Community Code on Visas (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Henrik Lax, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on Visas - C6-0254/2006 -.
Henrik Lax
rapporteur. - (SV) Mr President, the Community Code on Visas seeks to harmonise and clarify the visa procedure throughout the Schengen area. Everyone applying for a visa should be treated equally, irrespective of the Schengen consulate he or she turns to. Good administrative practice and a dignified reception should be guaranteed and the entry of genuine travellers should be facilitated.
Rules concerning the introduction of the requirement for holders of visas to give their fingerprints and the option of relocating the reception and processing of visa applicants were already approved on a previous occasion in a separate report tabled by Baroness Ludford. These rules have been included in the Community Code as an integral part of this Code.
Thank you, Sarah, for your close cooperation.
(SV) This proposed regulation should be established by means of the codecision procedure between Parliament and the Council. After work that has taken nearly three years and that has required intensive negotiations with the Council, I am pleased, as rapporteur, to now be able to table a compromise proposal, which the Council has approved and which I hope will win the approval of Parliament.
I would like to say a special thank you to the shadow rapporteurs Mrs Klamt, Mr Cashman, Mrs Ždanoka and Mrs Kaufmann for their very constructive cooperation and strong support in the negotiations. Without the support of a unanimous committee, Parliament would not have achieved such a good result in the negotiations. I would also like to extend my thanks to the Commission, which tabled a sound initial proposal that was gratifying to develop further. My thanks also go to the French and Czech Presidencies, both of which demonstrated the will to recognise the problems that Parliament wished to address and the ability to meet Parliament half way.
With the Commission's proposal as a starting point, all of the compromises represented improvements on the current situation and it proved possible to resolve the most difficult issues with the French Presidency even before Christmas. Of course, the whole preparation and negotiation process would never have succeeded without the splendid work carried out by my own able staff and that of my colleagues, the committee secretariat and the officials from the political groups. I would like to extend a particularly warm thank you to them.
The three most important results that we have achieved are: firstly, that a multiple-entry visa not only can, but must, be issued when certain agreed criteria are met; secondly, that the Member States have undertaken to enter into an agreement to represent each other, so that no one applying for a visa need make disproportionately difficult journeys in order to reach a competent Schengen consulate; and, thirdly, that a common website is to be set up to provide a unified picture of the Schengen area and to provide information regarding the rules applying to the granting of visas.
The fact that the visa fee could not be reduced from EUR 60 to EUR 35 is disappointing. However, this disappointment is assuaged by the fact, for example, that children under the age of six and persons under the age of 25 representing organisations in seminars, sports activities or cultural events will receive their visa free of charge.
I would like to finish by saying that this reform introduces two instruments that will be very important factors in the uniform application of the Schengen rules actually becoming a reality, namely the visa information system, which is a database covering all of the Schengen countries and which will provide the consulates with information in real time on who has applied for a visa, who has been granted a visa, who has had his or her application for a visa rejected and which visas have been withdrawn, and renewed local institutional cooperation between the Schengen consulates in different countries.
Jacques Barrot
Mr President, the Commission welcomes the considerable efforts made by Parliament and also, to some extent, by the Council. These efforts should enable us to reach an agreement at first reading. Given the consensus confirmed by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in mid-March and COREPER a few days before, I think that this agreement has now been definitively reached.
Although the text is not perfect and does not meet with all of our initial ambitions, the Commission unreservedly supports the compromise. We need to acknowledge and commend the efforts made by the European Parliament to reach an agreement on this proposal at first reading and before the end of the current legislature.
This regulation will make the rules on issuing visas clearer, not only for applicants but also for the Member States. These rules will also be applied in a more harmonised way.
The Commission is pleased that the obligation to give reasons for decisions to refuse visas and grant the right of appeal to refused applicants has remained practically unchanged from the text of the initial proposal, thanks to the support of the European Parliament.
These procedural guarantees will prevent decisions to refuse visas from being seen as arbitrary. If this agreement were called into question, we would have to continue to live with the deficiencies, such as the inconsistencies in the current rules, to the great dissatisfaction of everyone.
I would like to express my satisfaction with the compromise that has been negotiated, which is going to remedy the deficiencies and inconsistencies of the current rules. I would of course like to thank Mr Henrik Lax and Parliament. I am convinced that this new code on visas will greatly benefit those who are travelling in good faith.
Ewa Klamt
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the adoption of the Community Code on Visas will mean that, in future, Schengen visas - visas for stays of up to three months - will be issued according to established uniform criteria in the Schengen area. This step is urgently needed in a European Union with open borders. At the same time, Member States' responsibility for processing visa applications is clarified. As a rule, applicants must contact the Member State in which their main destination is located. My group welcomes the fact that the requirement and the procedure for issuing entry visas will speed up entry for large numbers of people. This way, business travellers entering the EU will be treated fairly and, moreover, holidaymakers from all round the world - by far the largest group of travellers to the EU - will benefit.
Thus we have not only made it possible to process visa applications quickly but also ensured that security screening prevents abuses. With its balance between security and facilitating entry, the Visa Information System affords Member States instant, direct access to all the relevant data in connection with the issuing of visas. Thus the examination of applications is being simplified while, at the same time, the issuing of visas will provide greater security in future thanks to the use of biometric identifiers; that is, photograph and fingerprints. The compromise struck between rapporteur Mr Lax and the Council takes account of Parliament's original position and also has the support of the broad majority of my group.
I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate my sincere thanks to Mr Lax for his commitment and his excellent cooperation over the last three years on this very complex dossier, which puts European visa policy on a new footing.
Michael Cashman
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Lax for the exceptional work that he has undertaken. I am pleased to say that, on behalf of the Socialist Group, we will be supporting his report in its entirety. We are also pleased that we have achieved most of our objectives.
