Code of Conduct for computerised reservation systems (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Code of Conduct for computerised reservation systems - C6-0418/2007 -.
Peter Mandelson
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the proposal the honourable Members are debating today seeks to modernise rules adopted in 1989 on the market for the distribution of airline services.
Computerised reservation systems (CRS) act as intermediaries between airlines and travel agents in the sales chain for air tickets. In the early 1990s, computerised reservation systems were practically the only channel for the sale of airline tickets. In addition, all the CRS were controlled by airlines. The latter were therefore more tempted to abuse their position in the CRS, for example, by biasing displays in their favour.
The code of conduct for the use of CRS establishes a number of safeguards to prevent abuse. It complements competition law since it adds measures to deal with sector-specific risks. It requires that all companies participating in the system are treated on a non-discriminatory basis. For example, the same fee is to be paid by all airlines. The Code also lays down special obligations for parent carriers - i.e. those which own or control the CRS.
The code of conduct has been very effective in preventing all kinds of abuse. However, since the code of conduct was introduced, the market for the sale of air tickets has changed considerably as alternative sales channels have developed. Today, nearly half of all reservations no longer go through a CRS but are made on internet sites or through airline call centres. The competitive pressure of these alternative sales methods has significantly reduced the risk of abuse through a CRS.
The new situation also requires an adjustment of the code of conduct. The rules laid down in the code of conduct significantly restrict the margin for negotiation between the CRS and airlines. The CRS are therefore not genuinely in competition with each other, and the fees paid to them by airlines and passengers are escalating.
The Commission's proposal seeks to allow for more negotiation and, in particular, the possibility to set prices as regards the fee for the use of a CRS. This will enable airlines to negotiate the reduction of rates with the CRS. Boosting competition between the CRS will help to reduce costs and to improve the quality of the services they provide.
At the same time, the proposal maintains and strengthens the safeguards for the prevention of abuse and protection of consumers, and in particular the neutrality of information provided and the protection of personal data.
In addition, the proposal continues to impose special obligations on CRS parent carriers. The definition of 'parent carrier' has led to heated debates, since the obligations imposed on those companies are very burdensome.
Modernisation of the code of conduct will make it possible to reduce the cost of distribution of their services while guaranteeing the protection of consumers' interests. This is urgently required from the viewpoint of the competitiveness of our industry, as our companies' competitors already benefit from a liberalised environment and lower sales costs.
I am therefore pleased at the speed with which Parliament has taken up this issue. I wish to express my appreciation of the work performed by your rapporteur, Tim Kirkhope, and the TRAN Committee, as well as the committees which expressed their opinions.
Timothy Kirkhope
rapporteur. - Mr President, I am really glad we had the opportunity to debate this important matter tonight, and I am proud to present this new proposal to enhance the position of European consumers.
The revision of the CRS code of conduct and the deal we have on the table represent a chance for an early and successful conclusion to an important piece of work. The new code is designed to re-energise the travel sector, so the sooner it is introduced, the sooner we see the benefits of that - lower air fares, more choice and greater transparency. CRSs should, of course, be able to negotiate freely the conditions of the distribution of air services but, under my revision, CRSs will have to compete more aggressively with each other for air-carrier participation, on the basis of lower booking fees and better quality of service. This will have great benefits for European consumers.
Firstly, choice: consumers will get more choice and should get better service from their travel agents. Greater competition will also provide a boost to the quality of information available to travel agents and, thereby, the consumer.
Secondly, price: this in turn should mean that the price of airline tickets, kept artificially high by the present system, could go down by as much as 10% as a result, according to the Commission's research.
Thirdly, transparency: through tougher safeguards, travel agents and consumers will be better protected from market abuse and distortion. Two main safeguards are built in. One concerns audit provisions. I deemed it necessary to rethink those provisions and, as a result, they will prove more effective, and hence the regulation provides the Commission with an important tool to monitor the activities of CRSs.
Fourthly, the definition of who is or is not a parent carrier. This issue has dominated the whole report and my work on it. It is important to get this right, because we do not want airlines investing in CRSs for the purpose of influencing the running of the business to the possible detriment of others.
Let me say to my colleagues who have worked so hard on this report that I believe that, within the deal we have on the table, we have a robust but flexible test, one which deals with all the concerns you have expressed. Some have suggested tabling a split vote tomorrow but, frankly, this could leave us with too broad a scope of definition. I repeat what I have said in writing to those people. Deleting the reference to 'decisive influence' does not provide the useful clarification of the elements in Amendment 12 that it was designed to do. Indeed, following such a deletion, it might be interpreted that any investor would be deemed to be a parent carrier, as 'any other governing body of a system vendor' could mean literally anything. Should any air carrier participating in a CRS with rights to merely receive information, for example, of annual decisions or just the annual accounts, be defined as a parent carrier? Surely not.
On the suggestion made by the ALDE Group that the question should be referred back to the committee - that we should carry out a close examination of the ownership and governance structure of the concerned CRS - the Commission would need a new regulation to do that. When the Commission states that it needs to examine this on a case-by-case basis, I do not see this as proof that we have a weak definition. On the contrary, we discussed this at length in committee, and an independent study was commissioned by me to help the committee. I made sure the shadow rapporteurs were fully informed at all stages on the state of informal contacts with the Council. They specifically agreed to what is in the deal. I purposely held this matter back for a month while I made sure that all views were taken fully into account - environmental issues, Mrs Lichtenberger; full liberalisation, Mr Evans.
So, tomorrow, I am asking for your support. We must vote for lower air fares, more choice and greater transparency. All of us have a duty to protect and inform the rights of consumers and get them the very best deal possible. That remains the priority. Gesture politics is not my priority, but it is my priority to get the best deal for all those consumers we represent here in Europe.
Wolfgang Bulfon
Mr President, European consumers are groaning under the weight of high food prices and I think one of the causes of the exorbitant price increases is the concentration in the retail market on a few big players.
I have grounds for concern that a similar development could also occur in future in the case of travel agencies. The liberalisation of the Code of Conduct for computerised reservation systems proposed by this report should ensure greater competition on the market. I fear, however, that only the large tour operators will be able to survive in future, by concluding several CRS provider contracts. This will be necessary, however, to offer customers a comprehensive choice. The small operators unable to afford several contracts with CRS providers will fall by the wayside.
Whenever the United States is called upon as an example of consumer-friendly competition in this context, I have to remember that there are no airlines in the Member States that still participate in a computerised reservation system. I would therefore advocate a rigid definition of the term 'parent carrier'.
Georg Jarzembowski
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, most sincerely. He has presented a very balanced report and has worked very closely with the shadow rapporteurs. His version, which he has negotiated with the French Presidency, affords consumers better protection against dubious flight and rail offers based on clear regulations on transparency and at the same time ensures fair competition between rail companies and airlines.
Incidentally, the recast version documents the fact that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats as the first group had rightly stopped the Commission's attempt in 2005 to abolish this regulation as obsolete. We need it - and we shall prove it by the way we vote - to protect consumers. Even if more and more travellers do in fact reserve their tickets directly with the airlines or on the Internet, the majority of consumers will continue to rely on their travel agencies, which for their part must be able to rely on non-discriminatory, genuine bargain offers in the computerised reservation system. The prices indicated must in future include all taxes and charges so that the travel agencies can pass genuinely transparent and comparable offers on to the consumer.
The parent companies should also be subject to tighter regulations on transparency and competition in future in order that the systems are prevented from making preferential offers to the disadvantage of other airlines and to the disadvantage of consumers.
I must come back here to the rapporteur and appeal to my fellow Members. I believe the version we have agreed with the French Presidency in relation to parent companies offers adequate protection against positive discrimination in favour of certain airlines. Any change made by the famous amendment to Amendment 48 is therefore totally superfluous and if this goes through tomorrow, it would delay the adoption of the whole thing or even call it into question. I appeal to you to take a clear, final decision tomorrow in order to protect consumers.
Robert Evans
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I too would like to thank Mr Kirkhope for his unfailing cooperation and support for all members on the committee.
Two years ago I looked at an internet-based travel agency, a travel website, for a ticket from London to San Francisco. The website, or the computer, told me that there were no direct flights from London to San Francisco and recommended a connecting flight via New York with, I think, United. Of course there are direct flights, but it was not just in that particular website's domain to issue them.
But it highlighted to me, in a simplified form, the problem that we are trying to address with this revision: as Commissioner Mandelson said, a revision that goes back some 20 years or more.
