipulates that the European directives on the protection of personal data must be applied in full.
The fourth principle: while the situation is urgent, it is urgent for everyone. Given that the issue is one of dealing with emergency situations, the terms of the regulation provide for very short deadlines in which to intervene. The director of Frontex has a maximum of five working days in which to decide how to intervene. Once the operational plan has been established, the actual deployment of the rapid intervention teams must take place within those five working days at the latest. That being the case, it was therefore only right that, in cases of interventions that are justified but where the budgetary resources of Frontex are not adequate to meet their costs, the budgetary authority should make a commitment, in accordance with the provisions of the financial regulation, urgently to find a budgetary solution. That is the meaning of the amendment that has been added to the text of the draft regulation and that formalises the agreement reached in this regard between the Commission, Parliament and the Council.
So much, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for the draft on which this House will have to vote tomorrow. I do not doubt, and I hope, that it will receive your broad support.
Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Mr President, I am not going to use up the three minutes that I am allowed because we are dealing with a very well-produced report, employing a working method that is worthy of praise, and I would therefore like to congratulate Mr Deprez.
Secondly, I am also pleased with the great agreement reached between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament.
I would finally like to express a few considerations.
I would point out - as I did at my party's Bureau last week, in Granada- that competence for monitoring borders and external borders is one that falls to the Member States and only to the Member States.
What is FRONTEX then? FRONTEX and the RABITs essentially mean coordination, cooperation and collaboration.
The RABITs are additional cooperation and collaboration instruments for preventing the permeability of the Union's external borders from being added to the permeability of the internal borders and between them creating a scene of humanitarian desolation. Let us remember that, as a result of the practice of crossing the Atlantic using the criminal mechanisms of mafias, the European Union has just put at 10 000 the number of deaths recorded as a result of this inhuman epic journey.
The RABITs, which have been the subject of so much consensus and so much agreement, are an additional instrument for collaboration and cooperation.
That obligatory solidarity is not a contradiction in terms, Mr President. It is a necessary reality that we have enshrined today in the agreement that I hope will be supported by a large majority in this House tomorrow.
The financial instrument that Mr Deprez has referred to is much more than a statement of intent for dealing with critical situations and mass invasions of a part of our territory. It offers an immediate response demonstrating solidarity and providing budgetary resources.
I shall end as I began, Mr President, by expressing my pleasure at the achievement of an instrument which shows so much solidarity and is so useful in terms of controlling the Union's borders.
Javier Moreno Sánchez
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Mr President, I shall use the mother tongue of our rapporteur in order to congratulate and to thank him for his meticulous work and for the outcome of that work: the excellent report that we are going to adopt tomorrow.
Mr Deprez, without straying into the realm of cheap puns, I believe that, together with the shadow rapporteurs, you have been able to create a veritable rapid intervention team within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, which has enabled us to act quickly and to pass at first reading a text that was the subject of a very broad consensus during the vote in committee.
We have also been able to promote our proposals at the Council, thanks to the constructive dialogue that we have established with the German Presidency, which has included this regulation among its priorities and which has proved very receptive to our proposals.
(ES) Ladies and gentlemen, together we have improved the text, which once again demonstrates the maturity of this House when it comes to legislating in such a sensitive field as the fight against illegal immigration. We must therefore extend the field of codecision to all aspects of immigration policy.
We welcome the fact that the Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) approved the Regulation last Thursday in Luxembourg and the commitment reached by the three institutions to guarantee adequate funding of operations.
We hope that the teams are operational this summer, even before, as requested by the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Frattini.
I believe that we are moving in the right direction, ladies and gentlemen. We are moving slowly, but in the right direction. We have taken a small step towards a common immigration policy.
Our respective governments have understood that immigration is a shared European challenge which requires a global and joint response based on solidarity, mutual trust and shared responsibility.
To this end, the obligatory principle of solidarity on the part of Member States laid down in Article 3 of the Regulation is extremely important. This instrument is no panacea, but it represents progress in the fight against illegal immigration and people trafficking.
These teams will contribute to increasing solidarity and mutual assistance with a view to being able to monitor Europe's external borders, saving lives - particularly in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters - and properly treating immigrants who try to enter the Union's territory illegally.
Our citizens want the European Union to respond to their concerns. The RABITs are a concrete response.
Our citizens and the immigrants deserve to see us treat the issue of illegal immigration seriously. I would therefore call upon the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats to show consistency. You cannot be in Granada criticising the regularisation implemented by the Spanish Government while at the same time, in Luxembourg, two governments led by your political family are announcing imminent regularisations, which we Socialists fully understand and respect, incidentally.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, do not allow yourselves to be led by the Spanish People's Party, which is firing blanks at the Spanish Government.
Bernat Joan i Marí
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Deprez, on his work. I believe that this is a very rigorous, very interesting and very well executed piece of work on a genuinely difficult subject. I think that one might speak in terms of an agreement in several stages.
We can speak in the long term, in the medium term or in the short term. I think that this is a good report and a good solution for the problems we in the European Union are facing and have had to face before. The Rapid Border Intervention Teams, under common rules, will be a good instrument for providing the necessary measures to deal with people entering the European Union illegally.
On the other hand, I think that Europe needs a common policy on immigration. As a member of the European Free Alliance, I do not agree that the Member States should be the owners of the borders. I consider that, in future, the borders of the European Union should be a common issue. We have to work together on this issue and to consider a common policy on migration, always in accordance with the main European values and the principles of the European Union. The European Union has to be more consistent in order to provide the best measures in these cases.
We also need to help the development of the ACP countries and, in particular, our neighbours in the southern Mediterranean. Finding a solution in this part of the world is a guarantee for a solution to our current problem. Solving problems in the countries from which people are migrating to the European Union is the main basis for avoiding this sometimes tragic situation.
