Reform of EU trade policy instruments (debate)
President
The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Mr Barón Crespo, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the Commission Green Paper and public consultation on a possible reform of EU trade policy instruments B6-0009/2007).
Ignasi Guardans Cambó
deputising for the author. - Mr President, we have asked for this debate to examine the background and the purpose of the Green Paper adopted by the Commission on 6 December 2006.
With the Green Paper, the Commission intends to stimulate a debate over the use of trade defence instruments in Europe: countervailing, anti-dumping and safeguard measures. I believe that this is a commendable initiative and I am convinced of the value of this debate. We need to talk much more about trade policy and about the choices made by the European Commission and by the Council and we need to ensure that decisions are properly discussed before this Parliament. We need to give this Parliament more power and to make trade policy more subject to democratic scrutiny.
We are all living through a moment which many view as some sort of crisis period. We are living through a time when Europeans are asking themselves: what does Europe represent and why do we need such a complicated thing as the European Union in the first place? And, when these legitimate concerns are raised, the importance of the role of a united EU in the globalised world and the importance of having a single voice to represent and defend the interests of 500 million citizens in any negotiation with other trade partners in the world market are vital factors to be considered.
Global trade and its impact on the lives of our citizens and on the future of our businesses, big, medium-sized and small, play an essential role in the anxieties felt by many over what we usually call 'globalisation'. And, while many of us believe that some of the criticism is no more than cheap demagogy, we must understand those anxieties and we must oppose pure determinism in the way this new world develops, in the way trade takes place, in the way wealth and poverty are distributed.
Europeans who lose their jobs when a company suddenly decides to move eastwards in search of higher profits cannot simply be told that times have changed and that they cannot stand in the way of progress. They want to know what is going on and they must have their voice heard by those that ultimately decide.
We should not forget that there is more than one recipe for economic growth and trade development. It is a matter of policy options whether the future of Europe belongs only to huge retail corporations and to importers or whether we can preserve a model compatible with our most essential social and environmental concerns.
Our strong belief in free trade is perfectly compatible with the need to ask for a level playing field. Even the most peaceful countries in the world - and Europe among them - know that a full commitment to peace does not necessarily mean that armies are abolished and all means of defence are to be destroyed.
So, we say yes to the huge benefits of free trade in our open world and we say yes to the fair implementation of the rules on which this global trade is based.
We welcome the Green Paper, which has the merit of opening a debate on this subject. Its text and the questions it raises already assume that something must be done to modify the current Community trade defence system.
This might be true. The recent footwear case has shown that the risk of deadlocks is real. They are clearly of no benefit to anybody. Nobody here is blindly defending inefficient European production or supporting a protectionist approach to this highly sensitive matter. Trade defence reform can be considered, if it is to be made more effective and more transparent.
The Green Paper can be a good starting point if all the stakeholders' views are properly taken into consideration and if the Commission and the Council do not entrench themselves behind preconceived ideological positions. The decision-making process can also be improved and we need to ensure that decisions are taken by Member States based on the well-founded research carried out by independent Community bodies, rather than on the basis of national interests, or, if you prefer, national selfishness.
It is therefore important to improve and reinforce trade defence instruments instead of watering them down. On the other side, a fresh approach can be made to less traditional threats to a balanced and free world trade. Practices such as so-called social or environmental dumping need also to be confronted and, when necessary, new means of tackling them should be seriously considered as a matter of Community interest.
The following are the questions I would like Mr Mandelson to respond to tonight. Firstly, the Doha negotiations have been restarted and I sincerely hope that they will result in a clear success. In this respect, would it not have been better to wait for the successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations before starting this exercise, which might weaken our position in Geneva?
Secondly, can Mr Mandelson explain why his services are already applying quite a few questionable innovations mentioned in the Green Paper, even before the public consultation has come to an end and without any discussions either before the Council, or before this Parliament?
Thirdly, since the new trade defence system proposed by the Commission assigns a role to all possible interested parties, including those not related to the production of goods falling under the scope of the investigation, do you not believe that the time has come to allow trade unions to lodge a complaint, as foreseen by the WTO anti-dumping agreement?
I conclude by formally asking Mr Mandelson to provide assurances that the European Parliament will be kept informed at all stages of the process and that the views expressed by its members will be fully taken into account when discussing this highly sensitive matter.
Peter Mandelson
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I do not think I have ever been asked to reply, in any Parliament in which I have been President-in-Office, to an opening question or a speech with which I have agreed more than the speech I have just listened to. In terms of its description of the spirit, purpose and context of this exercise, I must say I thought the honourable Member captured in every respect what we are doing most accurately and well.
The only stage at which, I have to say, I somewhat part company is when he asks me why our services - DG Trade - are applying new rules before the conclusion of the review. I have absolutely no idea what instances or issues he is referring to, and I would be pleased to hear because I do not know of any.
On 29 May last year, I informed the European Parliament of the necessity to review our trade defence instruments. I am pleased to be able to be back here and to update you on this process. We are now coming to the end of the consultation that we launched in December. That consultation solicited opinion from Member States, business, NGOs, individuals and, of course, the European Parliament. What it did not do in any way was question the importance of trade defence instruments. TDI is necessary to combat unfair trade in an international economy that has no international equivalent to the competition rules we take for granted in our own domestic economies. TDI, in my view, is the flip side of an open economy. It is the guarantee that others will not abuse that openness by trading unfairly. The Green Paper asks if we could use TDI better, if our tools have adapted to a changing global economy and whether our rules could be clearer and operate more transparently.
I think the justification for such an exercise is pretty obvious. The last review of our trade defence instruments was in 1996, and a lot has changed in the ways EU companies operate and as regards the role of global supply chains in our economy. Many more EU companies now produce goods wholly or partially outside the EU for import into the EU. These changes challenge traditional understanding of what constitutes EU production and the EU's economic interests. They make a definition of European workers' interests harder to write, as cases are more complex. Because these interests overall are those in which trade defence is rooted, that is good reason to assess the way we work and the way those rules operate.
But the Green Paper launched a consultation; it contains no recommendations for reform and is not intended to. It puts forward a set of questions. I have repeatedly emphasised that this is an open process and I have no preconceived ideas. There was a question asked of me about the intentions behind the six categories of question in the consultation paper. They are designed simply to put the various issues in context. Some are linked to the impact of globalisation on our trade defence system. Others, especially those related to transparency, were raised by stakeholders and experts with whom I had informal discussions in July last year.
So there are no intentions beyond the desire for intelligent debate and to rebuild the consensus and solidarity that has underpinned TDI and has come under strain in some recent cases. I fully echo the honourable Member's initial observation: we need to replace national selfishness with European solidarity, and that is what I hope to rebuild through the process of this review.
I do not come to you today with substantive proposals because that is not my role at this stage. Right now, we are listening. The scope of any proposed changes will depend on what we hear. Somebody asked how this review fits with our attempts to reform anti-dumping rules in the WTO. The honourable Member reflected that question. Actually, it is a rather good question. It is vital to push through the WTO to ensure others match the kind of standards we apply to ourselves. We are doing that and we will keep doing that in the DDA negotiations.
But EU legislation on TDI already goes beyond WTO requirements in many ways. The most obvious examples are the compulsory lesser duty rule and the Community interest test which we apply in all investigations. These are rules we introduced because they make the system work better in the wider EU interest. Of course we will push others to adopt similar rules, but reform at the international level is difficult and some of our key partners are, frankly, stubborn. So long as our refinements do not put us at a competitive disadvantage, so long as they reflect the EU's economic interests, why should we not pursue further reform?
That point relates to the question about the EU's general posture on anti-dumping. Are we protectionist or do we follow a 'response and defence' approach? In my view, protectionism is the shielding of a domestic industry from foreign competition, from fair competition - tough competition, yes, but fair nonetheless. That is not the intention of EU TDI policy and I will, of course, remain vigilant on that. We are not going to see our trade defence instruments turned into measures to protect EU industry from fair, legitimate competition. A protectionist does not recognise the difference between tough competition and unfair competition. We do. Our system does. That is the difference between protection and protectionism.
The EU process is complaint driven. We act only when EU industry can provide sufficient evidence that they are threatened by unfair trade, but we defend European production only against unfair trade, and we are bound by law to ensure that any trade defence measure is truly in the wider European economic interest. We are prudent and we are restrained but, above all, we are objective and dispassionate. A number of questions have gone right to this issue of making sure that TDI is effective and serves Europe's growth and competitiveness agenda.