I am also pleased that, working with you, Henrik, you have shown the imagination that is absolutely necessary for a brilliant legislator, which is to put yourself in the position of the person seeking to use the service. That is the way you have approached this in its entirety. It is why you looked at the one-stop shop, the Internet, the multi-entry visas and the reduction on visas for people under 25 - I only wish I could avail myself of that privilege - and approached it by asking how we can make this work for the citizen. This is a brilliant example for the rest of the House. We often approach things by putting forward amendments, which may improve the text and may have coherence, but does it serve the citizen? That has always been your approach.
I am pleased to say that we have the multiple-entry visas. We also have the whole issue of appeal. I worked with - to name a member of the DG - Jan on this very important principle, namely that, if you are refused a visa, or you are refused entry into the Schengen area, your appeal may not be suspensive, but the authority that refuses must make itself accountable.
I wish to thank the rapporteur once again, and to thank the Commission for making sure that we have that principle enshrined here. I have nothing more to say other than to thank my staff and to thank your staff - and particularly Renaud, who is in the public gallery. Without our staff, we could never do the job that we do so well. It has been a brilliant three-year love affair and, like most short-term love affairs, I am pleased to see it coming to an end.
Sarah Ludford
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, my regulation on biometric visas is now being incorporated in this new visa code, so I feel I have a little bit of ownership of it. It will work with the Visa Information System, for which I was the rapporteur.
The whole result not only improves the security of visas, but, as others have said, also convenience for visa applicants. That was Mr Cashman's aim for the Borders Code. So I feel that MEPs have delivered on those two aims.
I hope that biometrics improving the reliability of the link between the applicant and the document will mean that fewer people get turned away unjustifiably. Mr Lax has worked strongly, as Mr Cashman said, on improving service for applicants, and thus the image of the EU. Ninety-nine point nine per cent of people who want to come to the EU want to do so for trade, travel and tourism, and we want them to, as it is good for business, but, if they get a poor service and are handled badly, then they will not feel warmly about the EU.
Mr Lax has done a great job.
Tatjana Ždanoka
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, we are grateful to Mr Lax for his best efforts to achieve a compromise in such an ambitious project.
The Greens/EFA Group still believes that the amendment suggested by Parliament would be the best solution. For example, there could be - and there will be - practical problems while dealing with the main destination, instead of our proposal to provide free choice when applying for visas.
The Council has agreed to the obligation of the Member States to cooperate only. Unfortunately, the visa fee will be EUR 60 instead of the EUR 35 suggested by Parliament. Hopefully there are a number of waivers and reductions for children, students and active youth.
Although it was not possible to achieve a compromise on issuance of multiple-entry visas by default, at least we have now an obligation to issue such visas in certain cases.
The right to appeal against a negative decision is also a big step forward. Now, in many Member States, such a right does not exist. As a human rights activist in my previous life I especially thank Mr Lax for this provision.
Of course, for my group, incorporation in the report on visas of the report on biometrics looked like a fly in the ointment. We are against such a wide introduction of biometrics.
Still, we see some improvements in the visa policy, and therefore we will support this report.
Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, I should like to start by offering my sincere thanks to our rapporteur, Mr Lax, for his work. From the outset, he worked very closely with all the shadow rapporteurs and, thanks to his commitment, undoubtedly obtained the best possible result from the Council.
The Community Code on Visas is necessary to render more uniform the processing of short-stay Schengen visas and, above all, to improve visa-issuing service and thus the perception of the European Union in third countries. Following more than three years' work on the Community Code on Visas and complicated negotiations with the Council, it has finally proved possible to reach a compromise. Although, unfortunately, some of Parliament's demands could not be pushed through, the Community Code on Visas still contains numerous improvements, for example with regard to cooperation between Member States. Above all, it makes things easier for applicants, providing them with more legal certainty and creating transparency.
It is particularly important that any rejection of a visa application must be justified in future, and that all applicants will have the right to appeal against the rejection of their application. Regrettably, however, the visa fee is unchanged at EUR 60. Even if, in future, a larger number of people are exempted from the visa fee, this EUR 60 fee is likely to be unaffordable for a significant number of third-country nationals and thus, unfortunately, to mean that people are unable to travel to the European Union.
Finally, I should like to reiterate my thanks to the rapporteur and all my fellow Members for their excellent cooperation over the last few years and to congratulate Mr Lax on his report.
Marian-Jean Marinescu
(RO) The Community Code on Visas incorporates the procedures and conditions for issuing Schengen visas to Member States and harmonises the existing provisions concerning decisions to refuse, extend or annul these visas.
It is important that Member States which do not have their own consulate in a third country are represented by another Member State which has diplomatic or consular representation in the relevant third country. The code must take into account bilateral agreements signed by the Community, especially with countries involved in the European Union's neighbourhood and partnership policy in order to facilitate the processing of visa applications and apply simplified procedures.
I believe that the right of Member States to cooperate with commercial intermediaries will not be of any great help in simplifying the procedures for handling visa applications. The reason for this is that according to the code, visa applicants must present themselves in person when they submit their first application so that their biometric data can be registered. There is also the possibility that any visa applicant can be called for an interview when considering granting a Schengen visa.
The purpose of the Schengen visa code is for the European Union to present a united external front, to treat visa applicants equally and set out clear exemption criteria and rules for a number of third countries. In this context, I think that it is appropriate for me to remind you that the European Union must do its utmost to ensure that its Member States are treated equally by third countries which apply visa exemptions only for certain Member States. We simply cannot have two classes of European citizens when they want to travel, for instance, to Australia or the United States.
Jacques Barrot
Mr President, I would like to respond to Mr Marinescu that I am of course working to secure reciprocity from third countries, and that my recent trip to Washington was partly related to this issue.
As for the rest, I am very happy because I believe that Mr Lax has done a very good job and that he has been rewarded with very broad approval. I would like to add that obviously we also have a strategy aimed at facilitating the obtaining of visas with a number of countries, and I am placing a great deal of hope in the development of this strategy in order to facilitate the granting of visas as far as possible, in particular to young people from third countries, because I think that we have every interest in facilitating the entry of young people into Europe.