It is not only the Member States but the whole European Union that should be aware of immigration policy, including regions with constitutional powers, for example the Canary Islands. The Government of the Canary Islands should have had something to say in the recent crisis in this part of the world. I would like to remark that today is the 300th anniversary of the Battle of Almansa, when the country of Valencia was defeated and the end of the Catalan nation began. I think the regions, the stateless nations and all the political bodies in the European Union have something to say on issues of this kind.
As I said, I think that the report is complete, very good and very interesting. We have some fears, perhaps from a sense of responsibility, including one that the teams' actions might prevent people from seeking protection, thereby denying them the right to asylum under international conventions. We saw it when we were talking to migrants who had illegally entered the Canary Islands. It is not easy for these people to ask for asylum when they really want to, because information does not flow appropriately and because of other circumstances.
The Verts/ALE Group's position is that the Rapid Border Intervention Teams form part of the toolbox developed under the Frontex Regulation and are to be used in particular to meet more urgent support requirements at external borders. So it could be argued that the pros and cons are closely linked to the group's position on the operations of Frontex. We see the regulation as an instrument for immediate action in this sense.
Giusto Catania
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mr Deprez for the work he has done, which is enabling us to adopt his report at first reading. That demonstrates his ability to mediate with the political groups, the Council and the Commission.
I want to thank him even though I maintain all my reservations about this regulation, because I think that in reality its only purpose is to attribute a function to FRONTEX, that useless little agency set up by the Community institutions, which did not perform any function at all until yesterday. I believe that setting up Rapid Border Intervention Teams is merely a propaganda exercise, because it is quite clear that in reality the EU's illegal immigration crisis is not coming from southern Europe or from the boats that arrive by sea. That is amply demonstrated by all the available data and statistics. Even the Commission says that only 14% of the illegal immigrants living in Europe arrive by sea.
I therefore do not understand the need to set up these rapid intervention teams. The same also applies to the southern European countries - Italy, Spain and also Malta, a country that we ought to help. Mr Borg certainly realises better than I do that we ought to try and help Malta, probably by amending the Dublin II regulation, and not by calling for rapid intervention teams that will find it difficult to intervene in that sea area and to tell whether they are in Italian or Maltese waters.
I believe, therefore, that we should try to implement a consistent, serious policy on this matter, probably by taking a different approach entirely. That is why I repeat that the only serious function that these rapid intervention teams can have is to save lives at sea.
Mr Deprez, the question is not whether policemen are good or bad. It has been amply demonstrated in recent years that disasters at sea are on the increase. There are statistics that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that thousands and thousands of people have drowned in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. I therefore believe that there is a purpose for rapid intervention teams whose priority it is to rescue all the men and women that are trying to reach Europe.
It would not be superfluous, in my view, to stress that need in the report we are examining, and I therefore call on the House and Mr Deprez to support my amendment, which unequivocally states that one of the primary functions of these teams should be sea rescue.
I think that if we choose this way of thinking we can seriously help to make immigration policy and external border control a joint activity that is useful to the European Union.
Johannes Blokland
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the rapid handling of his report, which bodes well for the rapid intervention teams.
Last year, I was fortunate enough to join Mr Deprez and others on a visit to the Frontex agency in Warsaw, and this turned out to be a particularly valuable experience. The agency was still in its infancy and work was gathering pace, with high expectations of it on the part of the public and politicians, something that can lead to disappointing results. After all, the Frontex mandate is limited. For the deployment of rapid intervention teams, the agency relies on the Member States working together.
Although I am concerned about the proposal's implementation on two scores, Commissioner Borg may be able to respond and allay my concern in this connection. My first concern is about the availability of manpower and equipment. The Member States that are signed up to Frontex have committed to cooperation, and only in exceptional cases can they back out of that. I should like to hear from the Commissioner what exceptions the Member States have managed to secure. Also, has this been described in sufficient detail, so that Frontex can have the people and equipment available within the prescribed time?
My second concern is about coordination in the Member States. After all, Frontex requires specifically trained people. Moreover, particularly in the Mediterranean region, sea-worthy equipment is essential. It strikes me that it is mainly the defence organisation of the Member States that is able to make these people and this equipment available, while justice ministers make pledges at Council level in this area. Accordingly, in my country, the justice minister has to consult the defence and home affairs ministers about the commitment of persons and equipment. Each minister is fighting his own corner in this respect. Can the Commissioner indicate whether this coordination problem also occurs in other Member States and to what extent the defence organisations are affected?
Giuseppe Castiglione
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to thank Mr Deprez for the hard work he has put into this report and to offer him my heartiest congratulations on having reached a compromise with the Council in such a short time on such an important and urgent subject.
The waves of illegal immigration such as were seen last summer on the EU's southern borders do not affect only the Member States directly involved, but rather all the Member States in the Union. In Sicily, as Mr Catania knows only too well, one can see how urgent it is to address and resolve the problem.
In the coming months, as happens every year, illegal immigrants will be landing on Lampedusa and other islands relentlessly, day and night, in terrible weather and in extremely unsafe conditions. The effective management of our external borders therefore requires realistic prevention policies for internal security and policies to combat illegal entry and people trafficking.
Setting up Rapid Border Intervention Teams is an initial, practical, joint-reaction measure, based on solidarity, respect for human rights and mutual assistance among the Member States, which are called on to take part in them by contributing financial and human resources. Our national police forces can no longer be left on their own to carry out the massive task of defending our borders and also, more importantly, of receiving and aiding illegal immigrants.