As you know, this review is part of the global Europe framework policy that I launched last year, which is explicitly intended to put EU trade policy at the service of this growth and job strategy. Beyond saying that, I think TDI can and should be part of our wider strategy for ensuring that EU companies compete on a level playing field internationally. I think it is for stakeholders to suggest how well the system is working to that end, and that is the purpose of the review.
The question about the effectiveness of our measures is a good one. The possibility of review of trade defence measures always exists and measures cannot be extended without clear evidence that they are functioning as intended. The Commission also undertakes internal analysis to ensure the effectiveness of its work. DG Trade has recently started to analyse the impact of trade defence measures on certain companies and sectors. A credible TDI system has to be based on this sort of analysis.
A question was asked about public information and about the results of the consultation process. As you know, the Commission has very clear rules on the transparency of decision-making. Some of you may have attended the seminar on the Green Paper that took place only yesterday in Brussels. This event was open to the public and relayed on the website. Unless a contributor requests anonymity, we are publishing all responses to the Green Paper on the website of DG Trade. The whole process has been totally transparent.
Finally, on cooperation and dialogue with Parliament: you know that I have constantly appeared before you on all important trade policy matters, and I will continue to do so. Parliament has a very important role in the TDI reflection process. Your report will be central to the ongoing review process, and I will study its recommendations very closely.
I thank you for hearing me again today and I look forward to being back here again soon to discuss any and every issue of trade policy, on which I delight in remaining answerable to this House.
Christofer Fjellner
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (SV) Mr President, Mr Mandelson, trade defence instruments - the name is quite revealing: an instrument for defending ourselves against trade. To protect ourselves against trade would be both expensive and stupid, however, and there are therefore few economists who make a habit of supporting the use of this instrument. I myself have on more than one occasion here in Parliament talked, for example, about the way in which consumers are forced to pay astronomically high prices for a limited producer interest. The fact is, however, that, in the future too, we shall have some form of trade defence instrument. Until such time as we have common competition legislation right around the world, all countries will probably feel a need to protect themselves against what they perceive as unfair trade. I therefore believe that we need to design the instrument now so that it is legitimate and viewed as such by everyone - producers, importers, consumers and all the Member States.
We must get away from the predictable conflicts pitting North against South and producers against importers and consumers, as the conflicts in themselves undermine confidence in the instrument and, in the longer term, in EU trade policy. If we are to have any consensus surrounding these trade defence instruments, we must do more to emulate competition legislation. Everyone I meet demands, for example, more transparency, more predictability and, above all, less political horse-trading on this issue. I can understand them, as it is frankly ridiculous that the Member States should only be given a few days in which to assess thousands of pages prior to decisions on anti-dumping duties. The fact that, in Brussels, we have an army of consultants who run around in pursuit of rumours of Commission proposals concerning new defence measures is ridiculous too, as is the political horse-trading whereby duties on shoes can be exchanged for exemptions from the working time directive - exemptions that, in turn, can be exchanged for duties on Norwegian salmon. All this shows that a fundamental overhaul is required.
What is more, the world has changed. As global duties become bound and lower, more of our trading partners use instruments to prevent the import of goods in the traditional way, and, given that Europe is the biggest actor in the world market, we must show leadership. I should therefore like to conclude by asking you how we are to ensure that this reform does not, in actual fact, continue down the road of seriously becoming one that Frédéric Bastiat, for example, would characterise in terms of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
David Martin
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I welcome the Green Paper as it is clear that our trade defence instruments are in need of reform.
The vast majority of stakeholders are unhappy with the status quo. As they stand, anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations lack transparency, consistency, objectivity and are over-politicised and inappropriate to the realities of a modern economy adapting to the forces of globalisation.
While it is probably impossible to create a totally objective process, there can and must be improvements to the current investigation procedure in order to depoliticise it and ensure that the interests of all European citizens are best served.
In order to do this, as the Commissioner has indicated, we must redefine and give greater weight to the Community interest. If the European Union is to become more relevant to people's lives, it must take genuine steps to look after citizens' interests. This, of course, means the protection of jobs against unfair and anti-competitive behaviour. However, too often the narrow interests of an outspoken group of producers have won out against the interests of the millions of consumers who stand to gain from the process of globalisation and whose voice has often not been heard.
Moreover, the potential damage to European companies who set up global supply chains in order to remain competitive in a globalised economy must also be given greater consideration when considering the Community interest. In terms of the process of anti-dumping investigations, there is widespread dissatisfaction across stakeholders with the access they currently enjoy even to non-confidential documents and information.
The use of analogue countries must also be questioned. I am referring in particular to last year's shoe case where the Brazilian economy was used to make comparisons with China, whereas in reality their two economies are as comparable as their football teams.
I would also be eager for the Commission to investigate the viability of expanding trade defence instruments to deter environmental and social dumping in order to ensure that an unfair advantage is not obtained through the abuse of the environment or through failure to ensure decent labour standards.
Gianluca Susta
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the question that we are debating, the content of which I support, is a strong appeal to the European executive to ensure that, without going back on its commitment to revive multilateral dialogue, to open markets and to lay down rules that encourage development rather than blocking it with non-tariff barriers, the Union does not take unilateral action that penalises us more than we would wish in relation not only to emerging countries but also to the major developed nations, primarily the United States.
Reviving competitiveness and consistency with the Lisbon Strategy, opening markets, protecting consumers, including by introducing obligatory origin marking on imported goods, the success of measures adopted to defend the effectiveness of free competition; these elements are all inextricably linked. We emphasise that we are opposed to a distorted use of anti-dumping measures and to forms of disguised and non-agreed protectionism presented as fighting unfair competition, of which our global competitors accuse us. We do ask, however, that reform of anti-dumping rules by the European Union should not act as indirect support for those in the world who have not come out in favour of liberalisation.
At this stage and for a good while yet, I believe, liberalisation and regulation must, more than ever, be strictly linked in the interest of the market itself. The rules must however be objective, as was the case when drafting those governing competition, which are clearly defined, accessible, effective and easy to apply. For this reason, we must minimise the element of discretion used in applying defence measures, and small and medium-sized enterprises must be able to actually uphold the rules when prices are subject to abnormal changes.
Commissioner, we hope that the European executive will take account of these considerations, in the knowledge that Europe's real economy needs to feel part of a strong community that encourages and urges it to take up the challenges of an ever more globalised world, yet defends it from those that breach the rules to unjustly pursue their own development at the expense of others.
Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk
on behalf of the UEN Group.- (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the launch of the debate on the reform of trade policy instruments.
The current system of trade policy instruments, which has remained unchanged for several decades, is no longer effective enough to counteract the negative effects of burgeoning globalisation. As this is too large a topic to discuss in any great detail here, I would like to draw attention to those issues where reform is needed.
Firstly, anti-dumping tariffs are imposed by the Commission on a product on the basis of proof that its price on the EU market does not exceed the cost of production. To this end the Commission considers mainly production factors such as wages, cost of materials and energy for example. The Commission does not, however, establish whether the enterprise bears the cost of social security for its employees, or of environmental protection measures. It is therefore difficult to establish whether the costs submitted are incomplete, and consequently that the price of a product that does not take account of them has been artificially reduced.
Secondly, it is often the case that the relatively high prices of some products originating in the European Union, and hence their lack of competitiveness on the world market, arise from the very high standards demanded, regarding animal welfare, for instance. The European Union must require that products from third countries sold on its market also meet these standards.
Thirdly, the European Commission is very cautious in applying so-called protective clauses whose aim is to prevent the European Union market from being suddenly flooded by a particular type of product. These instruments, however, are much faster and easier to use than anti-dumping tariffs.
Finally, the Commission should also try to shorten to a minimum the period between the start of a particular procedure and the implementation of the relevant protection instrument. Currently this takes many months, and for anti-dumping tariffs as long as nine months, which exposes European producers to huge losses.
Carl Schlyter
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (SV) Mr President, free trade is no good if it is unfair, and trade defence measures are an attempt to make it fairer. I think that the Commission places a little too much emphasis on multinational companies, and I am uneasy about redefining the Community interest. I wish to clarify the fact that, if an EU-based transnational company is involved in social or environmental dumping, either for its own part or through subsidiary companies or subcontractors, it cannot be regarded as a Community interest just because it is EU-registered. It must be punished for engaging in such practices.