Thank you for this good approach, which has enabled us to conclude this text and thus to bring a new quality to visa policy that will be very much appreciated.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 2 April 2009.


1. Democratic Republic of Congo, mass rape in South Kivu province (
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the Democratic Republic of Congo, mass rape in South Kivu province.
Charles Tannock
author. - Madam President, the Democratic Republic of Congo is something of a misnomer, as it is certainly not democratic, nor is it really a functioning republic. If it was, we could perhaps hope to see the government take action to prevent the mass rape of women and to prosecute those responsible for that heinous crime. But in reality the government has little authority over vast swathes of this anarchic country.
The latest mass rapes in South Kivu province are another sorry chapter in the violent and troubled history of the DRC, which is verging on being a failed state. Those crimes were allegedly committed by former rebels who had been integrated into the national army but then deserted. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this appalling case is that the perpetrators are unlikely ever to be brought to justice. Nevertheless, that should not stop us trying, as impunity is completely unacceptable in the modern world. Having the International Criminal Court as a body of global jurisprudence for such vile crimes offers us at least some glimmer of hope for the victims of this savagery to see some justice - victims to whom we say today that we in this Parliament will not ignore what has happened to you.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
author. - Madam President, we have to remind ourselves that we are all responsible in different ways for what is happening because UN Resolution 1325 emphasises it is the responsibility of all states to put an end to impunity and prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes, including those relating to sexual or other violence against women and girls.
The time has come to go beyond condemnation; the Congolese Government and the UN should assume responsibility and take concrete action to end these atrocities. For the Congolese Government, for instance, it is necessary to make dealing with violence against women a national priority and put in place mechanisms such as establishing transitional justice to promote truth, requiring accountability for sexual violence; and organising a national campaign to heighten public awareness of the mass rape of women.
For the Commission: it is time to review the DRC's Country Strategy Paper and the national indicative programme of the EDF (2008-2013), with the objective of making the issue of mass rape and sexual violence against women a national priority to combat impunity. The EU's development funds to the DRC should be allocated as a matter of priority to providing medical, legal and social support for victims of sexual abuse and empowering women and girls as a way of preventing further sexual abuse.
Michèle Striffler
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, yet again, unfortunately, our Parliament has been called upon to express its clear condemnation of the mass rapes regularly committed, with total impunity ...
(The President interrupted the speaker)
in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), in South Kivu province in particular.
The United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO) has not been able to afford sufficient protection against these mass rapes and it is the responsibility of the government of the DRC to guarantee safety on its territory and to protect civilians. The funds allocated only reach a very few of the victims, and coordination of the aid is in no way guaranteed.
It is crucial for the Commission to maintain the funding that it grants to humanitarian aid in eastern DRC.
The plan favouring a military solution to resolve the conflict in South Kivu has proved to be a failure. There must be a political solution to this conflict, and we cannot but lament the international community's lack of courage.
Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that the media also have an essential role to play, and they do not always play it. In particular, they should ensure that people remain involved and that public opinion is properly alerted to the issue.
Marietje Schaake
author. - Madam President, the systematic and widespread practice of rape as a war crime may amount to crimes against humanity, according to the UN. The organisation has extended its mission to the DRC but, if our conclusion is that the mandate is insufficient to effectively intervene, we must encourage its revision. The UN must also carry out an independent inquiry so that we can learn about the scope and the scale of these horrific crimes. The impunity has to end. The international community, as well as the media, have an essential role to prevent sexual violence and to raise awareness. The authorities of the DRC must prioritise the ending of violence and of sexual violence in particular.
As a result of taboos, victims often do not speak out and, when they do, they risk being excluded from their communities. The fact that there are so many problems in the DRC must make us more vigilant and engaged. We must never allow a situation where rape is routine and where hundreds of thousands of people, particularly women, suffer in silence. At home we demand more transparency on the use of conflict minerals. We all use ICT products that potentially contain the minerals that fuel the conflicts in the DRC.
Véronique De Keyser
Madam President, it is with considerable emotion, anger and, at times, fury that I note that the issue of the raped women in eastern Congo is before us again. It is not the first time, and we remain powerless in the face of it.
I would simply like to say that I do not believe that we are powerless. We have been given a list of the decisions taken by the United Nations and the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO). A law is currently being drawn up in the Democratic Republic of Congo to introduce particular laws covering this kind of violation. It has been mentioned that what is needed, in this part of the country where the civil war is getting under way again, are political negotiations.
However, I must tell you that there is something that I find particularly repellent. We are talking about women whom we have visited and to whom we have listened here in this Parliament. The fact is that these women, who have been raped, do not even have the right to abortion, and, today, the children of these rapes are rejected by all communities. That, today, is a human tragedy.
Do not think, ladies and gentlemen, that I am trying to put the issue of abortion back on the table in the light of these emergencies. In most current legislation prohibiting abortion, rape provides an exception to this rule; in Congo this is not yet the case, and these 100 women and the 300 more that we have met, will give birth to children that they do not love and who will become part of those children abandoned on the Congolese streets.
So this is indeed a human tragedy. I would like us to consider it further in another place, at another time. It is unacceptable from all points of view.
Filip Kaczmarek
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the situation in South Kivu is very difficult. The long-standing conflict in the area gives rise to acts of violence on a daily basis. Since the beginning of the year alone, Médicins sans Frontières has helped 500 victims of mass rapes in the region of Fizi, in South Kivu. I agree with Mrs De Keyser that it is very frustrating that the number of mass rapes committed against the civilian population is consistently increasing in the west of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and that we have to talk about this once again. Yet we must talk about it, because sexual violence is unacceptable. We cannot remain silent on this issue. The local armed forces are not doing much to help in this situation. They are poorly trained and poorly equipped, and it is sometimes the case that the soldiers themselves are the rapists. As a result, it is incumbent upon us to provide more help to the victims. Instead of spending EUR 7 million on observing elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo, we should maybe consider earmarking these funds for helping victims and prosecuting sex offenders.
