Approval of Minutes of previous sitting
President
Yesterday's Minutes have been distributed.
Are there any comments?
Richard Corbett
Mr President, Item 13 of the Minutes refers to a Member changing political group to join the ITS Group. It makes no reference to Mr Wise leaving the IND/DEM Group and I wondered whether this was a mistake. I understand his party, the UK Independence Party, has suspended him pending the investigations into alleged fraud in his case. Does this not mean that his group has also suspended him, or was the press campaign deliberately misleading?
President
I think your point is made, Mr Corbett. We will look into it.
(The Minutes of the previous sitting were approved)


Enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Marielle Gallo, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market -.
Marielle Gallo
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament must seize the opportunity of the vote on this own-initiative report, which is not my report but the fruit of numerous compromises, to open up a major debate. For almost 10 years, we have been repeatedly saying in all our texts that the European economy must be a knowledge-based economy. The explosion of the digital era means that we must now rise to this globalised challenge.
The creative and innovative industries currently provide 7% of the EU's GDP and 14 million jobs. Faced with severe competition, they are, and must remain, the key asset of the European economy. We therefore have to protect them, or else they will disappear.
What apparatus can protect them? What apparatus encourages creators to innovate? What apparatus ensures European cultural diversity and its global spread? What apparatus ensures that our researchers, creators, artists, engineers and intellectuals are remunerated? What apparatus enables the economic sector of the creative and innovative industries to function and develop? What apparatus encourages SMEs and young creators to be enterprising and transform the European economy for the year 2020?
The answer to each of these questions is obvious: intellectual property law. Everybody agrees on intellectual property law in relation to physical assets. However, some of us have not yet woken up to what has been happening since the arrival of the Internet. They have not yet understood that all digital assets - music, films, books, video games, software - also need to be protected.
We must not be scared of the Internet. It is an extraordinary opportunity which we can welcome. We guarantee access to the Internet for all EU citizens; it is a right. However, we must also subject the Internet to legislation which protects intellectual property, because that is also the law. If we do not do so, it will be a jungle, and the law of the jungle will apply.
Is this really what we want? Do we want to destroy the creative and innovative industries sector by wantonly sacrificing it? Are we European legislators going to give in and resort to demagogy and populism, or can we reflect on matters and assume our responsibilities?
I ask you this question because the purpose of this report is to send out a signal to the Commission so that we can combine our efforts and find appropriate solutions. Let us get rid of crowd-pleasing responses. Let us try to overcome our petty political disagreements so that we can work in the general interest. Let us not allow the Commission free rein. The fate of the creative and innovative industries, and of the people who depend on them, is in our hands. Let us not fall at this hurdle; the debate is only just beginning.
Piotr Borys
(PL) First of all, I would like to thank Mrs Gallo for a good and well-balanced report. The report confirms the fact that the European Union upholds intellectual property rights and copyright, and protects the most creative sector in Europe. This challenge ties in well with the European Commission's communication on the European Digital Agenda, which also refers to matters such as orphan works or works that are out of print.
I would like to say that today's report is a balanced and carefully considered text. It does not take a particularly restrictive approach to the problem of piracy and counterfeit goods, as it primarily introduces a prevention-based system, in order to raise awareness among citizens, who frequently unwittingly break the law, that copyright is a fundamental and important issue. I would like to say that today - and here I am also referring to Mr Echeverría's report - we need a good business model, which would protect copyright and intellectual property rights, while also allowing works of literature or film to be purchased at a reasonable price.
I think that the report should serve as a point of departure for further discussions, but I would like to thank the rapporteur for very successfully highlighting in her report the issue of protecting both copyright and a system which maintains the highest level of creativity.
Ioan Enciu
(RO) I welcome the report being debated, which is part of the European Parliament's general initiative to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights. I very greatly appreciate the work done by the rapporteur, Mrs Gallo.
However, I would like to highlight a few points of principle which ought to have been included in the report. Firstly, a clear differentiation needs to be made about the socio-economic impact which copyright infringement can have. It is unacceptable for serious infringements, with a possible major impact on the individual's health and integrity, to be included in the same category as those with a limited financial impact. Last but not least, there needs to be a provision whereby Internet service providers are not held liable for the actions of their customers and are not obliged to get involved in monitoring and filtering the traffic on their own networks.
Toine Manders
(NL) I should like to thank the rapporteur for the nature of our cooperation. Indeed, Mrs Gallo, all parties came together in the Committee on Legal Affairs and reached a compromise. This ultimately led to a tremendously diffuse and emotional discussion, which I also faced within my own group. In the end, we submitted an alternative resolution as a middle course between the supporters and opponents of the report.
I hope that this resolution makes it through tomorrow, but it is a shame that the discussion has been so protracted and that a solution is yet to be found. We all want more innovation, more e-commerce and an internal market, and yet we do not want protection of intellectual property rights, which ultimately forms the basis of our innovation. I think this a great shame, and so I would call on everyone to vote the right way tomorrow - which I would venture to say is the alternative resolution tabled by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
A European approach is needed, and I would also call on Commissioner Barnier to come forward with the proposals for an EU legal framework for intellectual property rights, as there is a huge need for multi-territory licensing, for example. This is currently impossible, thereby impeding the development of the internal market.
Eva Lichtenberger
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is no coincidence that we are not finding it easy to agree on this matter here because we are combining two incompatible issues. If we had concentrated on trademark protection, we would probably have been able to reach a good agreement. However, mixing this with the subject of the Internet is also substantially incorrect, because different and newer strategies are required here compared with those required in substantive law. It is not easy to transfer these strategies from the one to the other.
We also need to be clear in our own minds that we will pay for every prosecution on the Internet with infringements of civil rights, because we cannot see or find these things out automatically.
Thirdly, it is abundantly clear to me that if I place cultural enjoyment on the Internet under the threat of punishment, so that I virtually risk being sent to prison every time I view the Internet, I will not be able to make use of the opportunities that the Internet also provides for art, culture and creativity. I would therefore urge us to discuss this matter further. That would be a more intelligent approach.
Martin Ehrenhauser
(DE) Mr President, naturally, the fight against counterfeit goods has top priority, including here in this House. Nevertheless, I have to say that I clearly cannot support this report by my fellow Member on Wednesday, as, among other things, I share the concern of very many young people and citizens that an attempt is being made here - for example in Article 22 - to make Internet blocks respectable again through the back door.
It is also deplorable that the terms piracy and counterfeiting have been used as synonyms by the Commission and also here in this report. That will create additional legal uncertainty. The term piracy is not appropriate for the use of non-commercial Internet exchange services. This would de facto turn many millions of citizens into criminals, as is quite rightly pointed out in the alternative report tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.
I am also very definitely against the establishment of a new authority. I believe that the structures currently in place will be able to deal with this matter very economically.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, property - whether intellectual or physical - is a cornerstone of the market economy. It is therefore important that we consider how we regulate this matter with a high degree of mutual consensus. In any case, we need a one-stop shop. It must become easier for consumers, the self-employed and small and medium-sized enterprises to acquire corresponding licences in this regard.
The availability of EU-wide licences for intellectual property rights is particularly important. We need an internal market for intellectual property. Above all, we also need the original language to be available throughout the whole of Europe. Every language is an important cultural product and it ought to be possible for licences that are granted for one language to apply throughout Europe and therefore be capable of being used by all citizens. We need interoperability and technical neutrality in order to be able to use this intellectual property accordingly. Above all, we also need sanctions for those who violate competition and commercial law.
Christian Engström
Mr President, there are several problems with this report, but I will highlight one fundamental problem: inconsistency. It starts out by saying that we do not have the facts and figures necessary to legislate, so therefore we should have this IP Observatory to get those facts and figures. Then the report goes on to criticise the Commission for not having proposed legislation. It goes on to propose non-legislative measures, etc.
I agree with what was said at the outset: we do not have the facts and figures available to us as policy makers; that is the fundamental problem and is the reason why the European institutions have been unsuccessful in finding a good policy for these matters. I therefore recommend the Verts/ALE, S&D and GUE/NGL resolution, which states that we should by all means get the facts and figures, then consider what to do, and then we can legislate.