Our citizens cannot go on living with this lack of security and stability and are constantly asking us for concrete measures to combat the organised criminal gangs that run the business of moving people illegally and all too often supply the clandestine work and prostitution market. In order to meet these requests, I hope that the members of the rapid intervention teams can start work straight away this summer.
At the same time, we must continue our efforts on this front and go on seeking the best solutions to the immigration issue. The Italian Government's bill is not, in my view, a step in this direction; rather than conducting a serious fight against illegal immigration alongside us, that government has chosen to go ahead with contradictory, improvised policies that are bound to cause serious repercussions throughout the European Union.
Commissioner, since there is a pressing need to ensure continuity between the European Union and its Member States, I urge you to devote the utmost attention to this burning issue, so that our overriding commitment to help the weak can be increasingly combined with our growing need for security.
Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank Mr Deprez most sincerely for his work on this subject and in other areas; as usual, it was outstanding.
This project has taken us a step forward. Solidarity between Member States is strengthened and responsibility shared. We cannot allow countries like Spain, Malta or Italy to be left on their own with this problem. We must also look at the green border, however. There is large-scale immigration there, too.
For us socialists, however, it is also crucial that all aspects of human rights should be more than just on paper, that there should be no discrimination and that we in Parliament should check how this is translated into practice. What happens to the people who are sent back? Will they be handed back to these governments, some of which are corrupt? We have seen the disaster in Morocco, when the people who were sent back were simply taken out into the Sahara and they would have preferred to let them die of thirst there without any water. We must also include these matters and give them equal consideration.
We must not see FRONTEX and the Intervention Team as a panacea. They are an instrument, but not the solution to the problem. We need a common migration policy, not just a common deportation policy. We do not need a new defensive wall for Europe, or an iron curtain in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean, what we need to do is to tackle the problem head on. And that includes pressing on with solving the problems in the countries from which the migrants come.
Let me tell you something. If climate change gets worse, if the governments in the countries of origin become even more corrupt and remain corrupt, then we will have to expect an even greater influx. Because we would do no differently, we would also seek our fortune somewhere else instead of dying of hunger or in poverty.
My congratulations again on the report. I am glad we have done it. We as Parliament must then also keep an eye on how things progress.
Athanasios Pafilis
(EL) Mr President, is it really necessary that we use rapid border intervention teams with state-of-the-art equipment, who have the right to make arrests, bear arms, have the right to use their weapons in the name of self-defence, use violence and act like special forces with advanced technological equipment, that is act as a military force, in order to deal with ragged immigrants or save those battling the seas in an attempt to find a better life? Do you really want us to believe that these forces will be used for these reasons?
We consider that this Regulation and report reveals the true nature of your policy, which is aggressive: you are creating rapid intervention teams for external operations; rapid intervention teams which can be used to deal with any type of crisis, even turn against their own people. We disagree.
I think that your arguments that these teams will combat the mafia, underestimate common sense. If the political will exists, all these smugglers will be found and the mafia will be dealt with. How is it possible that these illegal immigrants can find them when various police agencies fail to do so? But no such political will exists because the mafia is the one supplying European capital with cheap 'meat', cheap labour, immigrants that is. If you are really trying to save illegal immigrants, why do you not give more money to create national agencies that will intervene and save the lives of these people? We do not agree. We find this anti-democratic, it is moving towards the direction of suppression of the masses, as is your entire policy.
Carlos Coelho
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by agreeing with Mr Díaz de Mera and Mr Castiglione, both from my group, in their praise for the rapporteur Mr Deprez, who has provided us with a characteristically excellent report. Mr Deprez made strenuous efforts to reach a compromise between all of the political groups and the Council, with a view to obtaining agreement at first reading.
This is a most welcome initiative at a time when Europe is enduring the most significant migratory crisis in its history. The massive influx of illegal immigrants to European shores has made it imperative for us to adopt measures as a matter of urgency. Although the regions most directly affected are those of southern Europe, this problem cannot be viewed as exclusive to those Member States and regions. Irregular mass immigration and the humanitarian tragedy that it represents have consequences for security and cohesion throughout the European Community.
I applaud the various operational measures relating to the management of our external maritime borders to the south, such as the establishment of an operational control centre to coordinate a patrol network for the Mediterranean coastline and the setting up of a central register of available technical equipment for use in control and monitoring of the external borders, whereby the necessary resources - for example boats, helicopters and aeroplanes - will be supplied for use in joint operations. I also warmly welcome the creation of rapid border intervention teams, which will offer rapid technical and operational assistance to those Member States that may require it.
This will be a way of enhancing solidarity and mutual assistance between Member States. This regulation concerns the deployment of rapid border intervention teams in order to provide rapid assistance in the event of a repetition of previous situations, for example in the Canary Islands. I agree that assistance must be provided for a limited period, in exceptional situations or emergencies, and following a request by the Member State concerned.
Mr President, the European agency Frontex should play a crucial role in coordinating this assistance, which it should do promptly and effectively. Within five days, a decision is made, and a plan drawn up, specifying the duration, geographical location, the mission to be undertaken, the composition, number and profile of experts that each Member State is to supply to the team. All of us - in Parliament, the Commission and the Council - have to deliver the necessary human and financial resources at institutional level for the mission to proceed effectively.
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Mr President, thank you very much for your patience. Just today Polish MEPs from various political groups met the head of the Polish Border Guards who is also the communications officer at our embassy in Belgium. He informed us in detail about the severity of the problem we are discussing today.
I am a representative of Poland, which after Finland has the European Union's longest external land border. This makes the issue of effectively managing the external borders through control and protection and by combating illegal emigration and human trafficking a very relevant one to us.