We must recognise the real changes that have taken place in technology over that period. Now a large majority of people, and indeed all travel agents, have access to the internet, and I agree with the previous speakers who have said we have a duty to ensure fairness and equal access to the market and, as Commissioner Mandelson said, fair rules, effective rules, and protect the consumers and ensure competition. But, Mr Mandelson, you also said that you are pleased with the speed at which this has all gone through. Whilst I share your aims and always want to do things as quickly as we can - and Mr Kirkhope's aims of price transparency and consumer protection - I think that, in our speed to get this through, we have drifted away, certainly from the position that the Committee on Transport adopted at the end of May, and that the position that Council has come up with, the so-called compromise position, is different from the position that we went for in the Committee on Transport. In the Commission's clarification yesterday, he speaks about 'all past analyses will have to be done again under a new perspective, and the Commission will have to examine each case on a case-by-case basis'. That, I think, means it is not clear enough, and we have not got to a position where, certainly, a lot of Members on this side and in other groups would like to be, where we can say with absolute certainty that the position Mr Kirkhope hopes he has achieved has actually been such. That is why I will be recommending to my group to support a proposal that Mrs Lichtenberger, I believe, is going to make shortly.
Eva Lichtenberger
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we had had to cope with the correspondence that this report has generated over recent weeks using a horseback messenger, we would have exhausted a few horses - without a doubt. Modern communication has allowed us to stay in constant touch and to keep up to date at all times.
The greatest credit for this, however, is due to Mr Kirkhope, who in a truly exemplary manner has kept Members informed, has always corresponded with the shadow rapporteurs and has actually done everything he can to convey the Committee's requests to the Council. The Council, however, has not made his work easy. Quite the opposite. Wording was proposed - we were able to follow proceedings well - which actually would have done nothing other than cover up distortionary competitive practices more effectively - and I object to this!
I must honestly say that even the home countries of the distortionary competitive airlines would do well here to take consumer protection more seriously by providing fair information as well as following our suggestions to ensure this happens. The Code of Conduct is not the strongest instrument we have at our disposal. We must be clear about this. Even more important is clear wording, which assures us that another back door will not be opened.
Together with my colleague Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert, I should also like to guarantee this clarity by referring it back to committee. I consider this to be a major issue. We have to stand by the fact that we are protecting consumers and also have to accept the obvious consequences of this.
I thank my fellow Members, however, particularly the rapporteur, that the concerns regarding environmental protection have found echoes in this report, as far as was possible in this sector. My sincere thanks once again to my fellow Members and the rapporteur.
Stanisław Jałowiecki
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, my colleague Mr Liberadzki and I submitted an amendment to this report. Its aim was that airlines should withdraw from the airline ticket central reservations system within three years. This amendment was seen as radical and did not gain the required majority. Note that this radicalism is, after all, nothing other than implementation of the principle, which appears to be generally recognised in the European Union, of equal opportunities in a competitive market.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism recently adopted a version that may be regarded as transitionally very good. Transitionally, on the way - yes, that is right - to a full withdrawal of involvement. At the same time the matter underwent a change in the Council: the amendments submitted, still more than in the version originally presented by the European Commission, strengthen the position of three carriers - that is to say, Lufthansa, Iberia and Air France. We hear that it is a success and that they are gaining customers because of this.
It is probably a further success that the rapporteur stood up to enormous pressure from lobbyists. This I can imagine, as we had to too, we individual MEPs. Those lobbyists, though, are representatives of companies that are fighting for an even break. They have not got it, however, as the interests of a few national businesses have come out on top. On the other hand we do not call these businesses lobbyists, particularly when these interests are being represented by the country that currently happens to hold the Presidency of the European Union. Then everything is fine and what gets mentioned is the excellent cooperation with the Council.
Is this not hypocrisy? Is it not yet more hypocrisy to call this report a Code of Conduct? To whom is this Code in its amended version supposed to apply, when the new definition of a parent carrier effectively eliminates this carrier?
Gilles Savary
(FR) Mr President, there is hypocrisy first of all in saying that consumers are injured. There is not a consumer on the streets of Europe who knows what an airline computerised reservation system is. Not one! All consumers use private booking systems, the internet or the telephone.
What this is about today is the relationship between the airlines and the information they give out about their flights, particularly to travel agents. This text moralises, and introduces very strong transparency and non-exclusivity principles. It is a text that takes the traditional view when it comes to competition law and controlling mergers.
A number of lobbies are using it to try and force off the board of directors those who, in Europe, created the largest computerised reservation system. That would be a very serious matter because we have never done anything here but enact competition rules and methods for controlling them. We have never forced anyone to adopt a particular status, or a particular shareholder base. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, I will vote for the compromise found, skilfully and through a lot of work, by Mr Kirkhope, between the Council, all the Member States of the Council - as I recall -, the European Parliament and the European Commission.
It would be better to vote in favour of this compromise than to re-enter a war with the lobbies, in view of the many interests at stake, and to prevent this text from ultimately being substantially modified, which would do consumers a disservice.
Reinhard Rack
(DE) Mr President, the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has already been thanked several times today - quite rightly - for having now reached a clear consensus on a highly complex issue in committee and in cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs as well as with other fellow Members and I hope that this will also continue this morning.
It was said just now that even the term 'CRS' was not clear to very many Members at the start of the discussion. Today we know what it means and today we know what important issues we have rightly been discussing. Sincere thanks once again for this fine work on a hopefully good European legal instrument.
We have accommodated a range of content in this report, which now necessarily has an important function beyond the heavily technical nature of this report, even in another context. Consumers are protected while a final total price can actually be displayed by the price display method and this cannot be covered up with various special or supplementary prices.
We have - because our group is always being reproached with this - achieved considerable progress. We have stated that we do not want to talk merely about preferential treatment for rail, but we do want to know for certain with regard to short- and medium-haul flights that rail transport has a fair chance of being included here. As has already been addressed, we have also proved the CO2 consumption or demanded that it be proved - as well - in order to establish by comparison what we want to achieve and what the consumer can contribute.
Ulrich Stockmann
(DE) Mr President, I would like to concentrate on the controversial problem of the definition of parent companies. The purpose of the definition is indeed to prevent airlines with shares in a CRS abusing their position. At present this palpably concerns Air France, Iberia and Lufthansa, which have a minority holding in Amadeus. The current practice of the Commission examining this on a case-by-case basis when abuse is suspected has been proven. Cases of the abuse of influence have been resolved and prosecuted. To date this has occurred on two occasions. There are no reasonable grounds for changing anything in this essentially proven practice.
The definition found of a parent enterprise based on the expression, with regard to competition law, of the determining influence complies with this proven practice. The term has been proving itself for 40 years now. Some Members, however, want every airline with a capital share to be automatically defined as a parent company. For the air transport market this means massive and unnecessary interference in the current competitive situation. Nor would consumers obtain any advantage from this. The four winners would be, for example, British Airways, American Airlines and others that would benefit from such a shift in the competitive situation. In addition, the only European computerised reservation system would have to accept a competitive disadvantage with regard to US competitors on the hotly contested European market. This I consider politically unreasonable, even negligent, and I therefore recommend that the compromise found be accepted.
Marian-Jean Marinescu
(RO) The compromise obtained by our colleague Kirkhope is based upon strengthening the principles of non-discrimination, efficiency and transparency, all of them clearly to the advantage of the final beneficiary, namely the European citizen.
First of all, both potential abuses directed against air carriers and potential interferences of the latter with the good operation of the activity of agencies are prevented.
Secondly, transparency is ensured and the misleading of consumer as regards the selection of flights, duration, operators and, last but not least, the price, is prevented, also ensuring the protection of personal data.
Thirdly, beneficiaries are also provided with the possibility to choose the variant of railway transport for short routes, which may bring environmental benefits in time, by reducing the carbon dioxide emissions.
Unfortunately, there are a few aspects that the code of conduct does not regulate and which are not included within its scope. These are the tariff policies of low cost companies, which are not subject to cooperation with the computerized reservations systems. I believe that the healthy principles behind this code of conduct should be adopted by all transport documents reservation and purchase systems, including in the case of low cost companies.
From the consumer's point of view, it is regrettable that these companies are not integrated into CRS, in their turn. Besides the multiplication of options for passengers, this integration would also create positive pressure to ensure the quality of services and the transparency of prices.
On this occasion, I request the European Commission and the Member States to reinforce controls and apply sanctions through the relevant bodies, where necessary, for real protection of consumers, for whom the companies not listed in CRS represent an affordable, yet deceiving means of mobility. I also support and recommend the suggestion that, in the future, CRS should consider the possibility to introduce regular coach services into the systems as well.