Peter Jahr
(DE) Mr President, the different regulations in the Member States in the area of intellectual property prevent this intellectual property from being protected everywhere to the same high degree. That has a detrimental effect on the freedom of the internal market and hinders innovation and investment in this area. Infringements of intellectual property rights are also occurring more and more frequently in connection with organised crime. Unfortunately, the Internet provides an easy-to-use platform for this purpose.
A uniformly high level of protection can therefore only be achieved by means of a targeted common approach by the European Union. Harmonisation of national regulations is therefore to be welcomed and it is a necessary prerequisite for the functioning of the internal market.
Many thanks to the rapporteur, who has taken up an important subject here. I am sure that we will be debating this subject many more times in this House.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) As rapporteur for the opinion of the IMCO committee, I am disappointed that my colleague, Mrs Gallo, has not stuck to the text of our recommendations. In the meantime, of course, in response to my question, the European Commission has confirmed that it will address the proposal to create European protection for registered trademarks as early as next year. Thank you, Commissioner. We must combat counterfeits, particularly from Asia, with all of the available resources which the Gallo report rightly proposes. I am, of course, sorry that such an unbridgeable gap has opened up between Members in relation to the fight against the downloading of copyright works from the Internet. The mass communication of copyright works on the Internet must be regulated, but it should be done through balanced measures, and not by criminalising high school students. Copyright law is not properly set up in Europe, and it does not provide modern rules to support authors and the broad use of their works by the public. On the contrary, it rather gives precedence to the interests of copyright holders and collective administrators at the expense of the actual authors and users of works. It worries me that this report does not even have the ambition to formulate a much-needed balance for copyright law in the digital world.
President
I am sure the Commission can satisfy everybody. Mr Barnier, you have the floor.
Michel Barnier
Mr President, I always listen very carefully to what the Members of the European Parliament say. The Commission cannot know everything and always has need of these analyses and proposals. This is why I should like to offer my very sincere thanks to Mrs Gallo and to Parliament for the interest it continues to show - this report is additional evidence of this - in the improvement and strengthening of respect for intellectual property rights.
I know that this report has been debated on numerous occasions, and this is quite normal. However, I think that it offers a good balance between all the interests at stake. I should like to say once again, in particular, echoing the comments of Mr Borys and Mr Rübig, that effective protection of intellectual property actually fosters creativity and innovation and safeguards jobs in France.
Let me add, however, that, when we talk about protection and fair remuneration for creation, we are referring not only to cultural or industrial creation but to a particular notion of democracy as well. Here I am thinking of the work of journalists in the written press, which also deserves to be protected and properly remunerated. Then - I think it was Mr Borys who referred to health problems - we also know what the risks associated with counterfeiting generally involve.
I should like to highlight, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's commitment to working very closely with all the parliamentary groups over the coming months in order to step up the fight against counterfeiting and piracy, which Mrs Roithová has just mentioned. The Commission is going to continue its battle against breaches of intellectual property, using both legislative and non-legislative measures. I also think that any fight must necessarily be combined with positive measures, such as the promotion and development of legal products.
I should like to emphasis the need, as it appears to me, to increase awareness amongst citizens and, of course, amongst young people - but not only young people - of these phenomena using - and I should here like to echo the request from Mr Engström - indisputable statistical information on the consequences and the extent of counterfeiting and piracy, and also an analysis, which must be as fair as possible, of their impact on society and the economy. This is a point which Mr Enciu mentioned a moment ago.
The Commission will pay particular attention to the development of the Observatory and of the other measures announced in our communication of September 2009 relating to administrative cooperation and inter-industrial dialogue.
Next autumn, ladies and gentlemen, I shall present an action plan dealing with all these counterfeiting issues and all aspects of counterfeiting and piracy. This action plan will be specifically based, in terms of communication, research and the training of border control personnel in each of our countries, on the work and expertise of the Observatory that we are going to establish in a very credible and very concrete manner.
We shall also pay particular attention to improving the legislative framework relating to respect for intellectual property and - of course, I am addressing this to Mr Jahr - a European framework. The solution will be based on a balanced, proportionate approach that respects the fundamental rights of citizens. Moreover, I should like to say to Mrs Lichtenberger that, as I have also said before your committees, we do not intend to criminalise certain behaviour in any way, in particular, that of young people. That is not what this is about.
The Commission is preparing a report on Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights for the autumn. I therefore wish to confirm to Mr Manders, who was asking me about this issue, but, in particular, to say to your rapporteur, Mrs Gallo, who highlighted this point, that it is on the basis of this report that we will table - as I believe will be necessary - some amendments to this text to improve the enforcement of intellectual property rights in Europe.
President
Thank you, Commissioner. That was very well received.
That concludes the item.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday, 21 September 2010) at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Proinsias De Rossa
in writing. - I opposed the Gallo Report as a regressive and unworkable proposal going against the openness of the Internet and fundamental rights and leaving many issues in a legal grey zone. Not least, it confuses counterfeiting with file-sharing. The S&D Group tabled an alternative resolution focusing on the need to protect the rights and interests of the artists and workers of the creative industries and, at the same time, on the need to ensure broad access to cultural goods and services for European consumers. It is a constructive and progressive vision on IPR enforcement seeking the development of a fair, balanced and forward-looking framework for Intellectual Property Rights in Europe to the benefit of both creators and consumers. Importantly, it distinguished between how commercial and non-commercial file-sharing is dealt with, opposing the criminalisation of the latter. The alternative resolution also sought to guarantee net neutrality, protect personal data and other fundamental rights, ensure judicial redress; oppose non-judicial measures of enforcing copyrights; reject the three strikes law (Hadopi) being introduced Europe-wide; and proposed the creation of innovative alternative business models. Note, this is a non-legislative Report. The Commission is due to bring forward legislative proposals shortly.
Adam Gierek
Intellectual property is a broad concept which covers patent law, trademarks and logos, as well as copyright. The report restricts itself to addressing the issue of piracy involving the infringement of copyright, which generally means another party's trademark. The report deals with the enforcement of intellectual property rights through the creation of the Observatory, the implementation of administrative procedures, and the relevant international agreements. Trademarks are used to distinguish goods or services belonging to different economic operators. Entities engaged in unfair trade practices may try to exploit the reputation of a certain product or service on the market. All the proposed methods of combating piracy involve developing a kind of policing system, funded by the taxpayer. What we, in fact, need are efforts to strengthen customs authorities, mainly in order to improve the detection of threats such as harmful plant protection products, counterfeit medication, harmful food products and animal feeds. The liberals are, on the one hand, attempting to weaken any state which produces cheap products while, on the other, they are forcing it into protecting monopolies. These matters could be left to sectoral associations to resolve. The state's only role should be to settle possible disputes. In order to achieve this goal, the European Union needs to draw up and implement legislation on patents, utility models and trademarks registered to date, as well as copyright legislation. We also need to improve the monitoring of the European Union's external borders, the excessive influx of goods from third countries, which compete with EU products, and the quality of those goods.
Jiří Maštálka
Enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market (Mario Gallo,. This report, while containing a number of valuable ideas and conclusions, is unfortunately a typical example of the lack of planning and even indecision in the area of intellectual property rights at Community level. Of course, an even more striking example of this kind would be the Commission communication entitled 'Enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market' (COM 2009(467), to which the report, among other things, refers. I consider it particularly alarming that the Commission has still not managed to conduct a thorough analysis of the effects of Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the field of intellectual property rights. The continuing lack of a Community patent is a major barrier to the construction of an effective Community system for protecting intellectual property rights. The final comment relates to the proposal to create a European centre for monitoring counterfeits and piracy. There is no need for further bodies, bureaucracy and costs. The Commission has sufficient resources to handle the tasks that are to be assigned to the centre itself.