The Green Paper also addresses many interesting issues that we are to debate, for example increased transparency and more influence for small companies and non-governmental organisations. One important dimension is missing, however: the Green Paper is insufficiently green. The whole dimension of environmental dumping is absent. Let me remind you of paragraph 11 of the Muscardini report from October, whereby the European Parliament 'invites the Commission to consider whether it would be appropriate to radically revise the rules on the use of trade defence ... measures under the WTO aegis', and this for the purpose of including non-compliance with global agreements and with conventions on the environment and social issues as forms of dumping or subsidy.
The fact is that countries that have weak environmental legislation or that lack the environmental taxes of their competitors must be seen as subsidising or dumping their production costs; in other words, as engaging in nothing less than traditional dumping. This will become a growing problem when the global level of ambition increases. There must, then, be no free zones for environmental destruction that undermines global environmental work. We must, for example, introduce a Kyoto tariff for countries that do not comply with the Kyoto Agreement. Other countries must be brought before the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and perhaps we shall win and perhaps we shall lose. Many believe the WTO to be a powerful organisation, but one thing is certain: the climate cares not one jot for the WTO and, if we do not introduce climate measures into trade policy, will change irrespective of what the WTO thinks.
One final comment: if we are now to have solidarity and we have a one per cent limit, when is Malta to be able to apply these defence measures and when is it to obtain more than one per cent of internal trade?
Béla Glattfelder
(HU) Free trade works well if its rules are followed. But this is not always the case. Unfair trade practices and dumping are increasingly being used against the EU and its producers. In several cases of dumping it has been demonstrated that it is the vendors rather than the consumers who profit. There is no reason for the EU to water down the current trade rules. It is unacceptable that we should punish those companies that have remained in Europe, that have retained European jobs, and reward those which moved their production offshore.
We need protection against unfair competition. We should not loosen the rules against unfair trade, but rather enforce them. This is especially true in the case of countries that are not market economies, where for instance the state is using complex and non-transparent means of giving aid to companies that are producing for export. Moreover, China is using its increasing trade revenues not to expand democracy, reduce poverty, protect the environment or reduce CO2 emissions, but rather to purchase armaments. This year, China is increasing its military expenditures by 18%. According to official statistics, this will reach USD 45 billion. Moreover, according to some experts on security policy, the true amount they are spending on armaments will be three times this sum.
Commissioner, there is not much point for us to support China's military build-up by cutting European jobs.
Kader Arif
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mr Barón Crespo and Mr Guardans Cambó for having taken the initiative in putting this oral question to the Commission.
The whole issue of our trade defence instruments is in fact of the utmost importance, not only in that they ensure that European producers are protected effectively against forms of unfair competition, but also when considered within the context of the broader debate on the place of the European Union in a globalised economy and on the rules that it wishes to promote for its governance.
Even though the European Union has always defended the WTO's multilateral system, I think it surprising to say the least that the Commission should launch a public consultation of this kind and be contemplating a potentially major reform of our defence instruments at a time when the WTO negotiations on anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard measures have not yet been completed and when the results of these will impact upon the way in which these instruments are used.
Let me, then, remind the Commission that it did itself commission a study evaluating the European trade defence instruments, the conclusion of which was that the status quo was both the most reasonable solution and the one best suited to addressing the concerns of all parties. This study also lends support to the idea that there is, at the present time, no visible and pressing need to review or amend the Community's existing trade defence instruments.
I would like, therefore, to know just what concrete changes the Commission is planning and how this House is going to be involved in every stage of the process, and I call on the Commission to take account of these different factors within the framework of its forthcoming discussions at Council level, as well as taking account of the views of the Members of this House and of the results of the public consultation that it itself initiated for the purpose of drawing up its future proposals.
Leopold Józef Rutowicz
(PL) The Green Paper and the debate on trade policy instruments are extremely important to our economy and could bring us considerable added value.
European foreign trade policy must respond adequately to any change that takes place in the manufacture and sale of goods on the internal and external markets. For example, in the framework of agreements, our market can promote the purchase of materials for biofuels, the sale of which has good development prospects, and restrict imports, thus reducing the output of the sugar industry, for instance. Through our mutual relationships we should help those of our suppliers who could start up production in line with our needs within the scope of promotional or association agreements.
As far as dumping goes, our response is long-winded and indecisive, doing us more harm than good. For example, in the case of frozen strawberries from China it took several years to put anti-dumping measures in place, by which time numerous farms had folded and gone bankrupt. An analysis of operational efficiency, and radically shortening existing bureaucratic procedures could lead to clear working regulations and responsibilities which would allow applications to be processed quickly.
Another problem for the European Union is defining the principles of our common trade policy to avoid unfair competition on the external market. The issues I have mentioned require constant monitoring. I thank other Members for engaging in the debate on this issue.
Daniel Caspary
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the EU must think carefully about how to better defend its own interests. The strategy of making early concessions in the hope of later benefits will certainly not work. Instead, the rules must be observed in the interests of free, fair competition. Unfair trade practices should not be tolerated, and therefore, without a doubt, effective trade defence instruments form an integral part of the European strategy for competitiveness. In this sense, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Glattfelder: the defence instruments must not be further watered down.
As I see it, Commissioner, the timing of the Green Paper is very unfortunate, as the results of the current multilateral negotiations on trade defence instruments should not be forestalled. There should be no reforms in Europe before the conclusion of these negotiations, whether successful - which I hope - or not.
The second thing I want to say is that the present instruments have fundamentally proved their worth. If there have to be reforms at all, these should be geared towards improving the existing system.
We need to make a clear distinction - as the Commissioner rightly mentioned - between real dumping on the one hand and pricing in line with competition law on the other. Anti-dumping measures must not be abused for protectionist purposes. On the other hand, however, the long-term preservation of European production should not be sacrificed to apparent short-term consumer interests. From the procedural point of view, it must be ensured that the assessment of cases is as objective as possible, and not influenced by specific national interests in the Council. It is my firm conviction that, whilst third countries are making intensive use - often abuse - of trade defence instruments against us, we must not relax ours.
All of this is possible under the existing rules if they are just applied correctly, and so I would ask the Commissioner to be very sensitive in this regard, and I would recommend to him the stimulating reading that is my latest draft report on external trade strategy, in which I also discuss the subject of trade defence instruments.
Panagiotis Beglitis
(EL) Mr President, my special thanks to Commissioner Mandelson.
I believe that this evening's debate highlights an internal strategic split in the European Union. I believe that, as Mr Fjellner said in his speech, on the one hand there is the Europe of major commercial consumer protection networks and, on the other hand, the Europe of productive powers, of the protection of the productive and industrial fabric and of employment and of the defence of the workers. We must reconcile these two strategic approaches for the good of the European Union. Of course no one wants to turn the European Union into a protectionist fortress. On the other hand, however, it would be an illusion to believe that the European Union can remain unarmed in the face of the challenges and the negative consequences of globalisation, that it can remain unarmed in the face of unfair international trading practices, in the face of social and environmental dumping by certain emergent economies in the developing world.
I believe that the Green Paper presented by Mr Mandelson can form a good basis for further discussion. We need trade defence measures on the basic precondition that they will be effective, that they will help to defend the commercial interests of the European Union, that they will help to defend the principle of transparency and faster decision-making. Provided, Mr Mandelson, that your proposal moves in the direction of improving the trade defence mechanisms of the European Union, we really can hold a debate and make a positive contribution to that debate.
DanutBudreikait
(LT) Today for discussion we have the Commission's Green Paper, which focuses on Europe's trade defence instruments in a changing world economy. In the communiqué, concerns have been expressed about trade defence instruments which would not affect high productivity. Also mentioned is the issue of coordinating the Community's interests and those of high productivity, importers, consumers and even the interests of developing countries.
The figures provided show that the USA and India, in protecting their markets, have initiated more studies on how to apply defence instruments than has the EU. The EU is having difficulty implementing the Lisbon Strategy and creating new jobs, and there is a catastrophic lack of qualified workers in the engineering profession, and of scientists who could create new competitive technologies.
In the current situation, by no means should defence instruments be relaxed, as that would stifle current EU productivity, especially small and medium-size businesses, particularly in new Member States.
Furthermore, I would urge the Commission to quickly carry out anti-dumping studies, as delay on this has already bankrupted the Lithuanian telescope manufacturer 'Ekranas'.
Francisco Assis
(PT) Mr Mandelson, this Commission initiative straight away has the merit of promoting debate on a issue to which there are no simple answers. There are sectors in Europe that lean more towards the demagogic and populist responses of those who feel they have simple answers to this question. They may be simple answers, but they are wrong.
The key issue is how the EU should use the trade defence instruments at its disposal to guarantee compliance with the rules of fair trade and to take an active role in the process of regulating international trade.