Brian Simpson
Mr President, in thanking the rapporteur for his report, I recognise his efforts to try and get a first-reading agreement on this important dossier.
A first-reading deal would indeed have been possible if the Council had accepted the Committee on Transport's position. The rapporteur is right. We did discuss it in great detail in the Committee on Transport, and we came to a view in the Committee on Transport. But what happened subsequently is that that Committee on Transport view has been altered.
Alas, the Council's intervention and the subsequent Council amendments not only served to muddy the waters, but caused serious concern for consumer organisations, travel agents and passenger associations.
Subsequently, what is now proposed by the rapporteur via the Council has serious implications, not only legislatively, but internationally also. Never in the field of EU legislation have two amendments caused so much mayhem and confusion to the detriment of the Committee on Transport's democratic position.
Some people do not have a problem with that, but the reality is that the Council's intervention has caused great uncertainty, both morally and legally.
There is a suspicion that the Council is creating loopholes to protect certain major air carriers, particularly as it applies to parent carriers. Also, the undue haste to get an agreement could lead to bad legislation. Therefore, I support the call for this report to be taken back to committee so that we can address all the concerns raised, get this legislation right, not for our major air carriers, but for our consumers, whose representations tell us they dislike the Council's additions.
Zita Pleštinská
(SK) I should first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Timothy Kirkhope, for including provisions on display in the regulation on a code of conduct for computerised reservation systems (CRS). Travel agents use displays, screens, to display CRS information and therefore it is vital that travel agents receive neutral and balanced information.
I believe that the use of impartial displays increases the transparency of travel products and services offered by participating carriers and increases consumer confidence. Travel agents will be able to use fair assessment criteria to offer the most transparent range of options for consumers, for example the main display will make it possible to assess the most suitable travel option offered by a scheduled air or rail carrier.
I appreciate the efforts of the rapporteur to ensure the transparency of prices by direct reference to the PRICE of a product, since the current definition of FARE does not include all the price elements, which is often misleading for consumers.
I believe that this report will contribute to fair competition between CRSs, which will be of benefit mainly to consumers who will obtain travel products with high-quality services at a favourable price.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) The Regulation on the code of conduct for computerized reservations systems lays down the rules that the air and railway transport operators must comply with when making reservations.
The existing situation indicates that reservations made through the computerized reservations systems used by tourist agencies lead to higher prices. I insist on the need to protect the passengers' personal data. I think passengers should have the possibility to choose the most convenient ticket and, for this purpose, the passenger should be adequately and completely informed.
I insist that the requirement have no discrimination either between the distribution channels or according to the place of residence of passengers of tourist agencies. Certain distribution channels, such as the Internet, comply with the principle of non-discrimination, but the computerized reservations systems require certain conditions from tourism operators, which often lead to higher prices and discriminations based upon the passengers' place of residence.
I consider this regulation to be important; we should always take into consideration the consumer and I insist again on compliance with the personal data protection.
Marian Zlotea
(RO) As a fictional Rapporteur for opinion on this file in the INFO Committee from PPE-DE, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Rapporteur on his work, as well as for the report drafted. I would like to emphasize the importance of this report with regard to ensuring real competition in the field of computerized reservations systems.
We should also never disregard consumer rights and we should make sure that they benefit from the amendments to this code of conduct. Consumers should be provided with all the details regarding the trip they intend to make. It is also very important that they know the exact price of the tickets and are not misled by potential hidden costs.
I would also like to emphasize the fact that what matters the most is that the companies in charge of these websites be no longer part of the boards of directors, because they always have hidden costs.
In conclusion, I would like to assure the Rapporteur of my full support tomorrow, at the vote.
Bogusław Liberadzki
(PL) Mr President, I would like to give every support to the position taken by Mr Simpson. He has shown that the new definition of a parent carrier is very unclear. The additional phrase 'exercising a decisive influence' prompts the question: does Lufthansa, with its 22% shareholding in Amadeus, exercise a decisive influence? How about Lufthansa, Air France and Iberia, with 44% between them: is that a decisive influence? This needs looking at from every angle: either we adopt Amendment 48, or we send this draft back to the Committee to be re-worked. Otherwise the idea of competition will certainly be harmed.
Inés Ayala Sender
(ES) Mr President, I would like to welcome this agreement, which is based on consensus and therefore which not everyone is one hundred percent happy with.
I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Commission, the Council, and also, of course, Parliament, represented by the Committee on Transport, its rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs.
I think that the concerns of consumers have been answered regarding the problem of Marketing Information Data Tapes (MIDTs), including the new developments relating to trains and emissions, which are ingenious and respond to this new problem.
I think that the controls system, into which competition has been introduced, has been strengthened. Therefore, seeking to now expel three companies from the system would only lead to a reduction in that competition, which, as we are all aware, benefits consumers.
Peter Mandelson
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to commend honourable Members for the high standard of this debate. I welcome most of the amendments proposed. They clarify several points in a useful way, in particular as regards the neutral display of travel options on the travel agent's screen and the protection of personal data.
I would like to thank Parliament for having had the courage to raise the thorny issue of parent carriers. I would like to set out the Commission's position in this regard. We all know that this is an extremely sensitive issue which has given rise to very intensive lobbying. At this juncture, the Commission supports the compromise reached between the presidency and the rapporteur, which was supported unanimously by the Member States.
The new definition, as proposed in Amendment 13, removes any ambiguity or legal uncertainty. The Commission would thus be able to carry out an analysis and determine whether a company controls the CRS and whether a company which has rights and participates in the management of the CRS influences the latter in a decisive manner. This concept relies on the Commission's long experience in the field of competition, which enables it to ascertain what a shareholder's real power and influence are, for example by analysing the rights attaching to the shareholding and the agreements made between shareholders. In view of this, I believe that the text before us will enable the Commission, when acting on a complaint it has received, or on its own initiative, to exercise its prerogatives fully, strengthening significantly its powers, and to determine in each individual case, and at any time, which companies are parent carriers and must shoulder the major obligations arising from that status.
With regard to the identification of the travel agent in the statistical data provided by CRS MIDT, I also support the compromise text which strikes a balance between the need to protect travel agents against improper use of the data and the usefulness of the data when it comes to airlines' strategic planning. I believe that with this text we are establishing a regulatory framework which takes account of market developments and enables travellers to benefit from an injection of competition into the distribution of air and rail tickets, while keeping safeguards in place to prevent any abuse.
On this basis, I really think that it is important to go ahead with an agreement in first reading during this legislature. The new legislation is expected by all actors and will reduce the administrative costs for the operators. In order to meet the concerns expressed with regard to the definition of parent carrier, I can take the commitment that, in the framework of the current compromise, the Commission would issue a formal notice explaining how it intends to interpret that definition when applying the regulation. Such notice would be similar to those issued from time to time by the Commission with respect to competition matters. This notice would be published in the Official Journal before the entry into force of the regulation so as to provide the necessary legal certainty to all interested parties. I very much hope that you will consider this proposal favourably.
I think I have covered the main points raised during this debate. As usual, I shall send a full list of the amendments and the Commission's position on each of them to the Parliament's Secretariat.
Commission's position on amendments by Parliament
Kirkhope report
The Commission can accept Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45 and 48.
The Commission can accept Amendments 10, 19, 26 and 28 in principle.
The Commission can accept Amendments 1, 2, 3, 18, 25 and 47 with redrafting.
The Commission can accept Amendment 33 in part.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 12, 13, 15, 24, 29, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 46.
Timothy Kirkhope
rapporteur. - Madam President, I wish to thank the Commissioner for that extremely clear exposition of his position and the confirmation that, once we have concluded our proceedings in Parliament (in a positive manner tomorrow, I hope), there is more work than can and will be done by himself and others in the Commission to ensure that what Parliament wants is put into effect.
I wish to thank my colleagues for their contributions, despite the fact that I do not agree with their every interpretation. That is probably understandable because this is undoubtedly a very complex matter. Despite the very open way in which I have proceeded with the work, it is inevitable that some of the interpretations of its outcome will be politicised or maybe even misunderstood.
However, I believe it is in the interests of the consumer and in the wider interests of clarification that we proceed in the way we have agreed. I am proud of the work I have done. I am proud also of the work that others have done to help me. The smiles and acceptances of the shadow rapporteurs during the proceedings gave me confidence that they would support me, not only this evening, but also with their groups tomorrow.