Iosif Matula
I welcome the drafting of this resolution, the provisions of which largely relate to the spheres of culture and education, which is a committee I sit on. It is widely acknowledged that not only scientific and technical innovation, but also cultural activities make a vital contribution to the European economy's competitiveness. European education and development policy must be based on passing on knowledge, disseminating information and facilitating access for the widest possible audience to technological progress and the products of cultural creativity. To achieve this, better conditions need to be provided in terms of cost to the consumer, including access to services with an unlimited subscription or at a low cost, especially in educational, cultural and non-commercial institutions. I would therefore like to make a helpful distinction between use for educational purposes and use for commercial purposes, which would obviously help boost innovation at European level. At the same time, it is important for us to educate our young public so that they understand the issues involved with intellectual property. Another key aspect is protecting the incomes of the authors of works. This measure requires strict rules regulating the use of these products or services by third parties. Last but not least, greater attention must be focused on orphan works, a point which does not feature in the draft resolution.
Sirpa Pietikäinen
Theft is always theft. Stealing a recoding online is like stealing the same content from a record shop. Nevertheless, attitudes to Internet piracy, or theft, are still a lot laxer and more lenient than those to shoplifting. We need to take a serious view of Internet piracy. The information networks are a practical, effective and natural means of disseminating digital content, but that does not mean that their creative content must be freely available to everyone, without any sort of payment being made. Unfortunately, some of those opposing this report seem to think it does. The future of the creative sector, and it is the same for any sector, depends on whether people are paid for the work they do or not. When the fees of musicians, actors or film directors fall into the clutches of pirates, the result is cultural impoverishment, as professional artists are unable to make a living. Is that what we want? Another option which the report, to its credit, proposes is to evolve fair rules for the information networks to protect copyright. They would be based on an old precept, for which the law has existed from time immemorial: do not steal.


1. Sudan and the International Criminal Court (ICC) (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Sudan and the International Criminal Court.
Jean Lambert
author. - Madam President, once again we are returning to the topic of Sudan and what can be done to call the Government there to account for the suffering of the people of that country, and indeed for the effects on neighbouring states.
This afternoon's resolution particularly concerns the International Criminal Court, and the fact that, over a year ago now, two arrest warrants were issued by that Court for Ahmad Haroun, the Minister of the Interior at the time, who is now the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs - which I think many of us find deeply shocking - and also for one of the former Janjaweed militia leaders, Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman.
We have seen absolutely no cooperation from the Sudanese Government in handing these people over to the International Criminal Court, although that Government is well aware that membership of the United Nations carries with it obligations. We are seeing an ongoing culture of impunity, where nobody is ever brought to account, it seems, for the most appalling crimes.
We consider that all governments should be taking a strong stance on this, and the resolution says that we should be calling on the General Affairs and External Relations Council in June to adopt targeted EU punitive measures against a clearly identified group of Sudanese officials who bear responsibility for this non-cooperation, with that action including clear financial sanctions - it appears that when the cries of people do not work, maybe stopping the flow of money will.
My group commends this resolution to the House. We look forward to firm action and hopefully seeing these men, and others, brought to justice.
Erik Meijer
author. - (NL) Madam President, a year ago we also had an urgent debate about Sudan. Since then the situation has become worse, not better. The agreement between the Islamic north and the non-Islamic south, reached after a long internal war, is under pressure. The temporary cooperation in a transitional government and preparation of the referendum on independence for the south in 2011 are under pressure because the borders of those areas have not been finally demarcated. Control of the oil-rich middle area is now the cause of further violence.
Also, the peace settlement does not apply to west Darfur, since Arab nomads and solders have driven out most of the black population to neighbouring Chad. This is a conflict not between supporters of Islam and Christianity, but between nomads and the settled agricultural population for control of arid land that produces very little. Because of population growth and desertification, the people are losing their traditional sources of livelihood and turning against each other. The government is also responsible for driving out the originally non-Arab population. There is now fighting from Darfur back as far as the capital, Khartoum.
Even when what is now Sudan was known as Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, it was debatable whether this huge area with widely differing populations should become independent as a single state. A unified state would mainly be the state of the Arab populations in the north, east and centre. It would be difficult for the black Islamic population in the west and the black Christians and animists in the south to gain an equal position. The regions that were at the time much less developed were far from the sea and were given very little international attention. Ultimately no one took any notice of them and we are now seeing the results of colonial shortsightedness.
The state is responsible for many crimes, but at the same time it is largely an instrument for one of the warring parties. That makes it difficult for it to cooperate with punitive measures. Obviously we are trying to keep the prospect of that open in the resolution, but in the current situation there is little cause for optimism.
Filip Kaczmarek
author. - (PL) It is really shocking that the Sudanese government has appointed Mr Haroun (the former interior minister responsible for Darfur during 2003-2004) as the minister for humanitarian affairs. It is a sick joke that he has been given responsibility for the lives and security of the inhabitants of Darfur, when it was the same person who had persecuted them earlier, and that decisions concerning the largest humanitarian operation run by the UNAMID international peace mission are in his hands. Let us not forget that the purpose of this mission is to protect civilians from crimes, that is, just the kind of actions that Mr Haroun was involved in.
The international community, the European Union, the African Union, the UN, the Arab League, all these organisations should put maximum pressure on the Sudanese government so that these people should finally answer to the International Criminal Court.
Leopold Józef Rutowicz
author. - (PL) Madam President, Sudan is an enormous country covering an area of 2.5 million square kilometres, with a population of about 42 million people, that has been destroyed by two civil wars that claimed millions of victims and resulted in disability, degradation, and the destruction of property for many more millions of its inhabitants. One issue that was at the basis of the fratricidal conflicts was ethnic differences - 52% of the population are African, 39% Arab - and religious differences - 70% are Sunni, 30% are animist.
During these wars the population experienced all possible atrocities at the hands of those with armaments and power, including murder, torture, rape, robbery and eviction, crimes that are prosecuted and punished by the International Criminal Court. Unfortunately the ICC does not have the means to bring the perpetrators to justice. The resolution presents the European view as regards the current situation and I support it. I do think, however, that in these circumstances it would be worth considering the use of a more radical approach, for example, using UN special forces to take the accused to the ICC, and then imprisoning those found guilty and interning them for life, with no right of return, on some distant island with some telling name such as Evildoers' Island. I think that this would help.
Marios Matsakis
author. - Madam President, the UN estimates that the conflict in Sudan has resulted in about 300 000 deaths and has left approximately 2.5 million refugees.
Reports of untold acts of barbarism taking place in the region have abounded in recent years. The suffering of the innocent civilian population has been extreme. Those that allegedly were responsible for instigating or carrying out war crimes or crimes against humanity should face the law and, if found guilty, must be punished accordingly.
This is not just necessary as a matter of natural justice but also in order to make sure that such individuals are prevented from repeating their crimes and that adequate example is given to other potential criminals to prevent them from carrying out similar crimes.
The International Criminal Court was formed in order to make sure that those that commit war crimes and crimes against humanity do not go unpunished. Sudan has signed the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Court but has not yet ratified it.
This is no excuse for not offering this court its full cooperation in according with UN Security Council Resolution 1593. The International Criminal Court issued two arrest warrants against Sudan's former Minister of the Interior, Mr Ahmad Haroun, and against the militia leader Ali Mohammed Ali Abd-al-Rahman. The warrants relate to 51 counts of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. For more than a year now the Sudanese authorities have refused to hand over these individuals and are thus obstructing the work of the International Court.
This is absolutely and utterly unacceptable. Such behaviour makes the Sudanese Government an accomplice of these alleged criminals. We call on Sudan to think again, and think fast, about the grave position they have placed themselves in by protecting these alleged mass killers from the arm of international law. We hope they will come to their senses and abide by the request of the International Court immediately.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) It is pretty scandalous when a country that is a member of the United Nations fails to respect calls addressed to it by the Security Council of that organisation for assistance to be provided to the International Criminal Court. What can the international community do when the foreign minister in Sudan refuses to provide such help and also declares that the Court has no right to judge any Sudanese citizen and that the Sudanese government will not allow any Sudanese citizen to be tried and sentenced outside of its national courts?