The groups we are discussing today will become all the more necessary as the EU becomes an increasingly attractive economic haven for migrants from several continents, as well as the former Soviet Union. I agree with Mr Coelho's statements about the vast impending crisis that awaits us. The only condition for setting up the Rapid Border Intervention Teams is our full agreement with the motion of the Member State whose borders are affected by the problem.
Hubert Pirker
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, illegal immigration has come to assume epidemic proportions. Conservative estimates put the number of illegal immigrants in Europe at about 15 million. You need only compare the figures for 2005 and 2006 to see that their number has multiplied sixfold.
Smuggling people into the EU has become big business and is part of the phenomenon of organised crime. In this situation, many Member States are quite simply overburdened. They cannot be left in the lurch; they need help. That is where the EU scheme comes in.
I welcome the fact that Frontex has been created, all the more so in view of the imminent establishment of a functioning instrument, in the form of the Rapid Border Intervention Teams, that can provide assistance within a particular area for a limited period of time at the request of Member States, and I also welcome the clear indication that, as Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra emphasised, responsibility for guarding borders will remain in the hands of the Member States. The RABITs will render short-term assistance - we must be clear about that. For the medium and long term we need additional measures. I expect a cooperation agreement to materialise between Frontex and Europol so that the crime of human smuggling can be more effectively combated; I also expect illegal residence to have consequences - we need to think about repatriation aid in this context - and I expect an immediate end to mass legalisation, for that invariably creates a knock-on effect and shifts the problems to other countries.
Moreover, we also need education campaigns as a preventive measure, so that potential migrants can learn how legal immigration works, what the consequences of illegal immigration are and what risks it entails. We also need stabilisation and aid programmes in migrants' countries of origin. With these RABITs, we in the European Union are certainly demonstrating that we are on the way towards a security union and that we are reflecting at the same time on how we can solve migration problems, and especially the problem of illegal immigration, in the medium and long term.
Let me close by thanking the rapporteur for his excellent coordination.
Simon Busuttil
Mr President, I first wish to join with my colleagues in thanking Mr Deprez the rapporteur for his excellent work and in particular for completing this report in time for first reading.
I warmly welcome this law because it is a solidarity instrument. Coming from a southern Member State I welcome it even more, because I appreciate that solidarity does not come easy and it does not come cheap.
This law means that Member States are now binding themselves to assist other countries that face difficulty. As Mr Deprez said, this solidarity is compulsory and not optional. This makes it real solidarity. It is not charity, because charity is voluntary. This is a binding commitment. Thanks to this law, countries facing emergency situations on immigration will finally start to feel that they are no longer completely on their own.
Therefore this law is a good step forward. However, on its own it is not enough to overcome the challenge of illegal immigration. We must, therefore, avoid raising public expectations that this law will solve everything: it will not. Therefore we must also do more to strengthen the southern borders of the Union. Last November the European Commission issued a communication on strengthening the southern maritime borders and I call on the Commission to press on with the initiatives listed in this communication. Let us not forget that external border control is in the interests of all Member States and not just the countries facing difficulties and once it is in everybody's interest, it must also be everybody's responsibility - a shared responsibility.
President
Thank you very much, Mr Busuttil. Thank you, too, for your understanding. I know that you would have liked to have spoken in Maltese this evening, but unfortunately our teams were unavailable, and I would thank you for your flexibility.
Francesco Musotto
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think we have achieved an important objective this evening, because the agreement on Rapid Border Intervention Teams has shown that all the EU institutions have realised that illegal immigration is a serious problem that cannot be faced alone by the regions exposed to massive migratory flows on account of their geographical location.
As we pointed out in the report on islands that was adopted in this Chamber, Europe cannot remain indifferent to the ongoing emergency situation in regions like my own, Sicily, with its peak in Lampedusa, or in the Canaries or Malta, which are unsustainably burdened by the arrival of illegal immigrants. It cannot remain indifferent to the human tragedy of the makeshift boats that sink in the Mediterranean, or to the organised crime that takes advantage of those people's desperation. With the opening-up of our internal borders, our external borders have become our common frontier and, therefore, suitable, long-term solutions to the immigration issue can only be found at a European level.
The creation of rapid intervention teams is certainly only a start. Europe needs to move quickly towards approving a legal immigration policy, since such an important issue cannot be left just in the hands of governments. The Italian Government has just passed a law that changes and amends previous legislation, but these cannot be seen as permanent solutions that can lead to reception and the building of a better future.
Europe as a whole must do the opposite. It must draw up a legal immigration policy that can manage all immigration, which, like the wind, cannot be stopped but must be controlled.
Barbara Kudrycka
(PL) Mr President, Rapid intervention teams have the opportunity of becoming an effective tool for the Member States and FRONTEX, although incidentally this is nothing new for FRONTEX. We have already been involved in joint operations before. We need rapid intervention teams, but provided that they are not used as a way of shifting responsibility for patrolling one's own border, which according to the present treaties is the responsibility of the Member States. It is therefore important that these teams be reserved for real crisis situations falling beyond the scope of previous risk analyses. Only then will the Member States have the right and the obligation to implement the mechanisms of European solidarity.
I am well aware that the burden of controlling the EU's external borders is distributed unevenly among the Member States. There are southern states with difficult sea borders, and countries with long land borders. The teams, together with other elements in an integrated border management system, which I mention here as an important resource for our external borders, will contribute to improved cooperation and coordination of efforts and will help to combat illegal migration and people trafficking. However, I do expect FRONTEX and RABITS to have consideration for the rights and needs of people crossing the border in good faith. For this reason we also need to improve coordination as regards border services for this kind of traveller. As regards RABITS I would like to point out the need for public information explaining the rapid intervention teams, and what the rights and duties of ordinary people are when they encounter these teams in order to avoid misunderstandings and unclear situations. This will require information campaigns. Finally, I would like to express my pleasure at the consensus we have found as regards setting up these teams and congratulate Mr Deprez on his excellent report.