Therefore, I hope that on consideration, and having heard the very sensible and positive contribution by the Commissioner tonight, they will come back tomorrow and allow us to go forward in total unanimity to make sure that Europe is a better place for travellers, a better place for consumers and a better place for enforcing competition policy in future years.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 4 September at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Christine De Veyrac
in writing. - (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, the text we are debating this evening was the subject of lively discussions within the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and not without reason, since it is important legislation for the tourism and air transport industry, and also for citizens.
It was not easy to find a balance between maintaining competition between the airlines and guaranteeing the independence of travel agents, while enabling passengers to receive useful, unbiased information.
The text on which the rapporteur and the French Presidency have agreed respects these requirements, and I am pleased about this.
A balanced definition of the concept of 'parent carrier' has been agreed and that is essential for ensuring healthy competition between the various computerised reservation systems.
I hope that tomorrow's vote will approve the text at the first reading so it can be rapidly applied.
Thank you for your attention.
Małgorzata Handzlik
Computerised reservation systems (CRSs) are mainly intended to serve the customer. That is why it is so important to ensure transparency in the air ticket reservations market, especially in the event that airlines, by having a holding in computerised reservation systems, can limit competition in the market.
Obviously the situation in the airline market has changed significantly over the last few years, and most airlines have disposed of their shares in CRSs, which does not mean that all airlines have done so. The most important thing, though, is that, apart from shares in reservation systems, airlines do not have the opportunity to exert such an influence on the functioning of systems as might give preferential treatment to the routes they operate, and this must be properly reflected in the definition of 'parent carrier'.
A simplification of the Code of Conduct will increase the potential for negotiation between market participants (airlines and CRSs will freely be able to negotiate the level of payment for a reservation taken by the CRS). Currently the provisions increase the CRS cost and restrict the flexibility of the CRS in tailoring its services to the specific needs of airlines and travel agents, through the lack of potential for differentiation of the tariff range for individual CRSs.
I hope that the amendments introduced will bring about greater competition in the air ticket sales market, to the benefit of the customer, especially where expansion of the current range and a lower end price for air tickets are concerned.
James Nicholson
in writing. - I support this report which recommends that the rules regarding the Computerised Reservation Systems used by high street travel agents to book airline tickets are simplified and modernised.
The current rules regarding CRS only serve to stifle competition and maintain high fares. These proposals will promote competition between the companies which are in charge of providing these systems and will hopefully result in lower fares and more choice for travellers.
At present, usually the most attractive option for consumers is to book directly with an airline. The new code of conduct will result in a greater degree of price transparency, giving the travel sector a boost and ensuring a fair deal for the consumer.


Israel's participation in Community programmes - Israel's participation in Community programmes (debate)
President
The next item is a joint debate on:
the report by Mrs De Keyser, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro Mediterranean Association Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States of the one part and the State of Israel of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Community and the State of Israel on the general principles governing the State of Israel's participation in Community programmes (05471/2008 - C6-0180/2008 - and
Council and Commission statements concerning the State of Israel's participation in Community programmes.
Véronique De Keyser
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, we asked in plenary for the vote to be deferred, and I am delighted about that, but, as rapporteur, I feel I need to explain myself.
As Mr Salafranca pointed out earlier, it is quite correct that, on 6 November, Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted two proposals on Israel's participation in Community programmes: one was an assent, and the other a resolution. Both proposals were adopted by a huge majority - the vote on the resolution was actually unanimous.
What did these texts contain, and what message did the Committee on Foreign Affairs wish to send Israel? The assent was positive: it agreed to Israel's participation in the Community programme, given that it was already participating in the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, that its application related solely to the 'innovation and technology' programme, that all member countries of the neighbourhood policy are entitled to apply to participate, and thus that it constituted neither a special favour to Israel nor a reassessment of its political status.
The association agreements are based on respect for human rights. Members therefore wanted to provide a political framework for this assent in the form of a very decisive resolution calling for recognition of the interim association agreement between the European Union and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), for stronger control of and sanctions against imports of Israeli products from the occupied territories under the preferential importation scheme, and for the results of scientific cooperation to be used for civilian purposes. The Commission should produce an annual report enabling Parliament to assess compliance with these conditions. In short, the resolution was positive but firm, and was the result of long negotiations with the various parties, who have shown exemplary commitment to the compromise reached, for which I thank them.
So, why are we now hesitating, raising our fears and, ultimately, deferring the vote? Essentially, Mr President, because the humanitarian situation in Gaza has become intolerable. When the European Parliament's delegation, of which I was a part, went to Gaza in early summer, the living conditions of the people there were already alarming; another delegation went to the occupied territories in November, and came back with exactly the same report. Nothing is moving, the situation is catastrophic, and the blockade, far from weakening Hamas, has radicalised it.
Three days ago, Louis Michel pointed out that the continued closure of Gaza's crossing points was a form of collective punishment of Palestinian civilians, contrary to international humanitarian law: it was our own Commissioner who said that. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the agency that works with refugees in Gaza, has launched appeals for aid, as have Oxfam, Amnesty International, Médecins sans frontières and a number of other NGOs that cannot even use the Erez crossing at the moment.
Just today, I learned that our Pegase instrument has completely stopped working in Gaza, that it can no longer guarantee energy supplies, that the salaries and pensions of officials in the Palestinian Authority are no longer being paid, and that payments to the poorest people have also been suspended. The UNRWA has also had to suspend its programme of aid to the poorest people in Gaza. This is unacceptable, Mr President, it cannot be tolerated, and it is why I, against my will, supported deferring this vote.
Right now, the political 'upgrading' of Israel is being discussed at Council level in a great rush and in complete obscurity; and it is precisely this opportunity for upgrading that, today, right now, stands out in the political context of the region and is earning us hundreds and hundreds of e-mails from citizens. The Council therefore needs to improve transparency concerning the debates currently in progress and to be answerable to the citizens of Europe.
For Parliament today, it is quite clear: we want humane living conditions for Palestinians and an end to the blockade of Gaza. This blockade is doing nothing to weaken Hamas, but causes intolerable suffering for innocent people, half of whom, by the way, voted for Fatah in the 2006 elections. That vote is, in fact, still valid. We are holding out our hand to Israel, but we will not give up the core values on which the European Union is built. The ball is now in Israel's court.
I will take this opportunity - and I apologise, Mr President, you can deduct this time from my two minutes later - I will take this opportunity to condemn the political pressure, slanderous campaigns and accusations of anti-Semitism that have been levelled at Members who are simply standing up for peace and justice. I would also pay tribute to all our Jewish friends, both in Israel and elsewhere, these new righteous men who, in extremely difficult conditions, also want peace and call for compliance with international law. Let us work together to achieve this. We need to break the siege of Gaza, and taking a military approach to this, as I have heard recommended, would be pure madness.
Jean-Pierre Jouyet
Mr President, Mr Verheugen, Mrs De Keyser, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mrs De Keyser for this excellent report. Like her, I too observed that, earlier, a majority in Parliament voted to defer the vote for the reasons she raised.
From the Council's point of view, Israel's participation in the Community programme needs to be seen from the perspective of the upgrading of the Union's bilateral relations with Israel, in which regard the Council sent a signal on 16 June at the 8th Association Council with Israel. This upgrading fits in with the strengthening of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
The Council is convinced that this upgrading benefits both parties, and is not only in the interests of the country that we are bringing closer to the European family. It also serves Europe's interests, in that it allows us to forge closer links and greater trust with new sections of the Israeli population, be it its students, its researchers, its businesses or its technicians.
Europe will thus be in a position to provide concrete proof of the benefits of multilateral cooperation in the form of peace and prosperity. I would say to Mrs De Keyser that such lessons come at a price in a region such as the Middle East. Europe will thus be able to speak the truth more forcefully and more credibly, which will engender greater trust.
I have listened closely, in this respect, to the expectations expressed, according to Mrs De Keyser, within the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am referring, of course, to the message she mentioned on the complete and immediate freezing of settlement, on the need for progress on the peace process with the Palestinian Authority, on lifting the restrictions on the people of Gaza and the West Bank, and on the vital need to improve the lot of the people of Gaza affected by the blockade, as the European Parliament's delegation saw recently.
Rest assured, ladies and gentlemen, that these expectations are shared by the Council and, I am sure, the Commission. In this respect, the declaration of 16 June 2008 includes some very clear statements both on the political context surrounding the upgrading and on the messages that Europe intends to send to Israel on this occasion.