We are in quite a difficult situation, since, to a certain degree, Sudan is not dependent on aid either from the European Union or the United States or the other western democracies, but has based its development on assistance from China. China, a country that, unfortunately, does not concern itself with human rights, even within its own borders. The only reaction that is possible from our side is to ask for the assets of the Sudanese leaders to be frozen.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Since 2003 the conflict in Sudan has claimed 300 000 victims. Two and a half million people have left their homes to escape from the violence. Despite the partial stabilisation in the country, there are constant clashes between government forces and the rebels, which makes it difficult to use UN peacekeeping forces and to provide humanitarian aid. No lasting resolution of the Sudanese conflict will be possible without the involvement of the UN and without the UN increasing the number of soldiers in the region. The recruitment of children into the army and acts of violence against the civilian population, particularly against women, are clear breaches of international standards and human rights.
What is particularly worrying is the failure of the government to cooperate with the International Criminal Court as well as maintaining war criminals in power, who - and this sounds like some sick joke - are now in charge, among other things, of distributing humanitarian aid as well as contacts with the peacekeepers. A call should be made to Sudan to start cooperating immediately with the Court in order to deal with the war crimes, since this is a necessary condition for the creation of democracy and the rule of law. All attempts to disrupt the peace agreement and the military assistance coming from third countries, for both sides of the conflict, should be condemned.
Ewa Tomaszewska
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, since 2003 Sudan has been a battleground due to religious and ethnic differences. The conflict in Darfur resulted in the exodus of over two and half million people. Civilian victims of this conflict have been murdered, beaten and raped. There is widespread hunger and there is a lack of basic hygiene. Children, orphaned, lost, have no possibility of education or a decent future. Ever more restrictions are placed on humanitarian missions. The Sudanese conflict has resulted in a breakdown of civilisation in Darfur and Chad.
The Sudanese government has refused to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, derides the ICC, which issued arrest warrants for war criminals and is unable, or just does not want to, remedy the situation. Following the attack on Omdurman on 10 and 11 May, another 200 people lost their lives.
We call on the authorities in Sudan to start cooperating immediately with the International Criminal Court. We expect the Council of Europe to take decisive steps to block access to European Union banks to those identified as financing conflict in Darfur and to freeze their assets.
Jana Hybášková
(CS) Having been a participant in the European Parliament's fact-finding mission to Darfur and Chad in 2004, I am a responsible political traveller. I was present when a twelve-year old raped mother, when asked her child's name, answered: 'I do not know; the child has no name'. Therefore, we call on Sudan to ratify the Rome Statute, to cooperate without delay in accordance with Resolution 1593 and to immediately hand over Ali Kushayb and Ahmad Harun. Most of all, though, we are asking Europeans to demand in their negotiations with the League of Arab States, and in particular with China, that China and the League of Arab States apply strict policies in relations with Sudan. These are the partners who can help us. We would call on the Council and the Commission to keep us informed of their negotiations.
Marianne Mikko
(ET) Colleagues, Sudan is a country which has exercised its right to be different. A country where violence, terror and rape on a large scale are everyday, non-punishable events. A country based on values other than human rights. The situation is critical: over the five years since the start of the Darfur conflict more than 200 000 people have lost their lives. Individuals who have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes live in freedom; some of them have respectable posts in Sudan.
The judicial system in Sudan is unable and unwilling to tackle the situation in Darfur. Reform is needed; the system must be based on internationally recognised human rights norms. Impunity must be brought to an end. Cooperation on the part of the Sudanese government with the International Criminal Court is desperately needed. It must ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and bring war criminals to justice. The situation must not change now, it must change right now.
Marcin Libicki
(PL) Today, as on many such occasions when we have discussed killing and breaches of human rights in the world, we talk about who is responsible over there, on the spot. However, it would seem to me that the situation requires deeper analysis since, behind these conflicts, there is always the trade in arms and oil. This trade in arms and oil is not organised exclusively by people in those locations, whom we often treat as being worse people, but it is organised by people in the group of nations that have a more developed sense of responsibility and should have a more developed sense of responsibility for others. If it were not for the interests of these people then it is very likely that the crimes that we usually discuss on Thursday afternoons, just as today we are discussing Sudan, would not exist.
Kathy Sinnott
Madam President, repeatedly on Thursday afternoons we discuss Sudan because the atrocities against human rights continue: murder, rape, abduction, child abduction and confiscation of property. Poor security continues to be a problem for the men, women and children of Sudan, but also for people working in the humanitarian field.
This disregard of the jurisdiction of the ICC has led to criminals being allowed to walk free, particularly high-profile people like the former Minister for the Interior and a former Janjaweed military leader. We must urge Sudan, with all the powers we can, to ratify the Rome Statute.
I once again adamantly call on the EU and the rest of the international community to exercise moral and social responsibility by taking decisive steps - which include confronting China with the part that it plays in Sudan and the arms trade that keeps this situation going - to protect the people of Sudan and the refugees in neighbouring Chad, and to end this conflict.
Louis Michel
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, in 2004, the European Union called on the United Nations to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the atrocities and crimes committed in Darfur. On the basis of the recommendations made by this Committee, the European Union asked the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court, which the Council did by adopting Resolution 1593 in 2005.
Over the past few months, the European Union has repeatedly called on the Sudanese Government to cooperate unconditionally with the ICC.
On 31 March 2008, the anniversary of the Security Council's referral of the situation in Darfur to the ICC, the EU Presidency adopted a Declaration on behalf of the European Union expressing its outrage at the Sudanese Government's failure to cooperate with the Court. The European Union also expressed its willingness to support the adoption of new appropriate measures against those persons who bear responsibility for Sudan's non-cooperation with the ICC, should the Sudanese Government still fail to comply with the UN Resolution.
On 6 May 2008, I attended a meeting between donors and the Sudanese Government - the Sudan Consortium - which was held in Oslo. At this meeting, I reminded my Sudanese interlocutors, while addressing the conference, that our development aid is intended to support development in Sudan subject to a genuine democratic transformation taking place in the country, as provided for in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. I emphasised that the principles underlying the CPA must likewise apply to Darfur and that there was an urgent need to restore security, deploy the United Nations Mission and facilitate humanitarian access. The recent outbreak of violence in Abyei, a region fraught with complex problems that represent one of the major challenges in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan, emphasises the importance of implementing in full the CPA. I have just published a press release calling on both parties to comply with all CPA provisions, including the establishment of an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of other armed factions from the town of Abyei.
The Sudanese Government must know that the international community as a whole will remain faithful to the vision set out in the CPA of a peaceful, stable and democratic Sudan that demonstrates respect for the rule of law and for human rights. This message is not directed solely at the Sudanese Government - it must also be understood by the various armed rebel movements whose political cause, whatever it may be, does not justify committing crimes. The Court has issued a number of arrest warrants, including one against Ali Kushayb, a Janjaweed militia leader.
The meeting of the UN Security Council, which will take place on 5 June in the presence of the ICC Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, may be an important opportunity for the international community to present a united front and to send a strong signal in support of the Court's work. The External Relations Council scheduled for late June will most probably address the issue.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debates.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Glyn Ford
in writing. - I want to join in condemning Sudan's persistent failure to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and to hand over to the ICC Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb.
To date the conflict in Sudan has claimed 300 000 victims and created two and a half million internally displaced persons. Yet we continue to deliver aid via Ahmad Harun's Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs. I ask the Commission and Member States to cease such deliveries via this ministry, to press the Government of Sudan to remove him from office and to immediately arrest and hand him over to the ICC.
It is all very well to lecture China on its failure to act over Darfur, but in this case the EU is as weak-willed as the rest.


6. Organ donation and transplantation: Policy actions at EU level (
- Before the vote:
Adamos Adamou
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although the use of human organs for transplantation has increased steadily over recent decades, the number of individuals who need transplants exceeds the number of organs available. Over 50 000 patients are on waiting lists in Europe, and 10 people, awaiting organs die every day. It is up to us to send a strong message to the Commission, and, above all, to Member States and our governments.
The time has come to take action as European citizens. We need to mobilise, coordinate, raise awareness among those around us and become donors ourselves.