Ana Gomes
Madam President, crimes of sexual violence in South Kivu must be investigated and the perpetrators punished. It is essential to combat the culture of impunity in order to prevent atrocities like this from recurring. The European Union must make this issue a priority in their cooperation with the Democratic Republic of Congo, and must denounce and condemn the companies involved in mineral extraction which support the troops and armed militias who carry out these heinous crimes.
That is why it is also essential for the EU to raise other serious human rights violations with the Congolese authorities, such as the recent imprisonment of Agostinho Chicaia, an activist from Cabinda, Angola, who was detained on 20 June in Kinshasa airport when travelling on United Nations business. His arrest was carried out based on a blacklist drawn up by the Angolan authorities, who claim to not have requested the arrest. This is a Kafkaesque case which demonstrates that human rights are also violated in this way in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Agostinho Chicaia must be freed immediately, and the EU should also be insisting upon this.
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica
Madam President, once again, women are the main victims of the conflicts. In Congo, sexual violence is once again being used as a weapon of humiliation to cause the maximum destruction of the adversary. Moreover, in this case, there are clear economic interests behind a conflict in which more decisive action on trade and on certain products that we use every day, the so-called 'conflict minerals', would be a real tool for peace.
I therefore call for greater supervision and determination in this particular respect, and I support the proposed resolution, which focuses on democracy in order to avoid violence and war. Moreover, I think it is important to remember that we should also ask more of the European institutions in terms of support for political processes, which is what always ends up resolving this kind of conflict. I hope that you all agree with me on this.
Ryszard Czarnecki
Madam President, there are not many of us here, but we are here and we are speaking out on behalf of Europe. Our voice must be heard. The country we are talking about is one of the poorest in Africa. On the one hand there is no power there, since anarchy rules and power is on the streets, and yet on the other hand there is a great deal of power, since it is in everyone's hands. Sometimes a representative of the authorities, a policeman or member of the armed forces, can decide over people's lives and health. This is terrible. I would like to say that the European Parliament is dealing with this matter once again, and it is once again issuing a very dramatic appeal to the authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo to provide genuine protection for their own people. Finally, I would like to note that - as Mr Kaczmarek said - we really should think hard about what European taxpayers' money is being spent on in this context.
Bastiaan Belder
Madam President, just a few hours ago, I had an extensive telephone conversation with a Dutch aid worker in Kivu, in eastern Congo. He made it clear that he was genuinely pleased that the European Parliament, this House, is devoting its attention this morning to the acute poverty of the Congolese population, into whose well-being he is pouring his heart and soul. International attention - including the attention of this House this morning - that condemns the unpunished perpetration of atrocities and lawless violence in eastern Congo, together, for that matter, with the visible presence of the UN MONUSCO mission on the ground, has a real preventative effect and also breaks through the suffocating silence and suffering of the countless victims of mass rape.
For the rest, Commissioner, is the press report that I read yesterday that the judicial inquiry into the rape was suspended due to threats of reprisals true? That would be to send a terrible signal, especially for the victims and their families.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Madam President, unfortunately, crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo go back over 150 years. The main exports of the Belgian colony were rubber, ivory and copper. The population was subjected to forced labour on the plantations and in the mines. The people who were exploiting them used very cruel methods. Delivery quotas were imposed on each village and, if these were not met, the inhabitants were punished. The punishments took the form of whippings, rape, amputations and mass executions. I believe that Europe and, in particular, colonial Europe needs to make amends for this.
Violence of this kind becomes a vicious circle down through the generations and simply generates more violence. Rape is used as a weapon of war to demonstrate the unlimited power which the rapists have over their victims and to humiliate and injure them. As well as destroying the souls of the women affected, it also breaks up entire families. In addition to the physical and mental effects of rape, it is also seen as shameful, particularly if the woman becomes pregnant. The ultimate consequence is that women are rejected by their families.
Another factor is the inability of the Democratic Republic of Congo to prosecute members of its own armed forces for crimes against international law. In the rare cases where a woman takes legal action against her torturer, she is given no legal protection. Crimes against humanity like these must not be tolerated. We must exert massive pressure, in particular financial pressure, on the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is totally unacceptable for Europe to cast its eye over the riches in the country and then to turn a blind eye to war crimes.
Monica Luisa Macovei
(RO) Madam President, I share the sentiments of those who condemn the crimes committed in the South Kivu province and the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. According to local sources, roughly 40 rapes are committed every day, with the perpetrators often being members of the army or armed groups. At the moment, there is a lack of medical, social and legal assistance for victims, while the perpetrators of the crimes remain uninvestigated and unpunished. Protection must be provided to the 170 victims and to those who can testify so that an urgent, independent and impartial inquiry can be conducted in order to punish the perpetrators of these acts of violence in June.
We insist that this state and culture of impunity must end. I call on the Commission to urgently release additional funds for combating sexual violence and granting victim support. Financial pressure from the European Union must be used for this reason.
Justas Vincas Paleckis
(LT) Madam President, sexual offences are among the most horrible types of crime, and in the Democratic Republic of Congo this type of crime is spreading like an epidemic. No measures, either national or international, are capable of stopping it. This helplessness is particularly clear, considering that United Nations peacekeepers are also unable to do anything. I agree with those colleagues who said that we need injections of cash, and the European Union must make an example, finding the funds to help crime victims and expose the perpetrators. Those international monopolies, which make phenomenal profits from Congo's natural assets and from poorly paid work, should not only feel a moral duty, but should also be obliged by the international community to contribute towards eradicating this epidemic.
Seán Kelly
(GA) Madam President, this is a scandalous, tragic, horrible and piteous affair. And again, it is the women who suffer the most.
This area has been described as the rape capital of the world. That is not a soubriquet that its citizens can be proud of, but it is probably true, because there is the rape of natural resources, which is destroying the wealth of the country and continuing the poverty cycle, and then the rape of women and children.