It is true that Israel has been aware of these messages for years, as you know. I am among those who find it regrettable that these messages have not been listened to properly, but the Council's gamble in June was to make use of the upgrading of bilateral relations to send the messages with greater force, at a higher level, and to a greater variety of contacts. That is what the Council is doing.
You also raised the point that Europe's invitation to join certain Community programmes has been extended not only to Israel but to all countries in the neighbourhood policy, including in that region.
Mr President, Mr Verheugen, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament has the opportunity today to make a contribution to the process of regional cooperation that Europe has launched in a region critical to its own security and prosperity.
I hope that, when the time comes, in view of the vote taken just now, you will follow the recommendation proposed by your rapporteur and that, in the resolution you wish to adopt in the same connection on the positions set out on this subject on the fringes of the Association Council, you will support the positions that, the Presidency is convinced, reflect a wise balance that has been a long time in the making between the governments of the Member States and that serves the cause of peace and stability in the region.
Günter Verheugen
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in December 2006 the Commission proposed fully integrating the partners in the European Neighbourhood Policy into the implementation of certain policies and into a series of Community programmes. Fields such as research and development, innovation, competitiveness, consumer protection and information society, to name but a few, were at the forefront of our considerations.
The Council has taken up this proposal on several occasions. In March 2007 it supported the Commission's proposal that all partner countries should always be enabled to participate in certain Community programmes.
Israel is the first of our partner countries in the Neighbourhood Policy which this year formally concluded a protocol on a framework agreement with the European Community on the general principles of its participation in Community programmes.
The Commission welcomes this outcome because it underlines our long-standing, close collaboration with our partner Israel. Since 1995 Israel has held full associate status in the Framework Programme for Research and Development. Over the years, this close collaboration has led to many joint projects, incidentally with substantial results, which I was able to see for myself on the spot in Israel last year.
The high quality of Israeli researchers and Israeli universities makes Israel a highly interesting and valued partner. In the field of innovation too, Israel can make a significant contribution, which is advantageous for both sides because in the medium term the way will be opened for much closer industrial cooperation. Meanwhile, the dialogue initiated at that time by Prime Minister Olmert and myself between companies from the EU and Israel has got off to a good start and is producing results.
Furthermore, Israel is already taking part in the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme, one of the three pillars of our competitiveness and integration programme. That is a programme of particular importance for small and medium-sized enterprises. Both sides are combining great expectations and hopes with strengthened cooperation. Therefore, the last EU-Israel Association Council last year underlined that it wanted to intensify relations with Israel based on the Common Action Plan.
Without doubt our relations are capable of expansion. Everything which contributes to making it easier for people to meet, bringing together journalists, artists, researchers and entrepreneurs, everything which serves dialogue and promotes mutual understanding, deserves our unconditional support. This will have a positive effect on our existing dialogue on human rights.
The further strengthening of our relations with Israel, a heartland in the European Neighbourhood Policy, is in the strategic interest of the European Union. The Council decision discussed here today fits in this context, thus making an important contribution to the strengthening of our cooperation with Israel. I therefore ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to support the draft resolution and to vote for the Commission's proposal.
Jana Hybášková
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I consider what has taken place today to be an unprecedented use of parliamentary procedure. Our Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats was prepared to support fully the socialists' report, including the socialists' amendment proposals. It was the socialists themselves who refused to vote on their own report. The report has nevertheless been passed by the Committee for Foreign Affairs, it is on the table and it is essential to vote on the report within the lifetime of this Parliament. Our group is fully determined to debate and adopt the report.
That which took place today damages Europe. Europe wanted to secure a return on its financial donations, it wanted to secure influence in the Middle East and it wanted to secure a chance to contribute to the peace process. Today we have thrown away an instrument that would have put us into this position in return for our money. Europe has also thrown away a major support in the area of research and development, it has thrown away a support linked to the development of science, research and technology, the fight against terrorism and the improvement of human rights in the Mediterranean region. I believe that talks on an action plan, as proposed by the Commission and the Council, will continue. I also believe that, under the Presidency of my own country, there will be an improvement in relations between Europe and Israel. But the case remains that our Parliament has thrown away its influence through becoming today a place where dark, non-European forces have triumphed, forces that do not want the situation in the Middle East to improve. And I believe it is absurd to place the European Parliament in opposition to our own states and our own intentions. We will therefore continue.
Hannes Swoboda
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, Mrs Hybášková, let us keep our feet on the ground. You have also considered that we will not vote today. We should really stick to the facts. As the Social Democrat Group, we are right behind the rapporteur and also voted in favour in the committee as a result of our conviction on the matter. The Vice-President of the Commission and you yourself have actually said that too.
However, we are not living in a hermetically sealed room, we are living in a political situation. Imagine if we simply did not agree with anything you or I said with regard to this catastrophic, inhuman situation in Gaza and behaved as if nothing were happening there? However, that is not the reality of the situation. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have said this is a contribution to peace. Do you really think that in the current situation it is a contribution to peace. It is possible that the situation will not change, unfortunately. We will vote at some point, although the situation is not serious. However, we must at least send a signal.
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the question remains unanswered: how do people think it will be received in the region as a whole? How do people think it will be received in Palestine and in other countries if at precisely this time we reach an agreement with Israel as the first country, while on the other hand human rights are being brutally trampled under foot, not only by Israel. It is quite clear - our Group has always ascertained this - that any kind of terrorism, be it rockets or other attacks, is to be utterly condemned.
Our Group has supported this motion by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Confederal Group of the European United Left because we want to give a signal at least once at this time that we simply cannot accept this situation in the Middle East. Yes, this cooperation will take place. Do not worry, you know quite clearly that this cooperation will take place and that that is not the end of a process but a clear signal. Yes, we want cooperation with Israel, but we also want peace in this region at last and no repression of the people.
Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Commissioner, Mr Jouyet, as it befits a responsible group, we have long discussed the question whether or not we should vote to defer the vote on both the draft resolution and the approval of the protocol; opinions in our group were divided. It was about 50/50, with a small majority to vote after all, and so my group was divided when it voted on this matter.
This divided stance can partly be attributed to our great concern with regard to the situation in the Middle East and with regard to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. I do not know anybody, myself included, who has visited the occupied territory and has not returned filled with great concern, great compassion and anger in respect of the situation that exists over there.
What is most disconcerting and alarming is that, since the Annapolis Agreements, Israeli policy has only become worse, stricter and tougher. You do not need to be of ill will to wonder whether Israel, or some forces within that country, backed by the Israeli army, is not in the process of creating irreversible situations within the occupied territories, to such an extent that a two-state solution becomes unattainable.
I can therefore understand that we wanted to send a message to Israel by deferring the vote, because we do not want to create the impression that we are rewarding that country in a time when the day-to-day situation is deteriorating for more than a million Palestinians who live in Gaza. I hope that, in the coming weeks and months, changes will take place such that we will be able to approve both texts with more confidence.
David Hammerstein
Mr President, it is facts that count, not words. Facts are worth a thousand times more than words. We have adopted many resolutions in this Parliament. Yes, there have been criticisms and good intentions in many of the resolutions that we have adopted, but the facts are more important.
It is a fact that a year of talks within the Annapolis process has failed. It is a fact that the settlement process is continuing. It is a fact that the situation in Gaza is worse than ever. It is also a fact that today, while we are talking, there are confrontations going on between settlers and the Israeli army itself.
I want to be able to vote on this resolution in a few months' time. I want us to be able to deepen our relations with the State of Israel. That is because the true friends of Israel, those of us who love Israel, dare to speak the truth. The truth is that the occupation as it exists today cannot continue any longer. It cannot go on any longer. We have to send out the message that the European Union's actions are conditional on a process of peace and basic respect for human rights. In that way we will be able to move ahead. We do want more and better relations with Israel and with the Palestinians, and we have to demonstrate that through clear conditions and clear actions, and not just words.
Luisa Morgantini
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has not been easy asking for the vote to be postponed, but I think that it has been a necessary measure which I really believe will do the European Parliament credit.
Israel cannot always be above complying with international laws. I would like to say to Mrs Hybášková that cooperation with Israel and the various projects have not been terminated at this point. It is simply the upgrading of relations which has been blocked and suspended, not cooperation, which is still forging ahead. I just hope that it can continue because it is important; even I can acknowledge its benefit. But I would like to reiterate: Israel needs to understand that it must comply with international laws. It is our honour and dignity which are also at stake.
I would therefore hope that the Council of Ministers listens to the European Parliament and shows some consistency for once by telling Israel that it must provide some concrete signs indicating that it wants peace and that it should lift the blockade against the West Bank settlements, which is affecting the living conditions of Gaza's citizens.