(Applause)
- Before the vote on paragraph 38:
Marios Matsakis
Mr President, very briefly, this is a short amendment to make Amendment 2 to paragraph 38 stronger in its meaning with respect to the rights of the donor. The amendment is to add, after 'donate an organ', the words 'is the exclusive right of the donor and'.
(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)


Taxation of unleaded petrol and gas oil (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/96/EC as regards the adjustment of special tax arrangements for gas oil used as motor fuel for commercial purposes and the coordination of taxation of unleaded petrol and gas oil used as motor fuel - C6-0109/2007 -.
László Kovács
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I very much appreciate the support of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to the Commission proposal and in particular the efforts of the rapporteur, Mr Schmidt, to find a compromise.
As you know, the Commission proposal was presented in March 2007. Our objective was to raise and approximate the minimum levels of excise duty on diesel and unleaded petrol in order to maintain the real value of the minima, and to approximate the national rates in order to significantly reduce what is known as 'fuel tourism'.
The reduction of fuel tourism would not only ensure the proper functioning of the internal market for the hauliers, but would reduce the extra kilometres and consequently the extra greenhouse gas emissions, which are detrimental to the environment.
I should stress that, during the Council discussions, a large number of Member States have underlined the positive effect of the Commission proposal on the environment, particularly on climate change and global warming and the proper functioning of the internal market.
As regards Mr Schmidt's report, I appreciate very much the positive attitude to the Commission proposal taken in the report and the efforts made by the rapporteur to find a compromise position acceptable to all. However, the Commission cannot accept most of the amendments suggested in the report. Let me elaborate on it.
The Commission is opposed to any suggestion that would undermine finding a long-term solution to the problem of fuel tourism - which is detrimental to the environment - and to the distortions of competition in the internal market.
As regards the transitional periods suggested in our proposal, this approach is based on the principle of equal treatment of the old and new Member States and is, therefore, well-balanced in our view. The Commission, however, recognises that this is a political issue which will have to be discussed further in Council.
I would also like to explain that the proposal takes into account the competitiveness aspect of the EU through the suggested modest rate increases. They simply maintain the real value of the minimum levels of taxation by keeping up with expected inflation until 2017. The Commission considers that its own proposal takes all relevant factors into account. It does not consider it appropriate to endorse a less ambitious plan or a more far-reaching one to increase minimum levels of taxation as suggested in Amendments 18 and 25.
As regards Amendments 4 and 10 introducing a new definition of commercial diesel for motor vehicles not less than 3.5 t, I would like to clarify that the suggestion was not included in the original proposal. However, it is one of the main points of discussions in the Council where the Commission will follow the debate, bearing in mind the opinion expressed by the Parliament.
The Commission can accept in principle Amendments 7 and 27 supporting the objective of reducing CO2 emissions. However, it should be remembered that according to the principle of subsidiarity, it is a matter for each Member State to decide the way in which they wish to distribute their tax revenue.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope that Parliament can deliver a supportive opinion on the Commission proposal sending a positive signal to the Council to give a response to the concerns of Member States having problems with fuel tourism and, at the same time, achieving environmental objectives.
Olle Schmidt
rapporteur. - (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, the fact that taxes at EU level are a sensitive subject is demonstrated by the work on this report. I thought that the broad consensus on the need to do something radical in order to cope with the demands of climate change would make it easier to gain sympathy for some really tough proposals. That was not how things turned out.
Of course I can understand Mrs Rühle's criticism of the level of ambition, but at the same time the work in our Parliament focuses on reaching reasonable compromises - something the Commissioner also mentioned - which can be implemented throughout our Union. Here I yielded to arguments regarding both the scale of the tax increases and the period of implementation.
Excellent cooperation from my colleagues, Mr Becsey and Mr Rosati, led me to realise that, if we were to get a report through at all, I had to adjust the level without the purpose of my original proposals being entirely frustrated. The Commission's proposal was rejected in its entirety. I did not gain everything, but nor did I lose everything. Navigating between the rocks of Luxembourg and the Greens was not an altogether simple matter.
Emissions from transport are increasing substantially. We must do something about that. The fact that the EU Member States are competing with different levels of tax on diesel is therefore neither reasonable nor right, as the Commissioner correctly indicates. No one can think that it is good for the internal market that giant lorries should make long detours in order to fill up with cheap diesel in places such as Luxembourg. This so-called fuel tourism is not only bad for the environment, it distorts competition as well. Besides, it leads to losses of tax revenue. Moreover, there is no reason to have separate taxes on unleaded petrol and diesel.
So a compromise was reached here, which got more or less unanimous support in the committee. The minimum taxes on diesel are raised more slowly than proposed by the Commission, from 302 euros per 1 000 litres at present to the same level as the tax on unleaded petrol, 359 euros per 1 000 litres, by 2015. The Commission wanted to see an increase already in 2012.
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania would be given until 1 January 2016 to introduce the higher minimum tax. The Commission wants to raise the minimum tax to 380 euros per 1 000 litres by 2014. In order to avoid further distortion of competition, the committee considers that those countries which have tax rates of over 400 euros per 1 000 litres on diesel and 500 euros per 1 000 litres on unleaded petrol should not raise their tax rates on these fuels before 2015.
Mr President, Commissioner, clearly this is a very sensitive question, in particular having regard to subsidiarity. Nevertheless it is a possible way forward towards increased convergence of tax levels. At the same time, we know that inevitable environmental demands will exert an influence on future assessments of the use of financial controls.
To those who do not think I have been sufficiently tough in my demands and that I have chipped away at the level of ambition I will say: in substance, I am with you. We should have agreed on higher levels and shorter implementation periods, as the Commission and the Commissioner have said, but the EU today is not the same EU as it was only five years ago - happily, I would add.
The economic preconditions for harmonising taxes are not the same as they were. If we are to tackle cross-border emissions, we must find reasonable compromises with which everyone can live. We must all realise that.
Besides, I would add that many of the old Member States merit criticism since they have not followed decisions on tax increases taken previously. Purchasing power and inflation considerations have also been taken into account in the committee's conclusions.
The price of oil is currently hitting new records. I last heard on the news that it was close to 110 dollars a barrel.
Now there is broad agreement on gradual tax convergence which I also hope the Commissioner sees - at least in the committee - and I hope to get the support of my colleagues in the House tomorrow, broad support so that we can get a report that can serve as a basis for further work.
Zsolt László Becsey
on behalf of the PPE-DE group. - (HU) Thank you, Mr President. I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Schmidt, on his excellent work. I believe today represents a breakthrough, as we have managed to hammer out a common parliamentary position on a broad consensual basis. I think it is important to preserve here in plenary the common voice we found in our committee. It is a success because we managed to set a minimum and maximum rate of excise duty to meet anti-inflationary objectives but ignored the idea of abolishing regulation in its entirety. It is better to have an opinion than not to provide one at all, which would leave only the Commission proposal on the table. It is a success because everyone is sacrificing something. Countries with high rates of taxation are ready to freeze their current high rates in the interests of convergence, while low-rate countries are willing to accept some increase relative to the legislation currently in force in relation to diesel.
The biggest sacrifice in this regard is being made by the newly acceded Baltic and Balkan states, as prices and incomes in these countries are lower and they have taken on a huge challenge in terms of inflation and competitiveness, and also in the social sphere, particularly in the run-up to introducing the euro. It is a success because it would halt Parliament's request show, its 'cherry-picking'. By the end of 2015 everyone would fall within the proposed band, and there would no longer be a whole series of inexplicable individual exceptions. This will enable us to reinforce the gravitas of European legislation. I think discipline is important, and we therefore ask the Commission to provide an interim report on compliance in 2010, to check whether the adjusters are actually adjusting or merely dissembling. It is a success because the Council will see that there is a way to achieve the desired convergence, while the Commission will grasp Parliament's philosophy, namely minimum and maximum rates, with the key point being to reduce rather than induce inflation. It can reflect on this in future, too, when putting forward the scheduled Commission proposal on excise duties. Thank you for your attention, Mr President.
Dariusz Rosati
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the Commission's proposal on taxation of unleaded petrol and diesel oil is aimed at limiting the excessive use of fuel in transport and thus reducing environmental pollution.