Joe Borg
Mr President, as I mentioned earlier, the Commission strongly welcomes the compromise reached between the three institutions on this file. It is an important step in the cooperation between Member States and is an excellent example of solidarity in dealing with border controls.
With regard to the points raised during the debate, in particular by Mr Blokland, let me state that at the Justice and Home Affairs Council last week most Member States had already put technical equipment, etc. at the disposal of Frontex for joint operations. In addition, Vice-President Frattini invited those Member States which have not already done so to consider making contributions.
On the other point concerning coordination, let me clarify that Frontex will coordinate operations involving the competent authorities of the many Member States concerned.
I should like to conclude by congratulating Mr Deprez the rapporteur on his hard work, and I welcome the agreement reached between the institutions on the Rapid Border Intervention Teams Regulation. I repeat that it is an excellent example of solidarity and operational cooperation.
President
Thank you, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Louis Grech
in writing. - Existing external border control surveillance lacks the appropriate and sufficient resources to effectively combat illegal immigration and trafficking of human beings. This problem does not pertain to one country or one region but to all Member States.
In this context Mr Deprez's report highlights the various shortcomings and addresses on the real issues surrounding the deployment of the Rapid Border Intervention Teams. Admittedly the creation of this Rapid Intervention Team is a positive step in the right direction and therefore all the appropriate funds should be allocated in order to make this project function in a viable manner.
The effective management of external border control only resolves a small part of this fundamental issue. Unfortunately I feel the institutions, especially the Council, are not tackling this tragic problem with the necessary commitment and urgency it deserves. The serious application of the principle of burden-sharing is far from been implemented in a concrete and tangible manner.
Andrzej Jan Szejna
in writing. - (PL) Mr President, in the eyes of EU law, Member States themselves, including Poland, are responsible for controlling their external borders.
Unfortunately we have to say that the aid currently provided at a European level for responses at the external borders, and the protection of these borders is not enough. It is an issue that cannot be ignored because controlling the external borders of the European Union is really about combating people trafficking and illegal immigration on the one hand, and on the other averting threats to the internal security of Member States, public order, public health and international relations. Border controls are therefore not just in the interest of the Member State that has the border, but it is equally important for all Member States that have removed controls on their internal borders.
The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) has already been set up by order of the Council. We now need to take the next step, which is to create rapid intervention teams that would be sent to the territory of a Member State needing such assistance, but which would not be designed to provide long-term support. However, coordinating the composition, training and dispatch of such rapid intervention teams to borders should be the mandate of the Agency.
This approach will increase solidarity and mutual assistance among Member States.
Luca Romagnoli
in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, immigration is all too often hailed as a resource, even a vital resource, but that underestimates the terrible effects on those who really have to suffer it. The ones who leave their peoples and countries are often not the poorest, but qualified young people and also - leaving aside any demagogy - people who are a potential workforce for organised crime in the host countries.
The need to establish common rules on the duties of border guards and rapid intervention teams is justified by the waves of individuals pushing at the Union's borders. These migratory flows supply the hateful traffic in human beings, in tragic and well-known circumstances, and I hold politicians to be morally complicit in this if they claim that it is right and appropriate or even our duty to receive these people, without taking account of their reasons or of whether they can be received. Italy has even decided to accept everyone who turns up on its borders, without anyone having to guarantee that they will provide work and hospitality.
In such a situation, I wonder what the measures that have been announced are good for. In Italy, they will only serve to provide assistance, and they will help the illegal arrival of people who will then go and fill the coffers of the NGOs. What use is a European agency to manage cooperation on our external borders if the Member States' immigration policies are so different? It is no use at all, unless it is to spend more taxpayers' money and to play at demagogy, which only results in social unrest and disorder.


Strengthening European legislation in the field of information and consultation of workers (debate)
President
The next item is the Commission statement: Strengthening European legislation in the field of information and consultation of workers.
Vladimír Špidla
Mr President, honourable Members, keeping workers informed and consulting with them is a significant element of the European Social Model's response to the challenges posed by globalisation, economic competition and technological change. Included in that response is change management, the anticipation of change and social dialogue.
I do not have to remind the House of the importance the Commission attaches to European Works Councils. They enable us to reduce the imbalance arising from inadequate representation, in other words due to the fact that a growing number of decisions are taken at supranational level, whereas the law on informing employees and problem resolution is implemented mainly at national level.
They provide support for the social partners in each country and facilitate general understanding of the strategic problems of businesses and the search for solutions. In particular they allow for the anticipation and management of change. In the era of globalisation, Europe must address a number of economic and social problems.
We are well aware that business restructuring is something feared not only by the employees affected but also by other citizens. We also know that when it comes to addressing this phenomenon there is only one possible approach, and that is to be decisive, proactive and dynamic. The EU must contribute towards preparing for the changes brought about by restructuring and towards managing them in a responsible way - whether by means of the structural funds, in particular the European Social Fund or through political dialogue in the context of the restructuring forums introduced by the Commission - and towards the implementation of the Community's regulatory framework for the information and consultation of workers.
The recent situation in the VW car works demonstrated in particular the need to inform and consult with workers in the decision-making process at the earliest opportunity, so that they are prepared for restructuring and so that this is carried out in everyone's best interests. European Works Councils must be capable of carrying out this function in the context of supranational operations. How to achieve this goal? First and foremost, is essential to ensure compliance with Community legislation when it comes to informing and consulting with employees. I would emphasise, though, that the task of upholding Community legislation falls primarily to the Member States.