Our European Union projects have been blocked. For instance, the Pegaso project has stopped. It is hindered by the blockades preventing goods from entering the area. Tomorrow salaries will not be paid. The UNRRA (United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) is obliged to block aid to the poorest families. It is disgraceful that this is happening! I am not, however, specifically criticising Israel; far from it! Being friends with Israel also means making it face up to its own responsibilities and our own. I therefore hope we can start again, but the message we have given today is important. We have given it to the Palestinians and to all those Israelis who firmly believe in peace, but in peace with justice under law.
Bastiaan Belder
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, I am happy to endorse all efforts on the part of the Council and Commission to intensify relations with the Jewish State of Israel in our mutual interest; deferring the vote is, to my mind, sending them entirely the wrong message.
Despite this, I am facing the President-in-Office of the Council with very mixed feelings, due to the leaking of a Council document to the daily Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz - see last Monday's edition. Based on the leaked document, I should like to put three questions to him.
Do you agree that the title of that document, 'An action strategy for peace in the Middle East', is the way forward? If so, would you force Israel to reopen Palestinian institutions, including Orient House in Jerusalem? Finally, I should like to ask you, if that is what the strategy is like, how do you intend to combine it with improving relations with the newly elected Israeli Government, whatever form that may take? I look forward to your responses.
Luca Romagnoli
- (IT) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, this time I do not agree because I would argue that Parliament has given a bad impression today by referring Mrs De Keyser's report back to committee - and you will all certainly agree, especially with convening the debate and then the vote at such incredible speed. This makes me think that the left intended, as a bit of an excuse, to block Israel's access to the partnership programme for innovation and research. I would just like to emphasise here that we are talking about one of the few states, if not the only one, where offering it support is not only a sign of solidarity, but also entails growth and development for companies in Europe itself.
No one has yet been able to ask the Palestinian Authority how much support it receives from the Arab League and how it uses it, nor what part of this contributes to dialogue, mutual understanding, as well as cultural and scientific development. I must say, given that so few of the excessive number of centre-right members have been mobilised, the left did a good job, under the pretext of protecting human rights, in achieving its success with the vote. I get the impression, however, that all of this is hindering regional development and perhaps even the peace process. If anything, it calls into question a state's right to security, a right which we should safeguard.
Pasqualina Napoletano
- (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the rapporteurs who have spoken before me have given a good explanation of the purpose of the package that we have set out this morning to vote to postpone. But I would like to remind you that there are additional aspects to these relations, especially the political aspects, which are being examined by the Council in this development in relations between the European Union and Israel.
There are then those that affect the internal market. I therefore believe that we are all basically in favour of this development in relations between Israel and the European Union, in the same way as we are in favour of the development in relations with the Palestinian Authority. This report, however, must contain clarity and commitments from both sides. As things stand today, we cannot say that these criteria are being met. I would like to remind you not only of the tragic situation in Gaza, but also of the continuing illegal settlement in the territories. This is an issue which affects the marketing of products from the occupied territories and other matters which we are very familiar with.
In my view, the Council must basically make its position clearly understood, if only because it seems to me that the French Presidency has undertaken to present at the next Council meeting a document on the prospects for peace in the Middle East. This may be of great interest to us, even as an opportunity to develop constructive relations. For this reason, I believe that it was a wise decision to request this postponement, providing that we all manage to use this time to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian population, especially in Gaza. I would like to add that we should also use the time to rebuild relations between Europe and the United States on the basis of a joint initiative on resolving the situation in the Middle East.
Do not forget that 2008 was declared - or would have been - the year of the Constitution of the State of Palestine. 2008 is over and the situation is still awful.
Ioannis Kasoulides
Mr President, if the debate today had had as its subject the situation in the Gaza Strip, I might have joined Mrs De Keyser and all the other colleagues across the floor in claiming the same positions. But I am afraid that this political linkage with the upgrading of the participation of one of the ENP countries, and particularly the countries in the Mediterranean, has created a precedent and I do not know where it will lead. We have not listed political conditionality among bilateral relations issues within the ENP policies. In the case of Morocco, for instance, we have never mentioned the Western Sahara or human rights. The same applies in the case of Egypt or any country in the Mediterranean. I cannot understand why this time we have chosen this political link.
Secondly, it is my view that the more you engage in dialogue, cooperation and trust - as Mr Jouyet has said - with any of the countries' partners, the more influence you have on them. We have shut a door today and I do not know how we are going to open it.
Thirdly, I am sure that in our proceedings today, we have set a condition. We have said that it is just a deferral and we are going to come back to it. How are we going to come back to it? When will the situation in the Gaza Strip be so satisfactory that we will decide to come back to it? As Mrs Napoletano has said on the issue of the settlements, as with so many other issues on which we want to have a positive influence on Israel, when are we going to feel politically satisfied enough to bring back this fine resolution prepared in the Committee on Foreign Affairs?
Proinsias De Rossa
Mr President, Europe cannot upgrade its relations with Israel until its government convincingly demonstrates a change of course. It must end the collective punishment of the Palestinian population by lifting the siege of Gaza and demonstrate its commitment to engage seriously with the Palestinian leadership to find a workable and sustainable two-state solution.
We all want normal relations with Israel, but it is impossible in the current circumstances. I support without reservation Israel's right to defend itself, but such defence has to be within accepted international law and the responsibilities an occupying power takes upon itself when it invades another country.
The state of Israel, which prides itself on its democratic system, has been found in breach of international law on so many occasions in the way it treats Palestinians that most people's patience has been stretched to breaking point. On a recent official visit to Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank, I saw for myself the serious deterioration in the conditions of daily life for ordinary Palestinians.
Their economy has been crushed. There are 210 illegal settlements. Palestinian land and homes are constantly being seized. There are 11 000 Palestinian prisoners and 40 elected members of the Palestinian legislative council in detention. Over 300 young people under 18 years of age, some as young as 12 years old, are in detention. Gaza is under siege and threat of military invasion and already 50% of its population is dependent on food aid. The list goes on. This brutal collective punishment and land grabbing by Israel is a gross breach of international law and is destroying the possibility of peace.
Consequently, now is not the time for this Parliament to assent to an upgrading of relations. In fact I believe it should be deferred until after the Israeli and Palestinian elections due early in 2009. In the meantime, every effort must be made by the international community to de-escalate the situation and to create the conditions for Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace.
Elmar Brok
(DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Vice-President of the Commission, the purpose of such agreements as the upgrading of Israel is to assure the participants in the conflict that they are involved in a reasonable process which guarantees their internal stability and gives them the assurance of future cooperation and existence. Today we have wasted this opportunity for giving such an assurance. We have wasted it and consequently, in my opinion, further fuelled the flames.
I too am critical of Israel on many issues and particularly, for example, on the issue of settlement policy. However, when here today I hear that the key reason is the situation in the Gaza Strip, I am completely taken aback, especially as only half or even a quarter of the reasoning ever takes place. For we must see that if this reasoning is used, in three months another alibi will be found and then another in turn, to prevent the decision from being reached. For if I remember correctly, Israel left Gaza. If I remember correctly, Hamas overthrew the elected authorities of President Abbas and destroyed the government in a violent uprising, in breach of all rights. If I remember correctly, it is precisely the circumstances brought about by Hamas that are decisive for the situation in Gaza. If I remember correctly, shots are fired from Gaza at Israeli towns on a regular daily basis. And if this plays no role in such a debate and Israel is unilaterally blamed, this does not seem to me to be the way for European policy to gain trust in Jerusalem.
For this reason, I think we have made a big mistake today. We will only be a force for peace in the region if we adhere completely to the truth and do not just simply make policies. I am convinced that this policy will not help President Abbas either but that it will further aid the radicalisation already so successful in Gaza. I therefore consider today's decision to be wrong.
Zbigniew Zaleski
(PL) Mr President, a long-lasting conflict provides an opportunity to reflect on and analyse its causes and aggressive behaviours, and to seek solutions. I can understand the Palestinians' desperate rocket launchers, like rats driven into the corner of their cage, but I can also understand the Israelis' fear that their children might never come home from school again, since it is assumed that almost every Palestinian is a terrorist. It is not a matter of black and white.
There are compromisers and stubborn extremists among the Palestinians, just as there are doves and hawks among the Israelis, as was made clear by Tzipi Livni. These internal divisions are of no small importance in the conflict, and the greater the role they play, the more powerful one of the parties to the conflict becomes. In my view, the Israelis are the more powerful because they have a state, to which they of course have an absolute right, and I support this. They therefore enjoy all the attributes of a state.