The Commission also hopes that its proposal will assist in reducing the differences in the excise duty rates imposed by individual Member States, thus contributing to creating more equal conditions for competition on the single market. In general, these aims are desirable and merit support. At the same time, however, the Commission's proposal contains solutions that may have negative implications for the economies of the Member States. The former include: additional increases in the cost of fuel and increased inflation, higher costs and a reduction in the competitiveness of European enterprises, and a reduction of the purchasing power of households. These implications may be particularly noticeable when oil prices on the world markets are exceptionally high, as is the case at present. In addition, the Commission's proposals are such that the main burden of adjustment to the new rates would have to be borne by the least developed Member States of the Union, which is a matter of great concern: hence the amendments proposed in Mr Schmidt's report, which are aimed at minimising such negative implications, whilst not undermining the main aims of the Commission's proposals.
In the framework of the compromise reached between the main groups, we call for the introduction of three main changes to the Commission's initial draft. Firstly, we propose reducing the target minimum rate of excise duty on fuel from EUR 380 per 1 000 litres to EUR 359 per 1 000 litres. Secondly, we propose a two-year extension of the transitional period for introduction of the new rates in the new Member States, taking it to 2016. Thirdly, we propose imposing a requirement whereby the Member States that currently impose the highest excise duty rates on fuel would undertake not to raise them before 2015, thus facilitating the process of harmonising excise duty rates.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to emphasise that reaching a compromise was no easy task. It called for concessions and a display of good will on the part of all those who participated in discussions within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I should like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Schmidt for his hard work on this compromise and congratulate him on the successful outcome. Clearly this compromise does not fully satisfy everyone involved, but it does represent an attempt to reconcile a range of aims and points of view. It also represents a step forward along the way to reducing differences in rates of excise duty within the Union. I call on the Members of the House to support this compromise and adopt the Schmidt report.
Dariusz Maciej Grabowski
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the President-in-Office of the European Union and the Commissioners tend to begin their interventions with declarations on the protection and support of economic freedoms, freedom of competition and SMEs. The transition from declarations to details generally involves reports similar to the one we are debating today, however.
The report proposes imposing a single rate of excise duty on all Member States and harmonisation of prices, on the pretext of making things more straightforward, easier and fairer. This is taking place against the background of a premise considered a priori to be correct, namely that the best solution for the Member States of the European Union is a single tax system, a single monetary system, a single system for certification and marketing, a single regulatory production limits system and so on.
The proposal states that there are no differences in the cost of fuel supply within the Union, regardless of distance from sources of supply or labour costs. All this is simply untrue. I should like to pose the question as to what economic freedom and freedom of competition within the European Union actually mean. Should we not be referring instead to economic compulsion and force? Is it not the case that a single fuel price eliminating all competition is the ideal solution for multinational fuel enterprises to the detriment of consumers and small enterprises? Is it not the case that a single fuel price favours highly developed countries over less developed ones? Finally, if the Union adopts the aforementioned report, harmonising fuel prices under the slogan of unshackling enterprises and countries, will this not amount in fact to shackling them anew by way of taxation? Worse, will it not simultaneously drive them barefoot into poverty? We shall be voting against the report.
Cornelis Visser
(NL) Mr President, this is the first time that I have spoken in plenary. I hope to be able to represent the interests of the Dutch citizens of Europe here both now and in the future.
There was much negotiation before the drafting of this in-depth report by Mr Schmidt. I am glad that the rapporteur and the other groups have finally reached this compromise. The Commission proposal seeks to raise the excise tariffs in stages and so reduce the difference between the Member States.
The environmental argument has a role to play, but I believe that the increase in fuel prices is already a sufficiently motivating factor. Moreover, the Commission uses distortion of competition as an argument for raising the minimum excise rate on diesel for professional use. I am astonished that fuel tourism is used as an argument for raising the minimum excise on diesel for professional use, as this argument is excessively strong. Fuel tourism is a marginal phenomenon in the transport industry, with little influence on mutual competitive positions and the functioning of the internal market.
The Commission proposes a sharp increase in the minimum rate, to 380 euro per 1 000 litres. I believe that such an increase in conjunction with the already extremely high fuel prices will have too great an impact on the consumer's purse and on inflation. The EP's committee eventually settled on an increase to 359 euro per 1 000 litres by 1 January 2015. The Netherlands is already over this target.
There is one more thing. The transport sector is rightly complaining that the steadily increasing excise is driving fuel prices steeply upwards. The Commission proposal on the harmonisation of diesel excise has no upper limit. Differences would thus continue to exist. Parliament believes that the Member States must freeze the excise tariff on diesel at 400 euro per 1 000 litres until 1 January 2015.
Finally, I hope that when the finance ministers make their decision they will give priority to the interests of the consumer as regards purchasing power and limiting inflation.
Elisa Ferreira
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, this report deals with a highly sensitive matter of European economic policy, namely taxation, as it covers special taxes on petrol and gas oil used in commercial transport. These taxes are an important source of tax revenue for many Member States. However, the lack of viable alternatives for fuelling the commercial goods transport fleet means that fuel prices are a strategic factor in the competitiveness of many countries.
The recognition of Member States' freedom to impose special consumption taxes is not in doubt. However, as these taxes directly affect the prices of goods sold, excessive differences have a direct impact on the functioning of the internal market. As has already been mentioned, they also lead to cross-border movements and environmental impacts caused by these movements.
The compromise reached in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is truly a compromise and I should like, in that regard, to praise the work of all the shadow rapporteurs, and in particular the main rapporteur, Mr Schmidt. I cannot ignore the fact that some would like the minimum level to more clearly reflect our prevailing environmental concerns. However, I personally doubt that, given the current level of oil prices, the reinforcement of this kind of message by means of taxation is necessary. The choice has therefore been made to bring the minimum and maximum levels of taxation closer, which, by partly sacrificing these environmental concerns in the opinion of some people, will allow the distortions of competition due to taxation to be reduced. A major effort has been made and we hope that this will receive due recognition from the Commission and the Council and that it will allow further progress to be made on taxation within the European Union.
Astrid Lulling
(FR) Mr President, if Mrs Kauppi does not arrive she is allowing me to use her two minutes, since she is hosting an important dinner-debate.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report by our Liberal colleague Olle Schmidt relates to a new confrontation between the House and the European Commission, which has proposed an unjustifiable increase in indirect taxes. This proposal was made by a Commissioner that I feel has completely lost touch with economic reality. Mr Kovács suggests a considerable increase in the minimum rates for unleaded petrol and gas oil. In view of the record inflation, a cause of great concern to the European Central Bank, and the economic downturn we are currently witnessing, it seems to me that this is a particularly bad time to increase the excise duty rate on gas oil and fuel oil.
Personally, I must say that I would simply have rejected this uninspiring proposal by the Commission, but majority situations being what they are in the House I was unable to do so. I support the compromise reached by the EP's main political groups as I feel it constitutes an exercise in damage limitation.
The gradual increase of minimum rates for diesel to 359 euro for 1 000 litres until 2015 and a freeze on minimum rates for the same amount of unleaded petrol, as stipulated in the compromise, are clearly below the levels proposed by the Commission. The Commission was, in fact, suggesting 380 euro for both diesel and unleaded petrol by 2014. The rapporteur wanted to go even further in his report and was seeking minimum levels of 400 euro. I welcome the willingness to compromise on the part of our rapporteur, who brought the rates down during the discussions on his report in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
The real meat of this report is to be found in Amendment 19, in my opinion. Here we require the Member States, now applying exorbitant excise duty of over 400 euro for 1 000 litres of diesel and 500 euro for 1 000 litres of unleaded petrol, not to increase these rates any further until 2015. Therefore, without going so far as to introduce maximum rates in the proposal, for the Commission has never had the courage to propose these, we are at the very least expressing the desire for price alignment.
Mr President, there is only one way to ensure harmonisation of excise duty rates in Europe: introducing maximum and minimum rates at the same time. It serves no purpose to continue to increase minimum rates and make no effort to curtail the enthusiasm of the Member States that insist on applying extremely high rates.