In particular, from 10 to 12 June, 170 women were raped. That is outlandish. The consequences for them, and for the children born as a result, are unbelievable. We therefore have to do everything in our power to try and bring some sense to bear on the situation, and particularly to get the government there to make the fight against rape a national priority, to combat impunity and eventually to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Corina Creţu
(RO) Madam President, this is not the first time that we have highlighted the situation in Congo, and we utterly condemn not only the atrocities committed with appalling regularity in that country, but also the passive attitude of the Congolese authorities. During the last five months, only 11 soldiers have appeared before a court, charged with rape. However, NGO reports talk about 400 000 women who have been raped in Congo during the last decade. According to the statistics, 48 women are raped every hour. This humanitarian crisis is exacerbated by impunity and the prejudices which turn rape into a taboo subject. Otherwise, victims are at risk of being excluded from their families and community. This is the case for many of the 121 women who reported that they were raped in June in South Kivu province.
I call on the Commission to provide funds and greater focus on setting up centres to care for the victims and on actions aimed at reintegrating them into their families and society. I also reiterate my call for an international criminal tribunal for Congo to be set up as the only viable solution against impunity. I also ask the authorities in EU countries to facilitate the process of obtaining a residence permit for rape victims who flee to the European Union.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Madam President, the eastern part of Congo has been involved in war in unstable conditions since the start of the 1990s, and sexual violence is an element of this warfare.
Thousands and thousands of women were raped in the period 2006-2007. Furthermore, the number of rapes has not gone down since then either, according to the latest international reports, in which the results of investigations are a lot grimmer than the earlier UN statistics. The most recent cases of mass rape are from this year: Kifaru's troops, who previously belonged to the Mai-Mai rebels, are suspected of raping more than 60 women in January, and now also, in June, almost 100 women in the Nakiele area.
The EU must put heavy pressure on the Congolese Government to bring an end to this situation and to bring the culprits to justice. The United Nations also needs to bring the situation in the region under control.
Mitro Repo
(FI) Madam President, the serious human rights violations that have taken place in Congo, especially those against women, are to be utterly condemned. Physical violence against women is one of the most serious breaches of human rights.
What makes an act especially serious in Congo is when the perpetrators of crimes are still soldiers in the country's army. The victims of mass rape in Congo are also entire families and communities. This outrageous crime will leave permanent scars on young women and girls for the rest of their lives. Those responsible must definitely be made to answer for what they have done.
Alongside the criminal investigations, it will be very important to protect the victims from being stigmatised and to offer them adequate help in their crisis, as well as legal and psychological support. Violence against women must be condemned in all its forms, and there should be more human rights education as a component of military training everywhere.
Cristian Silviu Buşoi
(RO) Madam President, I am thoroughly appalled by the mass rapes which occurred in June in South Kivu province. Unfortunately, the Democratic Republic of Congo has been the scene, over the last 20 years, of conflicts which have caused the largest number of casualties since the Second World War, more than 5 million. It already has a sad tradition of atrocities and serious human rights violations. I think that the European Union must show solidarity, support the victims of these atrocities and help, as far as possible, to find a lasting solution to an extremely difficult situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, for now, the European Union must provide financial assistance as soon as possible to combat sexual violence and to provide help to the victims of this violence. The number-one priority must be to provide suitable medical care and support so that these victims can be integrated into Congolese society. We will need to be sure that the money is actually reaching the victims and is used to provide assistance.
Barbara Lochbihler
(DE) Madam President, the Subcommittee on Human Rights has twice played host to a delegation of women from East Kivu, and on both occasions the women have told us about the atrocities taking place there. They have also explained to us what they are doing to bring the criminals to justice and how they are organising the lives of women in the area. Unfortunately, the members of the delegation also told us last week, and their information was highly credible, that the EU representatives in the Democratic Republic of Congo have not been able to meet with them over the last year to find out what can be done to help them. On the contrary, we were told that existing projects are even being stopped. Therefore, I am calling on the Commission to follow up on this issue and to rectify the situation. It would be appalling if small-scale projects like this which are aimed at helping victims could not be continued.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
(FI) Madam President, war and unrest in the Democratic Republic of Congo have brought with them widespread sexual violence. The situation is worst in the east, in the North and South Kivu region, where they are also fighting over precious natural resources. The United Nations and international peacekeepers have clearly failed to protect both women and children there.
Rape is a cruelly demoralising tool of warfare. In addition to the mental and physical violence, it aids the spread of disease, and in many cases, the victims of rape end up being rejected by their community. It is tragic if there is no possibility of an abortion.
Too much time has passed in relation to how little has been done about all this. The EU and the UN need to get a grip on the situation and take real steps to investigate cases of mass rape in the Kivu region, and bring them to an end. EU funding to the Democratic Republic of Congo should have as its priority medical and legal assistance to rape victims, and should take account of the international fight against AIDS. Moreover, other breaches of human rights and the eradication of corruption should be placed higher up our agenda.
Monika Smolková
(SK) Madam President, in view of the failure of the Democratic Republic of Congo's judicial system to hold armed groups to account for their atrocities, I welcome the extension of the UN's mandate until 30 June 2012. At the same time, however, I would like to appeal to the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative in the Democratic Republic of Congo to ensure that the mandate is implemented rigorously, in order to avoid situations where rebels rape women and abuse children and whole families next door to the mission's camp, as happened in Luvungi.
We adopt very strict resolutions and measures against injustice elsewhere in the world and deploy entire armies, yet we treat genocides in Africa more benevolently. What other name, indeed, can we give to the events in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1998 and 2003, when 5.5 million people perished, which is equivalent to the entire population of my own country, Slovakia, and 2 million were forced from their homes? We, too, should contribute towards a peaceful life for women and children in this war-torn African country through the more rigorous adoption of resolutions.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Madam President, war crimes such as mass rape, sex slavery or sterilisation are among the worst forms of humiliation. What is more, in Congo the victims of such crimes will be excluded from society for the rest of their lives.