This brings with it greater responsibility as well as a duty to take steps which may be risky but can give hope of a future peace. For this reason, Israel's demand of no rocket attacks by the Palestinians before the two-state project can go ahead is like saying that we would be prepared to have children provided that they all turn out to be intelligent and obtain doctorates or start profitable businesses.
Unconventional situations call for the courage to make unconventional decisions, and I expect Israel to do just that. We, the European Union, must help them to reach those decisions. In other words: Road map for two states.
As to strengthening the relationship between the EU and Israel, it seems to me that it is a good strategy, because it would give us greater influence and in the longer term would enable us to play a constructive part in mitigating this tragic conflict. I am in favour of strengthening our relationship.
Charles Tannock
Mr President, as rapporteur of reports on the ENP, I have long supported Israel's increased involvement in EU programmes and agencies, which is mutually beneficial, given Israel's advanced status as a country in areas such as scientific and in particular environmental research. In recent weeks I have received many e-mails asking me to vote against this EU-Israel enhanced cooperation agreement. However, I believe that the EU and Israel are natural partners because they share the same values: democracy, the rule of law and personal freedom, and in particular a free press and independent judiciary.
Not all the EU strategic partners can say the same. China, for example - dear to the President's heart I know - rejects those values, but strangely I do not receive many pleas to downgrade the EU's relationship with Beijing. That is because, sadly, the anti-Israel element amongst the public and in this House remains strong. When that sentiment is based on reasoning, I can respect it, even if I do not agree. Often though it is based on anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, as the US is Israel's closest ally.
Last week in India Jews were specifically sought out in Mumbai to be murdered by Jihadi terrorists. This demonstrates the need for the West to stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the Jewish State, as Israel is on the frontline of an existentialist battle with Islamist terrorists such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, who have proved their determination to destroy Israel and our way of life.
The European Parliament regrettably narrowly voted today not to give its opinion on this agreement - dear to the incoming Czech Presidency - which in my mind is disastrous and will send all the wrong signals to the Israeli public during a critical electoral period and will inevitably strengthen the hands of hardliners in Israel.
President
It is not China that is dear to my heart, it is democracy and human rights in China, as in Israel and Palestine.
Jim Allister
Mr President, some would have us believe that this House today acted out of a crisis of conscience. I must say that I find that strange, considering how many times this House has endorsed agreements without a whimper in respect of countries which indeed have appalling human rights records and which indeed have governmental structures which are far from democratic.
It seems to me that this House was blown off course today by an orchestrated campaign, from without and within, of very considerable venom against the State of Israel, and that we allowed ourselves to be unduly influenced by that. The blind bigotry that some have shown against Israel is quite appalling. Israel is a democracy in a region where democracies are few and far between. It accepts a two-state solution. It has been subjected to the most horrendous external and internal terrorism and, in consequence, it undoubtedly has the right to defend itself.
Some in this House seem so concerned with their angst and hatred of Israel that they are eager to excuse terrorist attacks and, indeed, eager to excuse the excesses of Hamas in Gaza, seeing fault only within the state that is under attack. I think that is wrong.
Proinsias De Rossa
Mr President, those of us who have spoken in favour of deferring a decision on this matter have been accused a number of times in this debate of being anti-Semitic.
That is totally inappropriate. Nobody on this side of the debate has accused anyone on the other side of bad faith or of having motives other than concern for the future of the people of Israel and the Palestinians.
It would be in order for all of us here to recognise that we are concerned about people and that is why we take the position that we take. It is not based on any kind of anti-Semitic ideology.
President
Mr De Rossa, the Chair fully recognises and indeed shares your position.
Hannes Swoboda
(DE) Mr President, yes, there have been a number of e-mails but there has also been lobbying by the Israeli Embassy. That is not the reason why we have made any particular decision. The reason was our firm conviction that this vote would not have been appropriate at this time.
Many arguments put forward by fellow Members - be it Mr Kasoulides, Mr Brok, Mr Zaleski or others - are thoroughly worthy arguments. I believe, after this difference of opinion that we had, it is now high time to return to a joint position that signifies support for Israel, but at the same time also support for the peace process, for the Palestinians' right to exist. That is what matters to us, nothing more or nothing less.
Jean-Pierre Jouyet
Mr Verheugen, ladies and gentlemen, it is not up to the Council to comment on procedural issues or on the decisions taken by this House in this field.
I would say to Mr Swoboda that it is clear that the Council shares these objectives and agrees with what you said in your last speech, particularly with regard to stabilisation. The EU and the Council condemn all the violence, particularly the firing of rockets at the civilian population, which must stop. The fight against terrorism must continue tirelessly, and the fate of Corporal Shalit is a particular concern for the EU, and, if I may say so, especially for the French Presidency.
That being said, the European Union continues to be deeply concerned by, and to condemn, the recent acceleration in the expansion of settlements. The continuing process of settlement, including natural expansion, must be stopped as a matter of urgency - including in East Jerusalem. It is contrary to international law, and it compromises the establishment of a viable Palestinian state; the barriers to movement into and within the occupied Palestinian territories must be lifted, in order to promote economic development. The humanitarian situation in Gaza must be improved as a matter of urgency, by pursuing the ceasefire, opening up the crossing points, and providing goods and services to help the population and to help the aid agencies, in particular the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), to do their work; and it is also important for Palestinian prisoners to be released in greater numbers, with priority being given to minors.
We therefore share the same aims, as I am keen to stress to this House as clearly as possible. The problem is knowing how we can best apply pressure to reach the result you want: the creation of two States coexisting in security within the context of a stable peace process - a context in which the EU has an important place. We need to find out whether we will be able to be firm on the principles I have just outlined, and that Israel needs to respect, through dialogue and trust, or whether, indeed, it is through dialogue, as the Council believes and continues to believe having listened to this debate, that we will be able to maintain a wise balance.
To conclude, I would remind you that the upgrading of relations needs to be seen within the more general context of the establishment of the Union for the Mediterranean and the development of a European neighbourhood policy. Do not forget that the proposed upgrading was preceded by a strengthening of our partnership with Morocco, which sent a powerful political message to our Arab neighbours on the southern shores of the Mediterranean; I would also remind you that our negotiations with Israel have not neglected the Palestinian Authority, and that the European Union and the Palestinian Authority met in summer 2008 to set up new working groups to speed up the implementation of the action plan concluded in 2005. I would also reiterate that we as the Presidency are committed to making progress in all the areas, including politics, that remain an indispensable part of our relations with the State of Israel.
It is this overall approach that gives meaning to the upgrading of the EU's relations with Israel, and it is this political dialogue that will make it possible, in our view, to ensure that the principles that various of you raised are better respected and defended and that the EU has a part to play in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Günter Verheugen
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) I should like quite briefly to give you three things to consider at the end of this debate.
Firstly, in a debate about our cooperation with Israel, in which human rights and the humanitarian problems of the Palestinians are rightly discussed, it should not, however, be forgotten that we have a particular responsibility towards Israel. Our policy towards Israel is determined not only by interests, it is determined by the fact that the mere existence of the State of Israel has something to do with European history and that a particular responsibility results from this.
And a second consequence of this is that the partnership which we aim to have with Israel or which we have perhaps already achieved must be reliable. We demand reliability from our Israeli partners and Israel is entitled to demand reliability from us too. Cooperation on these projects and policies has been offered to Israel. It may interest you to know that there are good reasons why Israel was the first country - the very first country - to be offered an action plan within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy. That was in 2003. I did it myself.
The last thing I would like to say is that these programmes and policies about which we are speaking are not an end in themselves. They have a deeper political basis. This deep political basis is to show Israel that there is the prospect of long-term cooperation with Europe for Israel, a prospect which Israel needs for the time after the conflict. And Israel needs that in order to be able to end the conflict in the first place. The other thing is that however small these initiatives may be, there are a number of things in them which enable us to promote bilateral and trilateral projects. I myself was recently in Jordan, Israel and Palestine to talk about an initiative which would permit us to make a policy for small and medium-sized enterprises in a trilateral framework. We also have research projects which are bilateral. This means that we have a framework instrument here which permits us to go across borders and achieve precisely what we want: cooperation and normality in this crisis region.
I shall refrain from drawing any conclusion about what I have just said. I only ask you to consider it in your subsequent decisions.
Véronique De Keyser
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, I would like to respond first of all to you, Mr Verheugen. You said, quite rightly, that we have a particular responsibility towards Israel.