Finally, if you will allow me, Mr President, I would like to make a point of order. I want to ask the Commissioner, who claimed we support his proposal, whether he lives on another planet, because we do not in fact support his proposal.
Margaritis Schinas
(EL) Mr President, now that inflation in the euro area is at its highest historical point and the price of oil has reached USD 110 dollars a barrel, the European Parliament will tomorrow raise indirect tax on fuel. If this is not a joke, it is certainly aimed at making the readers of Friday's papers smile. I think that we are sending the wrong message at the wrong time. We are demonstrating that we do not understand how society operates.
Furthermore, my delegation will not support the compromise; we are opposed to the bully-boy tactics of six Member States that already have high taxation, forcing all the others, through the Commissioner, Mr Kovács, to raise prices on the pretext of petrol tourism. I cannot justify that to my voters. Instead of carrying out such experiments, let us turn to other policies that benefit the environment. We must avoid such tax-raising acrobatics.
Atanas Paparizov
(BG) My country has made great efforts to increase the excise tax over the recent years and the taxes rates for lead-free gasolene have grown from EUR 254 in 2004 to EUR 350, while those for diesel fuel from EUR 203 to EUR 307 respectively. We have been guided by the willingness to rapidly increase tax rates so that to reduce the inflationary effect in the years to come.
The new proposal of the Commission puts our strategy to question. Therefore the proposal put forward in the report of the Economic Committee sounds reasonable and penalizes countries like Bulgaria and Romania to a less extent.
I hope that the Commission will accept this compromise, although even this proposal generates a serious effort for the Bulgarian economy and it would be an inflationary factor, without producing any effect for the environment because gasolene and fuel oil are not elastic products and they depend on many other economic factors rather than excise taxes.
Ivo Belet
(NL) Very briefly, Commissioner, it seems to me that it would be useful to point out that we need to be cautious in relation to this issue. The public needs to be informed about what is at stake here, because the critics will of course be ready to paint this as a straightforward tax increase, whereas Parliament's proposal is a very modest measure: a real tax increase would be disastrous at a time when prices are so high.
This proposal, which we will hopefully adopt tomorrow, is a good start towards finally putting an end to the distortion of competition that has existed for many years, particularly in the border regions; it is also good for the environment. Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my second comment is that we are counting on ourselves, and the European Commission in particular, to continue playing a very proactive role in the development and promotion of environmentally-friendly fuels, in other words implementing policies that will help us to get rid of fossil fuels, petrol and diesel.
Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk
(PL) Mr President, I should like to draw attention to three issues. Firstly, it seems that the price of oil will not fall below USD 100 per barrel in the future, which will result in a continuous rise in the price of fuel. It is only thanks to the weakness of the American dollar that drastic rises in fuel prices in Europe have been avoided. We cannot, however, expect the United States to wish its currency to be weak forever. In the light of this situation, the proposal to increase excise duty rates in the European Union over the coming years seems to take no account whatsoever of economic reality.
Secondly, per capita GDP in the new Member States is lower than in the older ones, as is the level of personal income. It will therefore only be possible for the new Member States to harmonise the tax burden once a comparable level of personal income has been attained.
Finally, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, the Member States should enjoy greater freedom as regards reducing the tax burden on fuels that are not derived from oil. Such measures would stimulate interest in the use of renewable fuels. They would also help us to reduce CO2 emissions and to fulfil our international obligations regarding environmental protection.
Claude Turmes
(FR) Mr President, I only wish to take the floor briefly to point out that not all Members from Luxembourg are not all cheap petrol junkies. I think that Mr Belet has set things out very well. We must find a compromise with the policies on the problems concerning oil resources and climate change, and strike a balance between the countries and the regions too.
I would just like to inform you that on Tuesday the Luxembourg Parliament debated climate change, and it held a discussion on petrol pump tourism. The vast majority of Members of the Luxembourg Parliament, including members of Mrs Lulling's own party, agree that this phenomenon must stopped locally at least. I thus merely wish to say that Luxembourg as a whole has a completely different stance to that of Mrs Lulling, who represents a minority on this issue, and a very small minority at that.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, it would appear that a single market, along with free movement of goods and services equates to full competitiveness. This is not quite the case, though, as the cost of the means of production, which includes the cost of fuel, has a significant impact on the profitability of production. In fact, at present the taxes on fuel differ even between neighbouring countries, giving rise to so-called fuel tourism in border regions. This activity is not very widespread, however.
It appears reasonable to approximate the rates of excise duty, but the process should be slow and be spread over many stages. Harmonisation of the minimum excise duty rates for diesel fuel and unleaded petrol should also be staggered. We should be guided by the general principle of striving to ensure that taxes and excise duties on fuel are kept as low as possible, to avoid driving up inflation and production costs and increasing household expenditure. This is particularly relevant in relation to the new Member States, where earnings are significantly lower.
László Kovács
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for the comments and views expressed during the debate.
Obtaining a positive opinion from Parliament on the Commission's proposal for special tax arrangements for commercial diesel is very important. However, we have taken note that your report is less ambitious compared to the Commission proposal, in particular by not endorsing the revalorisation of the overall minimum tax levels applicable to diesel and unleaded petrol.
I have not lost sight of economic rationale. On the contrary: economic rationale speaks against the extra millions of kilometres and also the extra tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which are the result of fuel tourism. I have to take into consideration - and we all have to take into consideration - the growing threat of what climate change and global warming mean for mankind. This threat is even much more alarming than inflation. As far as the proposed increase of excise duty is concerned, it will not generate inflation. It will just keep up with the expected inflation of 2.2% a year until 2017.
While the Commission can accept Amendment 1 in part and Amendments 7 and 27 in principle, we have to formally reject the other amendments. The Commission will not formally amend this proposal. We will, however, endeavour to take the amendments suggested by Parliament into consideration as much as possible during deliberations in the Council. A positive opinion from Parliament will be an important signal of the increasing awareness of the growing negative impact on the environment of transport, which we have to address through fuel taxation.
Olle Schmidt
rapporteur. - (SV) Mr President, thank you for your kind words. I think that thanks are also due to the Commission and our committee secretariat.
I thought at first that the Commissioner did not seem really to accept the committee's views. I can understand that on formal grounds. Now, when I heard the Commission again, I thought I detected an understanding of the notion that politics is politics. I recognise that we could have been more ambitious. The Commissioner uses the phrase 'less ambitious'. Yes, but listen to this debate from left to right and upwards and downwards. All points of view were expressed, and then we had Mrs Lulling sitting in the middle. Commissioner, it is on the basis of political reality, as you are indeed aware, that we had to formulate a report and a proposal which will land on your desk. Now a report from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs will arrive, let us hope tomorrow, which will not go entirely your way and which you cannot accept in all respects, but it will be a report.
Finally, I would like to say to the Commissioner that I nevertheless believe we have made progress - if we get a positive result tomorrow - in ending the confrontation which has taken place on these matters between the committee, Parliament and the Commission, and the Council too. Just as you say, we need to take action on fuel tourism for the sake of the internal market. That is quite correct, but we must also prepare drastic and forceful measures for the environment. There must be an understanding of such measures throughout our Union, and I believe that we have succeeded in finding the right balance.
Astrid Lulling
(FR) Mr President, I wish to ask for the floor on a personal matter. Mr Turmes called me a junkie. I feel this is an insult to me and I call on him to withdraw his remark.
In relation to the matter in hand, I can firmly state that my party and my government fully support the compromise proposed by our rapporteur, to which I made a substantial contribution. Mr Turmes, moreover, seems to forget that gas oil is currently less expensive in Belgium than in Luxembourg and that any petrol pump tourists there may be are not heading for Luxembourg, but for Belgium at this point in time.
President
Very well. We note what Mrs Lulling has said, and I am sure that the statements made in this House will be clarified.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 13 March 2008.


An EU-India Free Trade Agreement (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Karim, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on an EU-India Free Trade Agreement.