The European economic and social model must be defended, but it must never overstep the boundary into protectionism. This is currently the most important issue facing the EU.
We have already seen that there are natural differences of opinion and opposing interests within the EU itself. The interests of the manufacturers do not necessarily coincide with those of the major importers, and the immediate interests of consumers do not necessarily coincide with each other. What is needed is a guideline that always emphasises a key principle - that of how the EU will participate actively, seriously and intelligently in the process of regulating international trade. In this context, it must seek to project onto an international scale, within the framework of the World Trade Organisation, some of the basic values that identify it, namely a competitive economy and, at the same time, a society that shows greater solidarity and more cohesion and that is very alert to the preservation of certain key environmental values.
This is the challenge now facing the EU, and I therefore feel that the Commission has done the right thing in promoting this debate.
Benoît Hamon
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I too should like to thank the Commission for having opened this debate on the EU's trade defence instruments, and I should also like to congratulate Mr Guardans Cambó on having offered us the opportunity to debate the subject today.
What I find striking about the Commission's questionnaire, or, more broadly speaking, about all its thinking about trade policy, is the lack of any reference whatsoever to the issue of the euro exchange rate against the currencies of our main trading partners. I want to know from Commissioner Mandelson just how he thinks the European Union's trading interests can be effectively defended when the euro stands as it does against the dollar, the yuan and the yen?
If, then, I may take the example of the aerospace industry, which, with its plans for redundancies and cutbacks and its threats of farming work out and of moving it to other sites, holds the centre of the stage today, a ten-cent change in the euro/dollar exchange rate amounts to the loss or gain of a billion euros in Airbus' year-end figures. Is it not the case that competitive currency devaluations on the part of our competitors are the most flagrant examples of dumping, the consequence of these being that Airbus, the flagship of European industry, now finds it does better to produce some of its aircraft outside the euro zone if it wants to be able to compete with Boeing? Just what we always wanted!
I would encourage Commissioner Mandelson to look to the European Central Bank and do something, today, about making it responsible not only when the euro's value goes down but also when it goes up, for has the time not come for the Council and the Commission, by virtue of the powers accorded them by Article 111 of the Treaty, to at last discharge their responsibilities and enable us to equip ourselves with something we cannot do without - the general outlines of an exchange rate policy?
Peter Mandelson
Member of the Commission. Mr President, by my reckoning 85% of those who have spoken have welcomed this review and therefore I feel gratified in having taken the initiative in proposing it to the Commission. I hope that this fact and the very intelligent and, in the main, very balanced contributions that have been made to this debate will be registered in the Council and by the Presidency. I do not know whether they are represented tonight. It appears not. But, nonetheless, I am sure that this fact will communicate itself.
Now, having welcomed the review, people do differ as to whether they want to use it to water down the existing TDI or not. I am going to disappoint both those categories, both the water-downers and the anti-water-downers, by saying that the aim of the review is neither to strengthen nor to weaken our existing trade defence instruments. Instead, the purpose is to make sure that we have rules that are clear, consistent and capable of commanding consensus across the Union. I am not fully satisfied that we are striking the right balance at the moment. Hence the controversy, hence the breakdown in consensus, hence the breakdown in solidarity amongst and between Member States that we have observed in recent cases. It is my responsibility to do what is necessary, if anything can be done, to repair that solidarity and make sure that we have consensus rebuilt.
Of course, we are faced with constant dilemmas in exercising and applying these rules. One person's legitimate protection is another person's protectionism and that is where judgement needs to be applied on the basis of the objective analysis undertaken by the Commission.
But I have heard the call of many in this House to ensure that our anti-dumping system is clear, transparent and objective. I have heard the concerns expressed about the length and lack of efficiency of the process and I have heard those who have said that they want environmental concerns better reflected.
I am not sure whether I will ever be able to fashion a set of instruments that will enable us to use trade defence to tackle global warming or bring climate security to the world. Of course, if this is a challenge that Members of this Parliament want to set us, then we will rise to it, but I am not sure that we will be successful, just as I am not entirely sure that we will be able to use trade defence instruments to address exchange rate policy either.
I am very grateful to those who have spoken and raised very important points. My own view, just to go back to the opening speaker in this debate, is that if you want to make and sustain the case for economic openness in Europe, which I do, then the people of Europe have to feel confident that, when they are unfairly threatened or harmed by the anti-competitive behaviour of others, that they have someone on their side: that someone is us. It is the essential and growing role of the European Union and of the European Commission in this global age. It does not make our task easier, but it makes it all the more necessary and important and it is a responsibility that, for my own part, I intend to see discharged in a fair, objective and dispassionate way.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statement (Rule 142)
Tokia Saïfi
in writing. - (FR) The Commission has adopted a Green Paper and launched a public consultation on the use of the EU's trade defence instruments (TDIs) in a changing global economy. This public consultation should prepare the way for proposals by the Commission aimed at reforming its trade defence instruments (anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard clauses).
This reform project needs, however, to be considered with prudence. The European Union must not act unilaterally or precipitately, for any revision of its instruments must be carried out within the legal framework of the ongoing negotiations on the multilateral disciplines applicable to TDIs, forming part of the Doha round. Quite apart from the need to be in line with the WTO calendar, it is also imperative that the Commission should take into account the fact that the liberalisation of trade makes TDIs indispensable.
TDIs are typically used in moderation and are in no way the straitjackets for which free-traders take them, or the weaponry of protectionists. As regulators, they are in fact effective as means of restoring the conditions of fair competition to international trading markets and of limiting illegal practices' adverse effects on industry, growth and employment in the European Community.


Radio Spectrum (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Hall, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, entitled 'Towards a European policy on the radio spectrum'.
Fiona Hall
rapporteur. - Madam President, firstly I would like to thank all the people who shared their knowledge and expertise with me when I was preparing this report. I would particularly like to thank the Commission for its generous help, as well as my colleagues, the shadows from the other groups, for their very constructive and cooperative suggestions.
The basic theme of the report is that the current method of managing radio spectrum is no longer adequate in the face of constantly emerging new technologies. These new technologies need to make use of radio spectrum, but the quantity of radio spectrum will always be limited simply by the laws of physics, so we have to find ways of making sure that this precious resource is used as efficiently as possible.
Policy on radio spectrum may sound like an obscure matter of no interest to the citizen on the street, but the end result of that policy is of fundamental interest because it is a question of jobs and economic growth. If we fail to reform our approach to radio spectrum, we are failing European industry, which is poised to become a global leader in communications technology. All the innovation that the industry is coming forward with will fail to develop properly if no spectrum is available and if the industry is blocked from operating across the European market of 500 million people.
The Lisbon Agenda is the driving force behind the new approach to spectrum. But there is also the need for Europe to be forward looking in the way it makes services of public and general interest available. I will come back to that in a minute.
First, I should like to say a few words about the changes proposed. At present, spectrum is managed on an administrative command and control model whereby certain frequencies are allocated to certain specific uses. The report argues that this administrative model needs to be supplemented now by a more flexible approach which would include more unlicensed use of spectrum and the tool of spectrum trading.
An essential element of this more flexible approach is that spectrum should be made available without conditions being attached as to the service to be provided or the technology to be used. In other words, the market-based element of spectrum management would be service- and technology-neutral.
This freeing-up of spectrum would clearly raise issues for existing users, such as the question of potential interference. It is therefore very important that the changes take place within a clear legal framework and with pre-established dispute resolution mechanisms.
In several places, paragraphs 11, 13 and so on, the report emphasises the importance of maintaining services of public and general interest and supporting cultural and linguistic diversity. It is important not to get this political commitment mixed up with the technical issue of how such services ought to be delivered.
I believe it would be a big mistake to ring-fence the frequencies currently used by broadcasting services by insisting on their exclusion from any new approach to spectrum management. That is because we would actually be damaging our ability to support a broad range of socially useful services if we insisted that the delivery mechanism for providing those services remained exactly the same, frozen in time at the very period when all other uses of spectrum are evolving very rapidly.
To take one example, we face the challenge in the EU of stopping a rift opening up between the internet haves and the internet have-nots. One easy way to roll out internet access to the poorest regions of our poorest countries would be by way of wireless broadband, taking advantage of some of the broadcasting frequencies freed up by the switch from analogue to digital broadcasting, the digital dividend.
I use this as just one example of why we need to affirm our commitment to services of public and general interest, but also as an example of why we must not treat the frequencies currently used by broadcasting as somehow untouchable. We need to make the most of opportunities to provide services in new ways by new technologies and to more people than at present. And it is vital to support the growth of a knowledge-based economy in Europe. So, it is important to open up the possibility of more flexible use across the whole of the radio spectrum without ruling out certain frequencies.