It is alarming that the offenders from paramilitary groups and the armed forces are mostly not punished at all. The mandate of the UN blue helmets needs to be extended for another year, but what is also necessary is for the troops of the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO) to start providing genuine protection for civilians, for President Kabila to announce a policy of zero tolerance for rape and for impartial investigations into such crimes to begin.
The authorities in Congo must have a programme for the reintegration of victims into society. The Commission ought to release funding for refuges, but it should also propose legislation which imposes labelling requirements on products containing minerals whose extraction is fuelling violence in the Kivu region.
Rovana Plumb
(RO) Madam President, I too have certainly read a number of studies indicating how many rapes are being committed at the moment in the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, I regard as more serious the accounts from my colleague Véronique De Keyser, who has been there and seen how much the population is suffering and the sense of terror there is, especially among women and children. This situation must stop. We, the institutions of the European Union, must firmly demand here in this Parliament that the Congolese authorities carry out all the necessary investigations and punish those who are guilty. They must also provide counselling, including medical, legal and psychological, for all victims, who must be included in a protection programme. In addition, the entire international community, particularly women's organisations, must respond so that we can put an end to this situation in Congo.
Michael Cashman
Madam President, I will be very brief. These mass rapes have gone on for decades. Therefore we need to take vital action. It is vital that we support the NGOs which are bringing aid to the victims, and particularly the hospitals. However, can I please ask the Commission to bring forward a legislative proposal similar to the Dodd-Frank Act in the United States, which imposes reporting requirements on conflict materials in manufacturing? That way, those who profit from such atrocities will be held accountable. The arguments are there. It is no use saying that the Member States do not want to do it: it is up to us and the Commission to lead.
Maria Damanaki
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank all the Members for their interest and their sensitive approach.
We all have again been appalled by perturbing news from Kivu, where a group of armed criminals abused and raped a considerable number of women in a systematic manner. These criminals were apparently ex-Mayi-Mayi deserting the Congolese armed forces after a transient and non-conclusive integration process.
This is an outrageous crime, and we are all concerned. It is therefore important to clarify the facts and bring the suspects before a court. In this regard we have been informed that a prosecutor of the Democratic Republic of Congo, supported by MONUSCO, should now be in the field in order to collect legal evidence and to prepare a prosecution case. We demand that the DRC authorities address this issue as a matter of urgency and to deliver justice.
However, indignation is not enough: I can understand this, and so we must all ask what further action needs to be taken, including by the United Nations Security Council and MONUSCO. Naturally, support for victims should be an immediate priority, and the EU is already committed to providing medical care and mitigating suffering. I can agree with you that victim support, especially healthcare, is one of the agreed priorities here, and I would like to inform you that the EU is at the forefront of these efforts through ECHO and development-funded health support actions. In addition, support for prevention, awareness-raising initiatives and political pressure is also part of the EU approach. These efforts will continue.
Sexual violence and rape continue to be pervasive in the DRC, with more than 15 000 reported cases in 2009, according to the United Nations: 15 000 rapes. It is therefore important to address the root causes of this serious issue and to ensure that Congolese justice will not remain confined to episodic reaction. The root causes are known: they lie within the endless conflicts in the eastern territory of the Republic of Congo and the absence of the rule of law in a context where the state authority remains to be concretised. Importantly, the prevalence of sexual violence both reflects and perpetuates the subordinate status of most women throughout the country.
It also has a very negative impact on a lot of children being born, as Ms de Keyser pointed out. To improve this situation, it is important to continue military and non-military action against the rebels. In this regard, it is important to bear in mind that this type of conflict - in many cases involving groups without a real political agenda, or criminals from neighbouring countries - is difficult to address in the short term. However, it is more and more urgent that decisive steps are taken in reforming the security sector. The persistent poor condition of defence, the police and justice in the Congo greatly worsens the situation.
The European Union therefore urges the Congolese authorities to give renewed priority to this challenge. Failure to make substantial progress in the defence, police and justice sectors will jeopardise the sustainability of achievements made in the economic, social and political areas. In this period of elections, tackling these issues should undoubtedly be an agenda shared by all Congolese democratic forces, as the future of the whole country is at stake.
The EU is already providing support to the security sector reform through common security and defence policy missions and the European Commission, as well as bilateral support from Member States. These actions pay particular attention to the need to combat sexual violence; for example, EUPOL has deployed a specific team of experts on sexual violence in Goma (a city in North Kivu). Support to victims also needs to be continued. The EU is ready to do more if common ground for progress is found with Member States and the Republic of Congo authorities. However, this is an area where the ultimate responsibility will always lie with the DRC itself and where the Congolese Government needs to show true leadership and determination.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Tadeusz Zwiefka
Ever since it gained independence, the Democratic Republic of Congo has been the scene of sustained fighting, as a result of which millions of people have died or been forced to relocate. These conflicts have plunged the country into a humanitarian disaster, and have meant that any guarantee of fundamental human rights being observed is an illusion. The people suffering most in this situation are normal citizens, who are living in constant fear for their lives and their families, and who are functioning in extreme poverty, without any work and without any schooling. The situation is most critical in the Kivu province. In spite of the 'Act of Commitment' signed on 23 January 2008, in which the armed groups operating in the province of South Kivu committed themselves to stopping the atrocities, it is still the case that murders, rapes, torture of the civilian population and the conscription of child soldiers are daily occurrences there. However, the crime committed most frequently by all sides in the conflict is mass rapes of women. These women are in a tragic situation. They do not receive any psychological help as a result of the dreadful state of the health service, and most of the time they are left on their own, helpless, intimidated and frequently rejected by their husbands, who regard them as disgraced. The authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo are responding sluggishly to such an enormous human tragedy, ignoring the problem and leaving the citizens of Congo without help and the perpetrators unpunished. We have to realise that the temporary stabilisation of the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo is a façade, behind which indescribable atrocities are taking place while the world looks on.