Questions should also be asked about the review of the Directive on European Works Councils. I am well aware of how sensitive this issue is. As you know, the Commission initiated the process of reviewing the Directive on European Works Councils in 2004. In the context of the 2005 communication on restructuring and employment the Commission encouraged the European social partners to enter negotiations on this issue. The social partners have incorporated support and evaluation of the joint texts relating to European Works Councils and restructuring into their working programmes for 2006 to 2008. We await the results of this work with great interest.
I know that the social partners have different approaches to the issue of European Works Councils. Everyone agrees that there is an increasing need for social dialogue at a national level, and many are aware that the work of the European Works Councils is often overlooked or underestimated. The question is whether a review of the European legal framework will improve the way they function or whether it would be enough to step up the exchange of tried and tested approaches between the social partners. We welcome all proposals contributing to the development of the legal framework. It appears that this development will prove useful in guaranteeing greater cohesion and effectiveness when it comes to informing and consulting with workers, reducing legal uncertainty in cases involving major changes to the size of businesses, and clarifying the extent of the process of informing and consulting with employees at European and national level and the role it has to play.
It is clear that the Commission's initiative takes account of actions initiated by the social partners with a view to supporting the use of proven approaches. It also takes account of the requirements of the Economic and Social Committee. The Commission will support the search for solutions arising from the partnership and linking up the economic, social and environmental aspects. This approach is also backed in the 2005 Commission communication on restructuring and employment and the 2006 communication on corporate responsibility. The Commission awaits with interest Parliament's resolution on the issue, which will play an important role regarding the Commission's next steps. The Commission is ready to discuss the issue of informing and consulting with workers with Parliament. Thank you.
Gabriele Stauner
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin with a special word of thanks to Commissioner Špidla for his remarks on the subject of information and consultation of workers. We all know how much importance attaches to workers' participatory rights as a source of good industrial relations and as the basis of a contented and motivated workforce. That is why these rights are also, and indeed particularly, in the interests of companies and employers.
We in Europe can be proud of our tradition of worker participation. These rights feature prominently among our economic success factors. Although consultation rights vary between Member States of the EU - in the country I come from, for instance, worker participation extends to a right of codetermination in the realm of business management - information and consultation rights are undoubtedly part of what we call the European social model.
The European Works Council Directive of 1994 is acknowledged as the pinnacle of Community legislation in this field.
By common accord, it has proved its worth too; one token of its necessity was the fact that some companies with operations in several countries had voluntarily established works councils even before the Directive entered into force.
I also believe that now, in 2007, the time has come to revise the Directive. The 1994 Directive had actually designated 1999 as the revision date. There have been many changes since the Directive was enacted. Corporate economic structures have changed, and globalisation has made further advances, but the expectations of employees and those who represent their interests have grown too.
As representatives of the people in Europe, we shall gladly play our part in adapting the rules to the changes in the world of business and employment, for we all know that the only successful employers of the future will be those who act responsibly and with due regard to the rights and welfare of their employees, while well-informed employees who are involved in corporate decision-making processes will give of their best and be committed to the success of their company.
Stephen Hughes
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, Airbus, Alcatel, Lucent and Delphi Systems are just the latest in a never-ending stream of instances of major restructuring that have led delegations of workers to come to us complaining of breaches of EU information and consultation laws, not just the Works Council Directive, but others too: directives on collective redundancies and transfers dating from the 1970s, and the Directive establishing a General Framework for Information and Consultation of Workers.
We have quite a body of information on consultation laws, but the inconsistencies and contradictions between them and the loopholes in them mean that they are often avoided altogether. There is often no attempt at meaningful information or consultation in good time in avoiding or mitigating job losses.
We urgently need a clear definition of the concepts of information and consultation in EU law. We have different definitions in several different directives. The Works Council Directive does not define either notion clearly, while the later directives on a company statute and the general framework have different definitions. This is an open door to abuse and avoidance. The need for a revision to the Works Council Directive is now glaringly obvious: it was due for revision eight years ago.
The deficiencies and loopholes are well known: failure to provide timely information and consultation, to fully recognise the role of trade unions, to provide expert support, the inadequacy of sanctions, the misuse of confidentiality rules to withhold information and so on. These deficiencies must now be addressed to give workers the effective tools they need.
I know there is a view that a revision should not be launched because we might end up with a weaker, not a stronger, instrument. The view of my group is that the avoidance and abuse of this legislation is now of such scale and breadth that we have nothing to lose in insisting on a revision. I urge the Commissioner to bring that provision forward as a matter of urgency.
Ilda Figueiredo
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (PT) At a time when we are celebrating the 33rd anniversary of the April Revolution in my country, Portugal, it is with particular pleasure that I am here in this Chamber talking about strengthening the legislation on the information and consultation of workers.
As we all know, the directives on the information and consultation of workers and the European Works Councils lay down that information should be made available regarding the development of economic and social aspects of the company and regarding decisions that cause substantial change as regards the organisation of work and work contracts. Experience has shown, however, that this is not enough and does not address the increasingly serious problems of company restructuring and relocations, which have serious economic and social repercussions.
Workers from various companies continue to report such problems in the hi-tech industry, in the cases of Alcatel-Lucent, Delphi and Yasak, footwear, for example Rodhe, the car industry and the textiles sector. Community legislation therefore needs to go much further.
Workers' organisations must be kept fully informed and must play a central role throughout the process, in the European Works Councils, including the right of veto.
Flexi-insecurity, the liberalisation of redundancies and the unacceptable attack on the rights gained by the workers down the years must not be allowed to flourish.