Finally, I welcome the amendment tabled by the PSE Group, which serves as a balanced summary of the key issues at stake.
Mariann Fischer Boel
Member of the Commission. Madam President, I have to compliment the European Parliament, in particular the rapporteur, Mrs Hall, for realising the importance of the choices Europe is about to make with regard to radio spectrum policy.
This is an area where political decisions have a direct impact on the quality of jobs and growth in the European economy. Services dependent on radio spectrum represent around 2 to 3% of Europe's GDP. There have been studies for the World Bank and for the OECD which clearly link the development of electronic communication services to economic growth. An econometric study made for the Commission tentatively associated better spectrum break relation with 0.1% of extra GDP growth per year. This would quickly cumulate to deliver real benefits.
The urgency of the matter can be summed up in the word 'convergence'. Practically all communications are quickly becoming digital and there is an increasing number of infrastructures competing to carry services. The old categories are disappearing and we need to respond with a regulation that permits the spectrum users to choose the mix of services and technologies that they prefer and that in many cases permits them to buy and sell spectrum rights to each other.
The reasons for regulation are still strong. We have to manage interference. We need to ensure that the rights to use spectrum are clearly defined and we need to ensure a level playing field. The report that we are debating tonight is in most aspects in line with this policy vision and I want to thank the rapporteur for her efforts.
One area of divergence concerns including spectrum for terrestrial broadcasting distribution in the planned reforms. We are not questioning the importance of the television companies' public service function, nor their contribution to cultural and linguistic diversity. We should, however, think very carefully before we privilege one specific form of broadcasting distribution without regard to the costs to our society in terms of opportunity.
A case in point: the report quite rightly highlights wireless broadband as a tool for rural development and for breaching the digital divide. This requires tough choices about the balance between broadcasting and other services. There are necessary decisions to be made to safeguard the resources and functioning of public service broadcasting, but we should not use spectrum policy as a substitute for real debate. The amendment gives a more balanced approach by mentioning the need to secure stability and security for media services and the importance of a level playing field for new entrants and new technologies.
I have one final point to make: on the basis of the full analysis, the choice of the national regulators is to award spectrum to broadcasters. These users must also have the same obligation as any other users to be good stewards of a public resource and use it as effectively as possible. We think that our reform proposal would help to implement this principle.
Etelka Barsi-Pataky
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (HU) Technological innovation opens up tangible new opportunities for Europe. Switching to digital technology leads to a surplus in what has till now been a scarcity in frequencies available. It is therefore appropriate and necessary to make it possible for a part of that surplus to be used for new technologies, thereby opening up a dynamic territory for the European information and communications industry.
The regulation required for this purpose needs to be created in such a way that the traditional system, unlicensed use and frequency trading be part of an effective spectrum management. Clear rules are needed, which indicate what and how much we allow in the area of frequency trading.
The opinion of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is that we need very soon to make spectrum trading itself, as well as its guiding conditions, perfectly clear. In this regard we must handle broadcast frequencies with particular care. It must be ensured that frequencies cannot be accumulated, and that there be no monopolies. We have to promote the spread of new technologies to less developed regions and rural areas, but in such a way that they not be made to bear the costs of this.
It is the firm opinion of the Group of the European People's Party that in the process of regulating this area, we need to bear in mind social, cultural and political considerations, in order to advance the expression of cultural and linguistic diversity. In the process of drafting the report, I mentioned time and again the various specialties of the new Member States, which will have to be taken into account when regulations are drawn up. I was therefore pleased with Mrs Trautmann's initiative in this matter, and I support it. Finally, Member States need to open up frequencies for the purpose of Europe-wide technological harmonisation, and this must be done on the basis of a consensual agreement.
Catherine Trautmann
Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Hall, ladies and gentlemen, we are being asked to express an opinion on the reallocation of radio frequencies.
This is a very important dossier and the Commission's reasons for wanting a proposal that seeks to optimise or maximise the benefits of this resource of course stem from changing technologies, the existence of the digital dividend and the desire, clearly expressed in the Lisbon objectives, to give everyone access to new services, be it the Internet, mobile telephony or many others besides.
We have just spoken of broadband in particular, which could help to reduce the digital divide from which the European Union suffers, especially in rural and thinly populated areas. We must therefore seek to ensure a rational use of frequencies that will guarantee universal coverage in the 27 countries of the Union with a view to sustainable development of all areas.
Frequencies are in fact a resource, a public good, common to us all and strategic for the Union, and we must ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently in the long term. Just as we speak of energy efficiency, I believe we can also speak of radio spectrum efficiency.
I would like to welcome the Commission's attempts to give a new European dimension to the use of this digital dividend and avoid a repetition of the very real problem we had, and which the companies concerned saw as such, when the UMTS networks were put up for sale. It proposes the creation of a market. We have to be able to find a way of providing greater flexibility, avoiding speculation and monopolies and making frequencies accessible to new services and new entrants.
I believe it is right to want to do so. We must find new opportunities for innovation there, but we must be careful how they are marketed, whether it be by licences, auctions or assignments, in particular of public or free-access services, even if on a temporary basis. These different approaches remain to be defined.
In our committee we had a debate on the place of broadcasters and I would like to say here most emphatically that for my part I have always defended the special nature of the information programmes, the cultural programmes provided by broadcasters, especially public broadcasters, who do not have the private capital necessary to pay for access to the market on the same terms as, let us say, ordinary companies.
Therefore, if we are to take account of this situation while being fair and impartial, that is why the Socialist Group has tabled an amendment seeking to take account of radio spectrum efficiency, the balance between respect for public broadcasts and respect for State broadcasts on safety, also the role of regulators and the role of business.
Rebecca Harms
Madam President, I shall be brief. From the point of view of my group, which welcomes the Commission's approach in principle, there are five important points. We want to ensure that the new approach proposed by the Commission does not result in the formation of oligopolies. Germany has had bad experiences with the auctioning of UMTS licences. Our group wants services ensuring diversity to take priority at all times. I agree with Mrs Trautmann that broadcasters should always enjoy particular respect for the job they do, for our societies and the public. We want to see technical neutrality and interoperability. We want to really see blanket coverage. This is important to the Commissioner, too, since she bears co-responsibility for rural affairs. We in rural areas do not want to be disadvantaged any more, and we, too, want access to high-speed Internet connections. In addition, the procedures for auctions should be fully transparent and comprehensible in future.
Mariann Fischer Boel
Member of the Commission. Madam President, I presume an answer would be expected from the Commission, but I promise I shall keep it short.
I share the appreciation of Parliament regarding the vital role played by public service television and other media for democracy, diversity and for the encouragement for a public debate. It is necessary that future regulations continue to ensure that this programming can be distributed to the citizens in accordance with the public service obligations assumed by those broadcasters. However, assuming that these goals can be satisfied and keeping in mind the reality of convergence, we should carefully assess the need for the spectrum required to offer a public broadcasting service and to ensure its efficient use. In consequence, we need to provide broadcasters with the means and the flexibility to continue to develop their offer to the benefit of our society.
We have listened carefully and your comments will be taken into account during the revision of the telecommunication regulation, which will be proposed by the second half of 2007.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.


The performance and sustainability of the European aviation system - Aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services (debate)
President
The next item is the joint debate on
the report by Marian-Jean Marinescu, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EC) No 549/2004, (EC) No 550/2004, (EC) No 551/2004 and (EC) No 552/2004 in order to improve the performance and sustainability of the European aviation system - C6-0250/2008 -, and
the report by Marian-Jean Marinescu, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services and repealing Council Directive 2006/23/EEC - C6-0251/2008 -.
Marian-Jean Marinescu
rapporteur. - (RO) The Single European Sky II package is designed for the entire air transport system, with direct, positive ramifications for airlines, air navigation service providers, traffic controllers, airports and the aeronautical industry. It is actually the legislator's response to the need to harmonise and make European airspace and air traffic more efficient for the benefit of the environment, industry and, first and foremost, passengers.
The agreement reached with the Council on the SES II package is a step forward for us on the road to consolidating the European Union. This is the next natural step after a common market, adopting a single currency and creating the Schengen area. From 2012 we will have a Schengen airspace. Routes will be shorter, traffic control more efficient and air navigation services will be optimised and, in the future, integrated.
As a result, flights will be shorter, less fuel will be used and carbon dioxide emissions will be lower, which should normally lead to a reduction in airline ticket prices.