Placing on the market and use of biocidal products (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Klaß, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing on the market and use of biocidal products - C7-0036/2009 -.
Christa Klaß
Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, we have been discussing the Commission proposal to revise the directive concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, which was adopted in 1998, for more than a year. We now welcome this proposal in particular because we are turning a directive into a regulation. Europe must fulfil its responsibilities. This also means that the areas relating to the internal market must be governed by clear regulations.
Biocidal products are part of our civilisation, and our standard of living depends on them. They are essential in order to maintain the high standards of health and hygiene on which we insist. When used as disinfectants and pesticides, they protect us from dangerous diseases or from their carriers. Given our high population density, our society requires particular forms of hygiene to prevent germs and diseases from being transmitted. However, our international mobility enables diseases, viruses and bacteria to move rapidly around the world. It is important that infections are not allowed to spread in hospitals. The laundries must be able to control and eliminate all the germs that are introduced.
Biocides are also used to protect wood, textiles, leather, rubber, brickwork and are a component of metalworking fluids. Biocides kill moulds, germs and pests and provide us with protection against them. They must be effective and, as a result, they can be hazardous if used incorrectly. This is why we need strict regulations. The benefits and the risks must be carefully weighed up against one another. Above all, biocides must not be used excessively. We must ensure that they are handled and employed responsibly. Using a little is highly effective, but using too much can cause damage.
Therefore, we need a strategy for the sustainable use of biocides which provides information about alternatives. We must be aware of one thing. This is not primarily about protection against biocides, but about the protection provided by biocides. If someone's hair is infested with lice, they must be able to combat the problem. However, they should first of all use a nit comb. If that does not help, then they can turn to a biocidal head lice treatment.
As nanotechnology is a new development, we must subject it to particularly critical scrutiny, because nanoparticles can get under our skin and directly into our water supplies. We must support research and innovation and not put obstacles in their path. We need to carry out more studies on biocides in water, as we currently have very little data available.
The objective of this regulation is to harmonise the internal market and introduce a streamlined procedure for approving active substances and products. For the first time, biocides will be subject to registration. It is obviously the right thing to do to organise and administer this properly on a European level. This brings genuine advantages for the internal market and for consumers. Parliament is calling for EU-wide approval of all products from 2017 and we are strongly supporting this call today. If we start drawing up a new regulation now, we must do it correctly and put it into practice within the required deadline.
The biocide market includes numerous different types of products and special applications, which are often only available in smaller quantities. We need this variety of different products in order to be able to combat the variety of harmful organisms. If we reduce the number of active substances, resistance among parasites and insects will increase, with fatal consequences. Therefore, we must ensure that the cost of registration and authorisation is kept within reasonable limits, particularly with regard to the many small and medium-sized manufacturers. Strict exclusion criteria are needed and it is right that they should be introduced. Parliament is proposing very clear exclusion criteria and defining limited exceptions in order to be able to meet the requirements of human health and the environment.
We also believe that consumer information is important. Therefore, materials that have been treated with biocides must also be included in the scope of the regulation. In future, materials sold in Europe must only be treated with biocides that are approved here. The serious health problems caused by fungicides used in the Far East on shoes and furniture which occurred last year have shown that we need stricter regulation and, most importantly, stricter import controls. This will provide protection for consumers and prevent the distortion of competition. On this basis, we have worked together to produce a compromise. I would ask my fellow Members to give their support to this compromise.
Antonio Tajani
Mr President, I should like to thank the European Parliament and, in particular, the rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, the shadow rapporteurs and the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, for their considerable work.
The 330 amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment and the global compromise adopted last week bear witness to their commitment to, and interest in, this dossier. These amendments support the general thrust of the Commission proposal.
Allow me to dwell on what we consider to be the main outstanding issues.
First issue: extending the EU authorisation system and related procedures. In order to reach agreement on this dossier, it is paramount that we reach a compromise on the study of the EU authorisation system and related procedures, especially the role of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
Although the Commission can, in principle, support extending the EU authorisation system to a larger group of biocidal products, it can only do so on two conditions.
Firstly, the ECHA and the Commission must have sufficient resources to be able to take on the additional workload. Without sufficient resources, delays will ensue which will compromise the advantages of the EU authorisation system.
Secondly, we need to design a mechanism suitable for gradually extending the scope of the system, for example, by staggering the introduction of types of products or by applying horizontal criteria, such as similar conditions of use.
As far as procedures relating to EU authorisation are concerned, the role of the ECHA will be essential in terms of the operation of the system. We need to ensure that ECHA resources are used for work which brings added value in terms of harmonisation or which cannot be carried out more efficiently by the Member States. I would also add that procedures need to be designed to cope with the extended scope of the EU authorisation system.
Second issue: derogations from exclusion criteria. On the thorny issue of derogations from exclusion criteria, I note that the compromise amendment allows a reasonable balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the objective of guaranteeing a high level of protection for the environment and human health and, on the other, the need to make provision for a certain degree of flexibility in cases in which there is no substitution solution.
Third issue: national derogations within the framework of mutual recognition. Although we recognise that national derogations within the framework of mutual recognition may be justified in certain circumstances, we feel that the Commission should examine such derogations on a case-by-case basis. If such derogations are authorised without making provision for supervision by the Commission, there is a risk of compromising the internal market in biocidal products, which the regulation is designed to promote.
Fourth issue: definition of low risk products. As far as the definition of low risk products is concerned, we need to make an effort to establish a pragmatic definition as the sine qua non of an effective policy on such products. Efforts would still appear to be needed before a clear definition of the criteria applicable to low risk products can be reached.
Fifth issue: treated articles. As regards treated articles, we support the amendments pitching controls at the level of active substances. As regards the labelling of such articles, we endorse the general approach of imposing different rules, depending on whether the articles have an internal or external effect, for example, depending on whether or not the product was intentionally discarded or came into contact with human beings or the environment.
Sixth issue: free riders. Although we support the compromise amendment on free riders, we have serious concerns about a number of other amendments linked to the concept of inclusion by company.