We have taken on this responsibility collectively, and it is important. Moreover, it is precisely because we have this responsibility towards Israel that we have an at least equal responsibility with regard to the situation of Palestinians today, you must agree.
Mr Jouyet, we share the same goals, and you have, with good cause, listed a whole series of important issues that must be solved in the long, medium or short term. You used a highly significant word when you said 'the situation in Gaza, as a matter of urgency...' You used the word 'urgency'. We have asked for a deferment. We are giving ourselves time to see whether this urgency is in fact taken into account. You believe - and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion - that raising the status of Israel will make it easier to negotiate with them. I only wish it were true, but I cannot see any evidence of it, and we have in any case been in negotiations for more than a year, since Annapolis. As you know, Parliament's resources are very few.
We are using the means we have to send a friendly signal to Israel, saying, 'Please get a move on!' -. Unfortunately I did not hear the slightest indication from Mrs Tzipi Livni yesterday that this will happen. I am waiting and hoping.
I would also like to thank you, Mrs Hybášková - you were not present when I began speaking - I would like to say to you that you have been an exemplary partner, faithful to your commitments, as we shall be to ours, and I will not allow those Members who have questioned the relevance of human rights as the grounds for today's decision to persuade us that they are right. That is unacceptable! As for the anti-Semitic reproaches and other criticisms, which I have heard already today and which, I must warn you, we will hear more of - once again, this is unworthy of the European Parliament!
Why, in this European Parliament, should we be suspected of playing tactics when we speak of human rights? If it is true that these rights are being breached, it is an urgent matter.
I stand by the commitments we have made with our political partners regarding foreign affairs. In my view they are still valid, but I think that, realistically, the time is not right. We have made friendly gestures towards Israel. We will continue to do so, naturally. But our concern for the fate of the Palestinians remains alive and well.
(Applause)
President
The debate is closed.
I have received a motion for a resolution to wind up the debate tabled under Rule 103(2).
The vote on the report by Mrs De Keyser and the vote on the motion for a resolution will take place during a subsequent part-session.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Bairbre de Brún
in writing. - (GA) - It would be a bad sign if the EU were to improve relations with Israel at present. It would show that the EU was willing to ignore major, continual and persistent violations of human rights and of international law.
That would almost be like saying that the EU gives Israel the freedom to continue with repressive and illegal activities, with forced relocations of the population, with extrajudicial assassinations, with the occupation of Palestine and with an illegal Wall and settlements.
We should put as much pressure as we can on Israel so that it will have to fulfil its promises under international law and under UN resolutions. Today, as MEPs from all over Europe, we must send a strong message to Israel to let them know that we have had enough.
In 2002 the European Parliament voted to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement because of Israel's serious violations of human rights. Despite this, there is now talk of Israel taking part in an EU programme that deals with competitiveness and economic innovation, even though Israel is deliberately destroying the economy and infrastructure of Gaza.
I welcome the decision to cancel the vote on the improvement of relations between the EU and Israel.
Athanasios Pafilis
in writing. - (EL) The Council proposal to give preferential treatment to and upgrade the already strong cooperation between the EU and Israel - irrespective of the fact that the European Parliament vote on it has been adjourned - is, whichever way you look at it, a challenge to Europeans and to all the nations of the world, an insult to the thousands of victims of Israeli barbarity.
This proposal effectively perpetuates Israeli apartheid and rewards the mass infringements by Israel of international rules of law and the human rights of the Palestinian people, the occupation of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem and the continuing construction of the Wall of Shame and mass settlements and ignores UN resolutions condemning Israel and the resolution passed in 2002 by the European Parliament on the suspension of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Israel.
Although Israel has maintained the same policy towards the Palestinian people for 60 years, and nations and the UN have condemned it, a provocative proposal has been tabled suggesting that we turn a blind eye to the blatant infringements of human rights by the Israeli occupying forces.
This proves once again that, in its hypocrisy as regards respect for human rights, the EU is using double standards in its policy, depending on its interests in each particular case.
Marian Zlotea
in writing. - Approval of the proposed Neighbourhood Agreement with the State of Israel would incorporate Israel into certain Community programmes under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), a policy designed to promote reform and stability in the European Union's neighbourhood. Designed to take effect immediately, this agreement would require Israel to make financial contributions to the European Union's budget in exchange for participation in certain Community programmes. This agreement will be subject to review every three years after its approval by both parties. Support for this Neighbourhood Agreement would build upon the existing Association Agreement and represent a step toward enhanced cooperation on trade and progress in bringing resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
In the light of the recent visit to the European Parliament by the Israeli Foreign Minister, who advocated the strengthening of the Israel-EU relationship politically, and the current Action Plan just completed by the High Representative, the approval of this Neighbourhood Agreement would benefit both parties by improving each party's understanding of the other and hastening the arrival of peace and stability in the Middle East and Mediterranean.


Tribute
President
Ladies and gentlemen, I am afraid I have some very sad announcements to make. During the summer, we learned with great sadness of the tragic death of our friend and colleague Professor Bronisław Geremek. He was a great Polish patriot and a true European who, for decades, campaigned tirelessly for the Polish people to share in the fundamental values of democracy, liberty, human rights and the rule of law. His commitment to the democratic opposition and the great popular movement Solidarność ultimately bore fruit.
For almost two decades now, Poland has occupied its rightful place among the free and democratic nations of Europe and, as we all know, has been a member of the European Union since 1 May 2004. His contribution to this achievement undoubtedly made Bronisław Geremek - who also served as a member of the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish Parliament, for many years and was his country's Foreign Minister from 1997 to 2000 - one of the founding fathers and chief architects of the new Poland.
Bronisław Geremek had been a Member of the European Parliament since 2004. We knew him as a man whose belief in the European project was profound and genuine. It embodied his ideals and convictions: reconciliation, dialogue and compromise. I greatly admired his unique ability to be near to his country and near to the European Union at the same time. He worked tirelessly for the integration process, which he regarded as the best solution for the future of his country and, indeed, for our continent as a whole.
We have lost an exceptional figure from the European scene, a colleague whose tragic and untimely death has left a vacuum which will be hard to fill. I wish to express my deepest condolences to his family - especially his two sons - and all his friends. We in the European Parliament will always honour his memory.
Ladies and gentlemen, we also heard with great sorrow, in early August, of the death of our colleague Willi Piecyk shortly before his 60th birthday. On this sad occasion too, I would like to speak for the European Parliament in expressing our deepest sympathy to his family and friends. Willy Piecyk had been a Member of the European Parliament since 1992. He was a leading figure in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, where he served as spokesman for the Socialist Group for many years.
Only a few weeks ago, he was able to join us to celebrate the first European Maritime Day. At the time, although I was aware of his serious illness, it seemed to me that his health was improving. Sadly, this impression was mistaken.
Willi Piecyk will remain in our memories in many ways as the initiator of many important projects. With his passing, we have lost a colleague who enjoyed the respect and appreciation of everyone in this House. We will remember Willi Piecyk, too, with lasting gratitude.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am afraid I must also inform you about the death of a much-loved former colleague, Maria Luisa Cassanmagnago Cerretti, who died on 4 August. I have particularly vivid memories of her, for she joined the European Parliament at the same time as I did, in 1979, when she took up the cause of Europe and European integration in this House. She served as a Vice-Chairwoman of the Group of the European People's Party and was Vice-President of the European Parliament from 1982 to 1987. Her other political functions included chairing the Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, the forerunner of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a time.
Through her political commitment, Maria Luisa Cassanmagnago Cerretti was an inspiration, particularly for women, and as a Member of the European Parliament, she was a woman of intellectual courage and compassion who made a valuable contribution to European integration. We will remember her with great fondness. Ladies and gentlemen, during the summer recess, a series of tragic air disasters occurred. On 20 August, Spain's worst air disaster for 25 years left 154 people dead. Only 18 of the 172 people on board the aircraft, which was en route from Madrid's Barajas Airport to the Canary Islands, survived the tragedy. The day after the crash, I made a statement on behalf of the European Parliament, and today I would like to reiterate that message of solidarity and support to the families and friends of the deceased.
Just a few days after the Madrid tragedy, on 24 August, another plane crashed shortly after take-off at Kyrgyzstan's capital, Bishkek, killing 68 of the passengers and crew. I would like to speak for everyone in this House in expressing our most heartfelt condolences to the victims of these and other tragic events.
I would ask you all to rise for a minute's silence in memory of those who have lost their lives.
(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)