The compromise reached following the negotiations with the Council reflects the need to speed up the formation of functional airspace blocks. We have reached agreement on a deadline for putting FABs into operation, which is six months ahead of the European Commission's initial proposal.
The operation of FABs is the main element in creating a single European sky. This is why I welcome the agreement signed in November last year for the largest FAB, which covers Central Europe.
I would like to take this opportunity to call on the European Commission's support in approving the project linked to the Danube Romania-Bulgaria FAB as part of the TEN-T financial framework.
With the support of the representatives of the French and Czech Presidencies, whom I would like to take this opportunity to thank, we successfully managed to balance the decision-making relations and skills between the Member States and European Commission, particularly with regard to the performance scheme, a key element in the SES II package.
The Commission will make the decision concerning the proper harmonisation and implementation of the targets covered in the national performance plans.
The Commission's initial proposal has been supplemented by two elements introduced by Parliament. The first of these is the Functional Airspace Block System Coordinator. We considered it necessary, based on the TEN-T model, to appoint a coordinator to facilitate the signing of FAB operation agreements, thereby accelerating the process of achieving a single European sky. The second element relates to the clarification of the 'common projects' concept and the definition of the financing sources relating to them.
The European Parliament also managed to have special attention focused on the human factor. The compromise reached with the Council also clarifies the interdependencies between SES II and EASA, bearing in mind that extending the Agency's powers at aerodromes, ATM/ANS and ATC is actually the 'safety' element in the package.
I think that it is extremely important for a clear, complete definition to be found for aerodromes which come under the provisions of this regulation.
The new specifications issued by EASA must integrate with the existing ones. In addition, the opportunity has been given to mention the derogations granted so far. I also succeeded in introducing some provisions referring to the need to strengthen and extend the consultation process involving all stakeholders.
The reports which will be voted on tomorrow mark an important step forward on the path to creating a single European sky, and I am sure that they will be a success and a triumph for all stakeholders.
Antonio Tajani
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, honourable Members, on the eve of the European elections and two weeks away from the adoption of the third maritime package, the European institutions are about to send another positive signal to EU citizens, demonstrating that, at this time of crisis in particular, the Commission, Parliament and the Council are on the side of the citizens, are capable of tackling a difficult crisis and are capable of providing practical answers.
The single European sky reform is an important signal that will have consequences for industry and for citizens and that will reduce environmental pollution. The data that we have on the difficulties being faced by the air transport sector are well known - other data have arrived today and I shall list them during my answer - and therefore we have shown that we can react to a crisis, and this is definitely a positive thing, as it makes Europeans realise that the institutions exist and that they are capable of facing up to difficulties.
For this reason I should like to thank Parliament for the speed with which it has adopted this decision. I am grateful to Mr Marinescu, with whom I have a long-standing friendship forged by our working together, side by side, in Parliament - I know his abilities, which he has been able to show once again by working alongside the Commission and producing an important result in a very short amount of time - and, with him, I should also like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, who have enabled the institutions once again to support the people of Europe.
This has certainly been a major commitment and one that, I repeat, constitutes an effective response. Air transport is in fact waiting for practical and tangible measures that will enable the requirements not only of carriers, but above all of passengers, to be met. To this end I have insisted on the introduction of a service regulator, to ensure that monopolies do not hinder service quality. Furthermore, the swift introduction of an air traffic network manager, in addition to facilitating the deployment of national systems, may set an example for all modes of transport, but also for the telecommunication and energy sectors.
I should like to point out the support offered by Parliament to the Commission with regard to the development of a new instrument for financing cross-border infrastructure projects, stemming from, among other things, the SESAR programme. Parliament has understood the importance of the partnership and has reaffirmed the important role performed by operators in terms of implementing this ambitious approach.
I am pleased to see Parliament joining with the Commission in recognising, through a joint declaration, the importance to be attached to the human factor. In particular, Parliament has given its backing to strengthening the position of the military through the creation of the single sky, and this is a position that I fully support, not least because, for a time, I was a military air defence controller, and so I cannot fail to understand the important role that military controllers perform in the air traffic sector. I would cite, by way of example, operations rooms that I have visited, where civilian operators and military operators work side by side to guarantee the safety of air transport.
The joint declaration, which I support, stipulates that the Commission must affirm the need to take human factors duly into account in order effectively to implement the single European sky regulations, must be convinced that safety can never be taken for granted and must recognise the need to further strengthen the culture of safety, in particular by integrating a reliable accident alerting and just culture system, so as to learn from accidents that take place.
The Commission declares that it will build the service model on the basis of a genuine culture of safety, integrating an effective accident alerting and just culture system as a basis for safety provision. It will ensure that professionals responsible for guaranteeing safety have a sufficient level of skill, and it will promote the involvement of staff representatives in the creation of the single European sky at national, functional-airspace-block and Community level. It will assess the integration of human factors in the creation of the single European sky no later than 2012.
To conclude, for the first time every aspect of the entire aviation sector will be dealt with. Thanks to this new approach, safety of movements on the ground in airports, in air corridors and during landing and take-off will be handled by a single body.
This is therefore the start of a new phase for the Aviation Safety Agency. Such a swift adoption of the package - and I thank you once again - demonstrates the strong political will that exists at European level to realise the great ideas of an important predecessor of mine, who is sadly no longer with us: Loyola De Palacio. She wanted a real single sky for the benefit of European citizens. Today we have been able to realise this reform.
Teresa Riera Madurell
Madam President, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy regards the Commission proposal as positive, as it solves the shortcomings of the first package with regard to coherence, effectiveness, cost reduction and improved management.
The main contributions of the Committee on Industry relate to financing. The ATM Master Plan requires huge resources, which is why it must be possible to use public financing where necessary, and the initial investment should not be pre-financed by users.
They also relate to the role of Eurocontrol, which we believe needs to be completely overhauled in order to ensure its good governance and control over the provision of services. As regards the privatisation of services, I still think it is more efficient to carry out a prospective study, without any preconceived idea, and to decide according to the result.
Lastly, I would highlight once again that building the single sky is fundamental to making progress towards the Kyoto targets and that, as a Spaniard, I am satisfied that the error that arose regarding Gibraltar has been rectified.
I also want to thank the Commission for its excellent cooperation, and the services of the Committee on Industry and my parliamentary group for their invaluable help.
Georg Jarzembowski
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, we should all be very grateful to Mr Marinescu. In a very short time, he has succeeded in coming to an agreement with the European Council with the support of the Vice-President of the Commission. This second package of legislation will allow us to manage our airspace more efficiently in the years to come. It will also enable the airlines and in the end the consumers to save up to EUR 3 billion and to cut CO2 emissions by up to 12%. These are important objectives in terms of costs, the consumer and the environment, which are now within our grasp.
In the first of the two regulations, the Member States undertake finally to do what they should have done years ago, which is to establish functional airspace blocks within a short time. These blocks of airspace, which are no longer divided up along national boundaries, but instead according to functional flows of air traffic, will allow airspace to be managed more efficiently and more safely and will help to prevent unnecessary holding stacks in the sky.
I am very grateful for the Commission's support and for the rapporteur's determination to appoint a European coordinator for the functional airspace blocks, because we will have problems in ensuring that the Member States really do establish these new blocks. It is important that a coordinator working on behalf of Parliament and the Commission will be able to press for these new blocks to be created.
It is also important that military airspace management is integrated into this system and that we have a genuine master plan for the single European sky, which applies and implements the technological results of the air traffic control research project SESAR. Finally, it is also important for us that the European Aviation Safety Agency is given the task of implementing the standards and management activities for airports, air traffic management and air navigation services. This organisation must be provided with the staff and equipment it needs in good time. We are very much in favour, and I hope that the Commission will support us in this, of the EASA consulting with the relevant areas of industry with regard to practical solutions in all its new activities, so that really effective solutions can be found.
Ulrich Stockmann
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I know of a song which contains the line 'There must be unlimited freedom in the sky'. This is simply not true. The European sky consists of a patchwork of 60 national control centres. This is twice as many as in the USA, but with half the amount of air traffic. In addition, military no-fly zones prevent planes from flying in a straight line from one airport to another. This is not sustainable, particularly in the light of the fact that the volume of air traffic doubles every 10 to 15 years. When the amount of traffic doubles, the safety risk increases fourfold.
This led us in 2004 to initiate the single European sky concept. Unfortunately the Council of Ministers insisted at the time that Member States should agree among themselves which airspace blocks should be created. This was a mistake, because the Member States have now wasted a great deal of time and become bogged down in issues of national competence.