I hope that you will be able to answer the questions you face, Commissioner.
President
If it means celebrating the Carnation Revolution, I am sure, Mrs Figueiredo, that he will reply to you.
Ieke van den Burg
(NL) Mr President, I shall try to make my statement in one minute; it mainly has to do with the financial markets and what is happening there at the moment in the area of private equity and hedge funds which, via shareholders' rights, are gaining influence in businesses. It is very disappointing, in my view, that the present Commission has failed to table any proposals on employees' rights, particularly in those large transnational businesses, while everything possible is being done to improve shareholders' rights. We adopted a report on this very subject in February last. There is clearly an enormous imbalance between what is being done for shareholders in order to gain more influence in businesses - which they can do purely from their financial perspective - while no consideration is being given to the repercussions on employment, on the quality of work or on employees' rights. As I see it, the balance should be restored in that area at the earliest opportunity, and it may be advisable to revisit the fifth Company Law Directive and to ensure that, when monitoring businesses, a better balance is struck between the interests of shareholders and those of employees.
Harald Ettl
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, recent events in the European Union have shown that information and consultation within the framework of the European Works Council function only in a highly inadequate manner. We are now at the stage where worker representation bodies in different countries - France, Germany and so on - are being played off one against the other, yet this is not some sort of international sports match. Consultation and information within the framework of the committee of the European Works Council simply no longer exist. For that reason there is a need for a change in this regard. I would point out that the first revision was supposed to have taken place back in 1999. The subject was brought up again in 2004 and now we are at the stage where we are recognising the need for revision.
I am very pleased that it was Mrs Stauner of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who prepared this subject for us, as it was former German Chancellor Kohl who, when the European Works Council Directive came into the world, was first in line in the delivery room. At that time, though, our industries were still in a quite different condition to the one they are in today; there have been a lot of changes. Business organisations have got smaller, methods of communication have changed. There is much in this sector that has to be changed. All I can do is call on us to seize the opportunity currently before us to undertake this revision. Let us bring the European Works Council up to date! Let us update the regulations and bring them into line with reality! It is tremendously important, from the point of view of democratic politics, for this to work within companies, because if it does not work there is an enormous potential for conflict, and that is what has to be prevented.
All I can do, then, Commissioner, is to entreat you to get this under way quickly and to push the Council as necessary in order to make this happen.
Kader Arif
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 13 years after the adoption of the European Works Councils Directive, much remains to be done if this legislation is fully to achieve its objectives.
Over the last few months, many companies have carried out major restructuring projects, without consultation and regardless of this directive and of other European laws and without any of these companies having ever been punished. The crises that Airbus is going through now, that Alcatel and Volkswagen went through in the past and that Peugeot will perhaps go through in the future, are harsh examples of just what is lacking in European social dialogue.
In the case of Airbus, the trade unionists and workers that we met in Parliament or in our respective countries rightly deplored the absence of any prior consultation or true cooperation with regard to the Power 8 restructuring plan. Although we know that managerial errors are at the root of the current difficulties being experienced by Airbus and, at the same time, that it is the skills of its employees that have made it a success, the employees are the last to be informed but the first to be affected - and the most tragically affected - by this plan. As for the managers, they are shielded, because they are covered by the millions of euros of their gilded parachute. We can no longer tolerate a situation in which employees learn through the press that they are being made redundant. We need to act urgently if we are to ensure greater transparency.
For several years now, we in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have been calling for these texts to be revised in a bid to ensure that information and consultation of workers early on, at regular intervals and at all levels of decision making will enable them genuinely to make their presence felt in the decision-making process. Thus, employee representatives ought to be able to sit on the management board of companies. This is a crucial element when it comes to workers being informed about, and monitoring, strategic decisions. This is what would make it possible, too, to ensure that these restructuring measures were really crucial to the business and not just linked to managerial errors or to the quest for immediate profit.
We also think it crucial to ensure that companies within the Union assume their social and financial responsibilities and act in accordance with a method of governance that is responsible and fair towards all of the parties involved - workers, trade unions, local and regional authorities and communities in the area in which they are based. The Commission must make a commitment to induce companies to act responsibly, including by considering legislation on their social responsibility.
It seems to me that, in a globalised setting and in an ever-changing economic situation, it is our duty today, as it was 13 years ago, to ensure that the existing directives are applied in full, including by means of sanctions against irresponsible companies but, even more so, to ensure that the existing directives are revised so that they go further with regard to information and consultation of workers, and to works councils. By doing so, we will make it clear that we are strongly attached to a socially responsible Europe.
Inés Ayala Sender
(ES) I would like to thank the Commissioner for his fine words, although we would like more details on the timetable and the measures to increase the transparency and good governance of companies.
The participation of workers is required if we are to maintain the competitiveness and quality of European industry in flagship projects such as Airbus and others that are less well-known, but crucial if we are to turn Europe into the competitive economy that we want to see. Delphi is a painful wound in my country in this regard.
It is not right to attribute the problems we are experiencing exclusively to globalisation, since if we look carefully, we will see that the books of both Airbus and Boeing are full of orders, and therefore more workers are needed rather than fewer, both here in Europe and in other places.
I would like to call upon the Commission, in addition to the worker participation that we are demanding, now to consider new measures to ensure transparency in the activities and decisions of executives who, with their armour-plated contracts and exorbitant salaries, allow negligence, lack of transparency and criminal errors to take place for which the European Community does not currently have a sufficient instrument.
Commissioner, does the Commission intend to create instruments to restrict this irresponsible power within the context of the so-called social responsibility of companies and their codes of conduct, which so far are not obligatory? Could measures be implemented to oblige executives to manage in a more transparent way, firstly for the sake of the workers and also for the sake of society? If we are talking about good European governance in companies, we cannot continue to resign ourselves to this situation.