Syed Kamall
deputising for the rapporteur. - Mr President, I spend a lot of my time in this Parliament telling people that I am not Mr Karim and that I am, in fact, Mr Kamall. It must be confusing for people to hear Mr Kamall speaking on a Karim report. I am speaking on his behalf as, owing to unforeseen circumstances, he cannot be here tonight, for which he apologises.
His report effectively covers trade in goods, services, investment and intellectual property, and development issues. A joint alternative resolution by the PPE-DE, ALDE and UEN Groups has now been tabled, because it was felt that the original committee decision was the upshot of a rather unrepresentative vote, which left the report with several protectionist clauses intact. The alternative resolution better highlights how important a trading partner India is for the EU and the benefits that the liberalisation of trade can bring to both countries.
The EU and India launched negotiations in June 2007 on what is termed a free trade agreement, but what many would probably more correctly call a preferential trade agreement. The report calls for the conclusion of a comprehensive, ambitious and balanced free trade agreement between the EU and India, which should improve market access to goods and services, covering substantially many areas of trade, and including provisions on regulatory transparency in areas relevant to mutual trade investment, as well as things like sanitary and phytosanitary standards, intellectual property protection, trade facilitation and customs.
The main points of the report indicate that, if you look at trade in goods, India's average applied tariffs have decreased to levels that are now comparable with other countries in Asia - notably India's average applied tariff, which is now 14.5% compared to an EU average of 4.1%. It also notes India's concerns about the implications of REACH, costly certificates for exporting fruit to the EU and costly conformity procedures for the EC mark, and stresses that those issues must be resolved in the preferential trade agreement.
The report also points out that services liberalisation must in no way hinder the right to regulate services, including public services. However, it should also be recognised that quite often the state is unable to provide so-called 'public' services, and we should recognise that there is a role for non-state actors - the private sector - in providing essential services to the poor, especially when the state itself cannot do this on its own, quite often owing to a shortfall in income.
Trade in services between the EU and India is relatively unbalanced, with the EU exporting 1.5% of its services to India, while India exports 9.2% of its services to the EU. The report also encourages India to develop appropriate data protection legislation to ensure that, in our trade in services, we can have confidence in the ability of Indian companies to handle large amounts of data, since there are concerns about data protection.
The report also recognises that the investment chapters have often come accompanied by a commitment to liberalising capital movements and renouncing capital controls. So we ask the Commission to refrain from including such clauses, given the importance of capital controls, especially for poorer countries, to mitigate the impact of the financial crisis.
The report goes on to welcome India's commitment to strong intellectual property protection and to the use of TRIPS flexibilities to meet certain public health obligations. Once again, we should all be aware that too many obligations on public health can often leave citizens in poorer countries unable to access medicines, because there is no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop medicines for those countries.
Finally, the report recognises that a substantial development chapter is an essential part of any trade agreement, and that we should ensure trade and foreign direct investment. It also recognises that there is concern, particularly in this House, over issues such as environmental standards and core labour, occupational health and safety legislation. We should also recognise that, in seeking some sort of balance between trade issues and environmental protection, ILO standards etc, the pendulum can often swing too far one way and we end up with these taking precedence over trade and condemning poor countries to even more poverty because we make it difficult for entrepreneurs in those countries to develop capacities.
Louis Michel
Mr President, I would like to thank the European Parliament for the keen interest it has shown in our negotiations on a free trade agreement between the European Union and India.
In particular, I am grateful to Mr Kamall and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they, along with the associated Committee on Foreign Affairs and Committee on Development, have done in preparing the report on the EU-India Free Trade Agreement. The exchanges with Parliament have been very comprehensive, and the draft motion for a resolution deals with almost all possible aspects of the negotiations on a free trade agreement between the European Union and India. The opinions expressed are a useful tool for our negotiations on free trade agreements.
When we talk about the European Union-India free trade agreement, it is important to take into account the general context and complexity of our strategic relations with India, including the 1994 Cooperation Agreement and the Joint Action Plan, to mention but two of the major initiatives and dialogues that we have established with India.
We are convinced that it is extremely important to work with India to bring to a successful conclusion negotiations on an ambitious free trade agreement that will allow both parties - the European Union and India - to emerge as winners.
The more ambitious the free trade agreement, the greater the economic benefits that will accrue to each party - the European Union and India. That is one of the main conclusions of the impact and sustainable development study that has been carried out by an independent consultant, in parallel with the negotiations.
The objective of the impact and sustainable development assessment was to analyse the economic, social and environmental impact of the future free trade agreement and to identify any necessary support measures.
The impact and sustainable development assessment is currently in its final phase and should be available in April, in other words, in time to support the negotiations under way.
Allow me to give you a brief progress report on these negotiations. Six negotiating sessions have been held since the launch in June 2007, with the sixth session taking place last week in Delhi, from 17 to 19 March. We are expecting to convene two extra sessions this year, ideally after the Indian elections in April and before the European Union-India Summit in November.
As for the substance of these negotiations, progress has been made on all issues pertaining to the free trade agreement, but much work remains to be done.
More specifically, we have exchanged tariff proposals, we have had good discussions on several key service sectors and we have made progress in discussions on texts in almost all areas of the agreement. However, we are still far from an agreement.
Before concluding, I would like once again to express the Commission's gratitude to Parliament and to the rapporteur. The Commission eagerly awaits other opportunities for effective cooperation with Parliament.
President
The presentation is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 26 March 2009.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Kader Arif
On Wednesday, our Parliament expressed its opinion on the future free trade agreement between the European Union and India. Thanks to the work of the socialists, the text adopted in committee points out the economic and social fragility of India, a country in which 80% of the population lives on less than USD 2 per day. To confront this reality, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament has tabled a number of amendments pointing out that any strengthening of the EU's trade relations with India should be accompanied by a strict framework, to prevent any liberalisation of public services, to guarantee access to public healthcare and essential medicines, and to protect the interests of the most vulnerable people and sectors. Unsurprisingly, the right in Parliament has formed an alliance to propose a much more liberal text in plenary, calling in particular for the liberalisation of banking, insurance, postal services and public procurement. In Wednesday's vote, I will be defending the socialist vision of fair and equitable trade and I will oppose any attempt by the right to go back on these principles.
Rovana Plumb
The EU's trade in goods with India has more than doubled in value between 2000 and 2007. Exports rose from EUR 13.7 billion to EUR 29.5 billion, while imports rose from EUR 12.8 billion to EUR 26.3 billion. In 2007 India accounted for 2.4% of EU exports and 1.8% of EU imports, and was the EU's ninth most important trading partner.
I welcome this report because it calls for the conclusion of a comprehensive, ambitious and balanced Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the EU and India which will improve market access for goods and services, covering substantially all trade, including provisions on regulatory transparency in areas relevant to mutual trade and investment, as well as conformity standards and assessment, SPS, IPR including enforcement, trade facilitation and customs, public procurement, and trade and competitions, as well as trade and development and the human rights clause as an essential element of the FTA.
I want to stress that the FTA must help:
achieve growing bilateral benefits for an ever-increasing number of citizens
achieve the Millennium Development Goals, including those for preventing environmental degradation and observing social standards.
Bogusław Rogalski
India is a country of contrasts. Its global image has been influenced by overpopulation, poverty (80% of the Indian population live on less than USD 2 a day) and disease. Recently, progress in the field of economics has helped to turn India into a leading global economy. However, India's contribution to progress in the fields of medicine, technology and space research is in contrast to the shortages of food and clean water which affect the country.
The EU is India's biggest foreign investor and trade partner. In 2007, EU investment amounted to 65% of all investment in India. India's investment in the EU has also risen, many times over, during the last few years. The EU should focus on ensuring a multilateral trade system, based on certain principles, as set out by the WTO, which offers the best opportunities for fair and honest international trade.
However, we should stress the fact that India needs to combat the large-scale problem of hunger in terms of global hunger indicators, India ranks 66th out of 88 countries. India, which is a global nuclear power, has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, either. Another worrying issue is the problem of child labour, with children generally having to work in dangerous and unhealthy conditions.
Clauses concerning human rights and democracy should constitute a fundamental part of any free trade agreement signed with India. We must also ensure that social and environmental agreements and standards are respected.