Now the Parliament and a good rapporteur have put in place a regulation with clear objectives and ground rules for the introduction of these airspace blocks by 2012. This makes a contribution to safety, to climate protection and to reducing the costs of air traffic. Flights which are 50 kilometres shorter, a 12% cut in CO2 emissions, savings of EUR 3 billion for the airlines and fewer delays for passengers. In brief, I hope that this sectoral reform in the sky will finally be successful and will take us a step further.
Nathalie Griesbeck
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is my turn to express my delight at this report on the single European sky. It is a real step forward, which many of us welcome.
These two regulations meet high expectations on the part of all the actors concerned in all the countries of the Union, since the excessive fragmentation of the current system has very costly effects and, above all, causes serious inefficiencies in terms of traffic management.
Thanks to this new European sky, aeroplanes will gradually abandon the non-linear flight paths that they are currently forced to use to follow flight paths that are more direct and consequently more efficient and, above all, cheaper for travellers.
I am genuinely delighted that this will allow a reduction in air transport's environmental impact, of course, and in its cost to the consumer.
Together with the harmonisation of safety standards, this also constitutes a very beneficial step forward. It will be able to simultaneously make air transport safer and quicker, of course, but also, and above all, less polluting and less expensive.
On behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I would however call on the Commission to make available financial resources, in particular, and logically the funds for the trans-European networks, but also contributions from the European Investment Bank, to finance all common flagship projects aimed at improving European air navigation.
I believe that, once again, Parliament has successfully overcome its divisions in order to go forward and provide the impetus for the Council to reach a swift agreement on this report, which is essential for European aviation and the reduction of its environmental impact. I, together with the Commissioner, am also delighted that this sends out a concrete, tangible signal to our fellow citizens.
Roberts Zīle
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (LV) Thank you, Madam President. I welcome the fact that the new legislative provisions will unite air traffic management technologies and make progress towards a combined functional air space block system, thus reducing the fragmentation of European Union air traffic. As a result, more effective planning of air traffic routes will reduce fuel consumption and harmful emissions, and air transport will thus become more environmentally friendly. In relation to the discriminatory and unlawful payments, however, that Russia collects from European Union carriers for flights over Siberia, we were unfortunately not able to provide the European Commission with a mechanism that would make its position in the talks with Russia on this point adequate. In my view, however, in one way or another the European Union will have to have this mechanism at its disposal, in order to influence situations where a non-EU country discriminates against European Union carriers; the principle of such a mechanism is, in fact, none other than mutual equality, so that task remains for us to accomplish. Thank you.
Eva Lichtenberger
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur who has entered into these negotiations with a great deal of commitment and expert knowledge. These negotiations were necessary, as although the boundaries in the sky are not visible, they are clearly present. They were primarily national boundaries, which, it must be said, were based on national egoism and which have helped to prevent the unification of the European airspace.
In light of the speed of travel, the safety requirements and the huge growth in air traffic, it should have been possible to introduce these improvements much earlier, especially as the concept of airspace blocks has been under discussion and negotiation since 2004. I believe that we can now make significant progress in this area. It is not only a question of improving the flight paths, increasing passengers' comfort and improving calculability; it will also, if it is implemented effectively, result in a reduction in emissions. We urgently need this reduction in air traffic emissions, because the volume of air traffic is growing so much and because our air traffic emissions trading system has not been very effective.
The Council has opposed this right until the end. Its opposition was not as successful as it had hoped and therefore even I can vote in favour of this report.
Michael Henry Nattrass
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, in this building there is an insatiable demand for power and control - levels of control which previously only the USSR would have dreamt of. EU controls that kill innovation and EU power to distort market demand, flying in the face of what the voters expect. Now even the sky is not the limit.
Under the excuse of efficiency, the EU - one of the most inefficient bureaucracies in the world - wants to control efficiency in the sky. The EU seeks to put obstacles in the way of innovation from free-marketeers such as Easyjet and Ryanair because they please the public, and we know how the EU ignores the public. The EU wants a functional air space block system coordinator: a fancy title for a dictator ruling over air traffic control, airports and also industry.
This is the same kind of over-control that eventually sent the USSR into oblivion, but all for the sake of flying whose flag? This is all about EU flag-waving. It is not to satisfy the public and has nothing to do with demand. Success depends on efficiency and meeting demand as can only be achieved in the free market - not by damaging EU controls, not with EU lack of understanding and not with EU lack of expertise as displayed in this building.
Let us resurrect efficiency by allowing the supply to feed the demand and allowing innovation. This is not the business of the EU. Please vote against.
Luca Romagnoli
- (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the creation of the single European sky, and I am reasonably certain that it will improve efficiency and safety, and also reduce the environmental impact of aviation.
Moreover, I should like to point out that Italy has already launched 'Blue MED' with Cyprus, Greece and Malta. This is a functional airspace block that improves flight efficiency and enables costs to be reduced precisely by eliminating the fragmentation of the skies across a large section of the Mediterranean. In short, when the aim is to increase transparency - I am addressing this point to the Member who spoke before me - and types of incentive are introduced that make services more efficient, we cannot fail to say that we are satisfied.
To conclude, I also welcome the objective of optimising airport management. I therefore hope that something is done soon to improve airport passenger services which, as in the case of Rome airport, are often unsatisfactory. I would like to thank Mr Marinescu for his excellent report and the Commission for its initiative.
Reinhard Rack
(DE) Madam President, both of the reports by Mr Marinescu concern improving the organisation of air traffic in Europe. We have managed to achieve a great deal in a first reading agreement, not least because of the important and successful work of the rapporteur. This is important, particularly at a time when the airline industry in Europe and worldwide is in a difficult situation.
However, we should not only be concerned about improving functionality here and now in the current crisis. We should also continue to focus on important issues from the past. These include passenger rights. Before the crisis of 11 September, we drew up a passenger regulation on the subject of denied boarding and delays, in which we deliberately used the airline industry's need for protection as our standard and not the passengers' need for protection. The airlines have blatantly exploited this in the current situation: the crisis, plus bad winter weather conditions. Their behaviour has been shameless.
My next point concerns liquids. Many things are changing in the skies at the moment, but the old regulation on liquids still remains in place. It does not make anyone safer. It provides a few people with employment in the security checks at airports. It annoys a lot of people and as has already been said, except for an alibi, it has produced no results. Mr Tajani, you and your predecessor have assured us that this ridiculous regulation will be abolished after checks have been made to show that it does not bring any additional safety benefits. We are waiting impatiently for the regulation to be abolished.
Jörg Leichtfried
(DE) Madam President, it is not simply the case nowadays that aircraft fly across national borders. Although the people up on the right, who may not exactly be saying ridiculous things, but are hiding behind their beautiful flags, do not seem to have understood, it is the case that the European airspace is fully deregulated and in this situation it is essential that this deregulated airspace should be centrally managed, centrally monitored and centrally implemented. These two reports represent the right way of achieving this.
It is essential that flights in Europe should be better coordinated. It is also essential that the same high safety standards apply everywhere and I am convinced that the path that we are taking here is the right one. As a result of our current airspace blocks, there are too many flights, which are too long and have very circuitous routes. In addition, CO2 emissions are much too high and the airlines are subject to enormous costs. All this will be changed and improved by the regulation which we will adopt tomorrow.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur, Mr Marinescu, for all his excellent work. I think we have worked together to achieve something very positive for the people of Europe. That is what we are here for.
Robert Evans
Madam President, Mr Tajani said at the beginning of the debate that this sends a good signal to Europe's citizens. I agree, and that is the purpose of our work.
I want to refer particularly to aerodromes because it is important that we bring these establishments under the umbrella of sensible European legislation. I think it is sensible, as it is protecting the citizen, and we do so by extending EASA's remit.
There are, however, a few areas where I would seek a little bit of clarification. I think it is correct that we eliminate small aerodromes just serving the recreational or leisure aspects of flying and take them outside the scope. Amendment 44 tabled by Mr Marinescu and others is important, because it changes the basis from the weight of the aircraft to the runway length of 800 m. I wonder, however, if the Commissioner or Mr Marinescu could, when summing up, give me an assurance that the definition of 'open to public use' is properly explained so that there is no ambiguity as to the actual definition of public use. Could they explain whether it means commercially viable, whether it means people buying tickets for flights, or whether it means ones to which the public can actually get access? That could be a future stumbling block which I hope could be cleared up.