Matthias Groote
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it seems that something bad must always happen before the Commission advances an opinion on a subject as important as strengthening the rights of workers in the area of information and consultation.
Airbus's Power8 restructuring programme and the consequent threat of job losses and sales of factories shook European Airbus employees to the core. In the discussion with the works councils of the areas affected, Varel and Nordenham, and at a meeting of trade union representatives from all over Europe that took place in Brussels recently, the workers pointed out time and again the inadequate supply of information to and consultation with Airbus employees. For this reason, the rights of European works councils must, first of all, at long last be fully implemented and then extended and given greater depth.
It is indefensible for workers not to be provided with comprehensive information and consultation if their companies are being restructured or if there are possible job losses. This indefensible situation can be remedied only by finally getting the long-overdue revision of the European Works Council Directive under way. So far, I have not heard of a single company anywhere in Europe that has got into difficulties because of its works council. On the contrary, in fact, consultation and providing early information to workers could definitely have saved large numbers of companies and jobs in Europe and fixed management mistakes.
After 13 years it is time for this legislation to be fully brought to bear in order to ensure social peace in Europe.
Alejandro Cercas
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, it is true, thirteen years ago now, on reading the texts, it was pointed out that, in our primary law, we had to incorporate social dialogue as the European social model's distinguishing mark. That was why the Directive was drawn up.
It was pointed out thirteen years ago that the internal market had a transnational dimension and that that could lead to problems amongst workers in companies of a transnational nature, since they should take decisions in consultation with everybody without prejudicing a few or prejudicing everybody. Given what we have seen in Delphi, in Renault and in Airbus, we are now much more acutely aware of the need to improve these mechanisms.
Europe is in danger of appearing to lack legitimacy amongst the workers, because they are seeing two very dangerous things simultaneously, Commissioner. Firstly, they see that we do not have any instruments, but at the same time they hear us in Europe saying that we are with them, that we are not going to abandon them in the face of globalisation and restructuring.
The revision of the Directive, therefore, though not sufficient, is nevertheless necessary, because it is an instrument that is showing itself to be neither used nor useful in dealing with the extremely serious problems that we are seeing on the ground and which are turning a very significant proportion of the European population against each other and against Brussels.
This is urgent, Commissioner. We must continue to move forward. We shall support you fully if you tackle such a difficult and risky situation.
Karin Jöns
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, uncertainty is always a bad thing, especially when it relates to the future of jobs. The sword of Damocles that being laid off represents has been hanging over the heads of thousands of Airbus employees since January. That is an intolerable situation. It is no way to treat human beings. In my constituency there was talk, with the advent of Power8, first of 1 200 job losses, then of 700, then of job losses solely amongst temporary workers and now we hear that Airbus actually wants to start hiring again! All of this cannot fail to make one dizzy.
The approach taken by the top management at EADS is, as we all know, no longer an isolated incident. We have heard this a number of times today. The fact that something like this occurs despite the European Works Council Directive is simply scandalous and makes it glaringly evident that action is needed. For that reason, there is an urgent need to introduce specific measures to provide a stronger reminder to employers of their obligations in terms of informing and consulting with their employees. We must ensure, above all, that sanctions against contravention of the directive are rigorously enforced right across the EU and also that employees and their representatives are represented on the supervisory boards.
Commissioner Špidla, I genuinely expect the Commission finally to get on with the long overdue task of updating this directive, for, as is well known, the EU's competitiveness and productivity stand and fall by good, safe jobs.
Vladimír Špidla
Mr President, honourable Members, firstly, a number of cases were mentioned in which the directive on information and consultation of workers was not applied appropriately. This did indeed happen, the Commission took action in each case and in some cases there was a clear improvement in the situation.
I should like to emphasise, however, that the directive is not as weak as would appear from some of the opinions expressed. How it is applied is ultimately a matter of national discretion. I should like to point out that a number of companies have been brought before the French and Belgian courts recently for not upholding the directive and that in some cases, for example British Airways, the restructuring process has been put on hold until the law on consultation and information has been implemented in full. There are therefore possibilities for a relatively effective approach, which is something that in my opinion we should bear in mind.
The second question mentioned was that of the prospective review of the directive. I would point out that the Commission has launched a review of this directive and that our aim is in any event to contribute to a solution leading to stable, effective social dialogue and consultation and the right to consultation with workers and for them to be informed. This is the Commission's goal and I am sure that we will achieve it during this legislative period.
President
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote on the motions for resolutions tabled at the end of the debate will take place during the next part-session, in Brussels, on Thursday 10 May.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Glyn Ford
in writing. - The reason for this statement and next month's resolution is the appalling situation regarding Airbus in Europe. A combination of mismanagement, unfair competition and poor judgement has threatened the success of this most vital of European industries. I find it inconceivable that the US with Boeing should totally dominate the world market for medium- and larger-scale aircraft. Boeing has its civilian sales and R[amp]D underpinned by military contracts and military R[amp]D: a sad indictment of Europe's lack of a common defence and security policy.
Nevertheless, the key problem here is that despite massive EU and national governments loans to Airbus, it was run like some kind of Edwardian corner shop with minimum consultation with the workforce. Workers possess one of the most important resources for any industrial enterprise - craft knowledge and experience. It may well be that by focusing on that, management could have avoided some of its worst mistakes. Now a minimum of 10 000 families face the prospect of suffering job losses.
If this company in the vanguard of European industry pays so little attention to its most important asset, its workforce, it can only be time for the Commission to strengthen and reinforce legislation that is clearly not strong enough.