Antonio Tajani
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, honourable Members, I am very pleased that this House has voted unanimously, or virtually unanimously, in favour of the single European sky reform. I understand that only Mr Nattrass is against it, but I do not understand why: perhaps either I have not understood, or he has not read the draft single European sky reform properly. I do not understand what the Soviet Union has to do with it: everyone is free to say what he or she wants; I do not feel nostalgic about the Soviet Union.
However, with regard to the serious points contained and raised in the debate, I should like to point out that this is a practical response that we are providing to a crisis within the air transport sector. The data supplied today by IATA are worrying. According to statements made by the Director-General, in this financial year the sector stands to lose USD 4.7 billion, or almost EUR 3.5 billion, thus performing worse than was initially expected. Its profits are set to drop by 12%.
Thus faced with a crisis of this kind, we are however capable of introducing cost-cutting standards. In all, once applied and working at full capacity, the entire reform, including SESAR, should lead to a total saving of approximately EUR 40 billion, and then the next important figure - and I think that this is close to Mrs Lichtenberger's heart - is also that of the reduction in pollution, which will be substantial.
With regard to the problem raised by Mr Zīle concerning reciprocity and overflight taxes to be imposed on all aeroplanes flying over Siberia, the issue was the subject of an agreement signed with Russia, but it has not yet been applied. We have raised the problem during several meetings with the competent transport ministers. It was also raised at the last summit the European Commission had in Moscow with Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev, and with the transport minister, with whom I met bilaterally. I do not see significant progress being made by Russia, but we shall persevere.
The principle of reciprocity, which could have been included in the text, did not receive the Council's support. Most of the Member States opposed it, and so a debate was held at the last Council of Transport Ministers. Since there was no possibility of including it, it was not included in the legislative text.
However, with regard to the issues raised by Mr Romagnoli concerning the airports in the city of Rome, I can say that, as usual, checks are always performed by the European Commission. I can say that, as regards the application of the regulation safeguarding passengers with reduced mobility, Fiumicino and Ciampino airports can be held up as examples because they applied the Community regulation earlier than other airports, so much so that I even presented the new regulation at the end of July last year at Fiumicino airport.
This does not mean that we should rest on our laurels: I am thinking of the scandalous business of the 42 million items of luggage that are mishandled across the world, of the 1 million suitcases or bags that are lost. Faced with this data I have launched an inquiry by the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport. I have allowed one month for answers to be obtained from all the competent organisations, and if these answers confirm the data supplied and featured in the press, I shall set about proposing a reform of the existing regulation, which I consider to be slightly weak as regards passenger protection. I am thinking of perhaps entrusting some national bodies with the task of checking that the Community regulation is applied.
My attention is certainly focused on the 'passenger rights' issue, and so I wish to reassure you, in response to the question put by Mr Romagnoli, and to reassure Parliament as a whole, as well as to confirm my ongoing commitment to try to safeguard passenger rights even more. It is no coincidence that, following the regulation submitted and approved on air transport, regulations on maritime transport and bus transport are being discussed.
I would also say to Mr Evans that the criteria taken into consideration are the commercial value of airports and runway length, to which he referred. The definition to which he refers has been somewhat superseded by the criteria listed.
I believe I can once again thank you and insist on the matter of air transport safety which, with this reform, will be even stronger, even though I am convinced that flying in European skies today is safe, but there are never any limits where safety is concerned. We must always do more, and therefore in all of these sectors in which it is possible to strengthen transport safety I will see through my commitment in full, and I will try to submit proposals to Parliament and the Council that really show EU citizens that the European institutions are there to help them.
To conclude, I am grateful to you once again. I am grateful to Mr Marinescu, but I wish to thank all the Members, all the coordinators, all the elected representatives who have taken the floor during this debate, because we could not have done without such a strong commitment from Parliament - which has shown on this occasion that it does not want to waste any time - to intervene in practice on issues that directly affect EU citizens, a commitment that it has made alongside the Commission. I am also grateful to the European Commission services, which have done so much, and I am pleased that during the speeches someone thanked the services, also, for their cooperation.
Together, we have also all been able to make the aeronautical industry realise that the institutions are capable - I repeat and I stress - of tackling a difficult crisis. I believe that the people of Europe, the world of enterprise do not expect across-the-board aid or mere legislative measures from us, but need to be shown that the institutions are capable of being there, are capable of supporting the citizens, entrepreneurs and all those who are committed to tackling this crisis. They need to feel that the institutions are capable of standing by them and of supporting them in overcoming together this difficult period for the European economy, which will survive - and I am deeply convinced of this - by implementing serious and precise rules that apply to everyone.
The lack of rules and existence of weak rules has given rise to the financial and economic crisis. We Europeans, who identify ourselves as part of a civilisation that is the fruit of Roman law and the Napoleonic code, which is based on rules and on respect for rules, are convinced that, thanks to these rules, we will be able to overcome the present difficulties and, above all, we will increasingly be able to have a system that is capable of being free but also of withstanding financial and economic difficulties.
I thank you once again for your great commitment. I am pleased to be able to take part in and share this important political moment with you.
Marian-Jean Marinescu
rapporteur. - (RO) Just some brief replies.
On the subject of Eurocontrol, the reform process has started so that new responsibilities can be received. On the subject of the 'owner of the air', I think that the happiest organisations after the approval of this report will be the airlines, including Ryanair.
On the subject of 'public use', this is the description which excludes even airports for air clubs or airports for pleasure flying. This is the reason why we wanted to remove these airports from the regulation, so as not to complicate matters further.
I would also like to thank you for the positive feedback you have given on my efforts. I think, however, that I could not have done this job alone, in any way at all. This is why I would like to thank sincerely the rapporteurs from the other political groups, Mr Stockmann, Mr Leichtfried, Mr Degutis, Mr Zile and Mrs Lichtenberger for the special contributions they made to this dossier, as well as for the support they gave me during the negotiations with the Council.
I also want to point out that the majority of the suggestions in the amendments submitted for the plenary session by Mr Kohlíček and Mr Markov already feature in the compromise reached with the Council.
Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on this success. I hope that it will be ratified tomorrow by the vote in Parliament and by the Council vote at the end of this month.
I would like to thank the Commission's team of experts which worked alongside us to produce this agreement. I also thank the French Presidency and Czech Presidency for their efforts, especially Thierry Boutsen and Vera Zazvorkova.
President
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Wednesday, 25 March 2009).
Written statements (Rule 142)
Šarūnas Birutis
in writing. - (LT) Although the current European air transport system is considered to be very safe, the rapid increase in the volume of transport will probably pose new challenges in the area of safety. Therefore, we must take action at Community level so that the level of safety is maintained, or perhaps even raised, in the future. The most important thing is to renew and make uniform standards in those segments which are not yet regulated by EU legislation (and which for that reason are characterised by regulatory fragmentation and a lack of enforcement), in order to integrate them into the single approach. This is especially characteristic of two elements of the air transport chain, which are considered very important from a safety point of view, as potentially they represent the area of highest risk.
Christine De Veyrac
A compromise has been reached between the Council and Parliament, allowing these two dossiers to be concluded at first reading.
I am delighted with this agreement, which is an important step in the creation of a single European sky.
This will allow important improvements to be achieved in terms of flight times, fuel consumption, travel costs and CO2 emissions.
While the first regulation emphasises the performance and the modernisation of the European aeronautical system, the second highlights the demands for safety and ensures that this important development in the management of air traffic in Europe will not take place to the detriment of the safety of aeroplanes and their passengers.
Parliament fought for these two texts, which are highly complementary, to be voted on together, and I am pleased that our institution was able to convince the Council on that point.
Member States, airlines and passengers: they are all beneficiaries of these new rules, which will prepare air transport for the decades ahead.
Thank you for your attention.
Kathy Sinnott
in writing. - When creating aviation policy, safety must always be our primary concern. I commend the aims of this report to make aviation safer and more efficient for all involved.
Though we must take all steps to improve safety, we must help airports and air traffic authorities to comply. The development of a unified regulatory framework and the implementation of new technology will be expensive. Regional airports may find it very hard to sustain the added costs of updating their systems.
Shannon Airport in the west of Ireland provides air traffic control for a large area of the North Atlantic. However, as an airport which has lost many routes in the last decade, it may not have the funds for improvements. In the present economic environment it will not be easy to borrow for new equipment and training. To pass these costs on to the consumer may be a case of diminishing returns.
I would suggest that, in order to ensure we make this transition to safer air travel, the Commission ring fence funds to assist the process.
(The sitting was suspended at 20.00 and resumed at 21.00)