Seventh issue: nanomaterials. On the issue of nanomaterials, the Commission has abided by its policy of taking a decision on the basis of scientific factors and its wish to improve knowledge of these materials and approves the need to define nanomaterials and, if necessary, the principle of their separate evaluation.
Finally: animal tests. Although the Commission supports the objective of reducing animal tests, it considers that this should not be at the expense of a high level of protection for the environment and human health.
I shall now follow your debate on the proposal and proposed amendments closely and may include further clarification of these issues and other points in my final comments.
Amalia Sartori
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, on her fruitful collaboration, which has enabled me to enrich her report with some important positions taken by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
I also hope she supports certain amendments that I have tabled with a view to tomorrow's vote and which are aimed at avoiding the double assessment of risks connected to products that have already been authorised and therefore assessed, unless new information is received that would justify the need for new controls.
I am also pleased that, even though it will be introduced gradually, there will be an opportunity for central authorisation that extends to all product categories. In this regard, I would like to ask Commissioner Tajani - although you have already mentioned some of these things in your report - how, and to what extent, it will be necessary to provide the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) with the tools to smoothly and effectively handle the large number of dossiers that will be presented.
Richard Seeber
Mr President, I would like to offer the rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, and also Mrs Sartori, my warmest congratulations on the way in which they have worked with each other and with the shadow rapporteurs so successfully to produce a package that is, as I see it, politically acceptable to all the groups. It is important for us to remember that biocides are not an end in themselves. In fact, they perform many jobs in our modern society and Mrs Klaß has given us some examples of these.
The reason for using biocides is to fulfil consumers' requirements for increased food safety and improved health. There are many areas where biocides are used and, at the same time, the manufacturers' market is highly fragmented. I would like to focus, in particular, on the situation for manufacturers and also on the fact that the old directive was not able to meet the requirements either for improved health for consumers or for a well-functioning internal market for producers. One of the main problems is that we do not have an EU authorisation system for biocides. It is also important to make it clear that we need this EU authorisation system for as many groups of biocides as possible, otherwise the legislation will simply be a dead letter. I would like to defend the compromise reached on Article 33, which has made it possible for all the political groups to agree that the new regulation needs to be phased in and, at the same time, gives the Member States the opportunity to make exceptions in the case of particularly hazardous substances.
I believe that the package of compromises has been very carefully thought out. I would like to ask all my fellow Members to vote in favour of it.
Dan Jørgensen
Mr President, when we hear the Commission speak and when we listen to the conservative Members from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), we could almost believe that this was merely a matter of finding solutions that are as simple and as effective as possible from a purely bureaucratic point of view. Naturally, that, too, is a real concern. Of course, this is also a matter of enabling the industry to market products and trade across borders. However, that is not the most important aspect. What is most important for us Social Democrats - and this is something that we will not compromise on - is health and the environment.
Nearly every day, there are new research results indicating that the overall chemical load that we, as people, are exposed to, and that our environment is exposed to, is increasing. We are seeing young girls reach puberty at the age of ten or eleven. We are seeing cancer spreading. New forms of cancer are appearing. We are seeing couples who are unable to have children. Many of these things are due to the chemicals that we are surrounded by.
Chemicals also have many beneficial effects; we do recognise that. However, if we know that there are chemicals that have extremely harmful effects, and we also know that there are alternatives to many of these chemicals, it goes without saying that we must replace the dangerous ones with the safe alternatives. This goes for biocides, too. The most important thing for us, therefore - and we seem to have achieved it to some extent with this compromise - was to get the dangerous substances replaced by safe alternatives.
We also insisted that if we allow a centralised process for approval, which may be a sensible thing to do, as it may, among other things, reduce bureaucracy, the individual countries must have the opportunity to say 'no' if there are special circumstances in a particular country that make it necessary to prohibit or to impose restrictions on a chemical in that country. We also said that it is not only a matter of which substances are placed on the market, but also of how they are used. We therefore insisted on new legislation being drawn up in the near future, namely, a framework directive on how to use biocides.
Finally, we insisted on there being as few animal experiments as possible. Too many animal experiments are currently used and there are alternatives. This was another of our objectives that we believe we have succeeded in achieving.
Corinne Lepage
Mr President, thanks to everyone's work, especially that of the rapporteur, we have achieved at least one objective. We have, after very difficult discussions, reached agreement on a key point of the authorisation procedure.
Our position on this issue went in the right direction. Firstly, we needed to guarantee the viability of the system, to clearly prevent the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) from suddenly being inundated with requests to which it was unable to respond and, secondly, we needed to promote a system which encourages low risk products. A balanced compromise has been achieved on this point. It gives us time, as it allows four years for putting the system into place, and it offers a bonus for the least hazardous products.
For the rest, although we support the amendments to give the system flexibility, such as frame formulations, we refuse to allow this to be introduced at any price. The toxicity of certain products, such as pesticides, is clear, and I fully endorse the statements made by our fellow Member, Mr Jørgensen, about the impact of a number of products on health and the environment.
That is why we reject any provision which might call the quality of product assessment into question or detract from the system by encouraging the substitution of the most worrying substances, and why a series of amendments just tabled is completely unbalanced and cannot be supported.
Let us not deceive ourselves. This is the outcome of a position that gives priority to short-term interests over protection for health and the environment. We must never forget that health and the environment are not only values which we defend; it is also in the economic interest of society as a whole to defend them.
Michèle Rivasi
Mr President, I consider that progress has been made in this text, including on two fundamental aspects: the need for labelling if nanoparticles are present in a product and, more importantly, the fact that each of these nanosubstances will also be subject to separate evaluation, which is not currently the case. Progress has also been made in terms of the possibility of excluding endocrine disrupters from substances used, with specific and properly applicable exclusion criteria.
But - there is a but - we disagree on the actual resources for the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), because that agency's mission should be to evaluate and authorise biocidal products.
However, we have just extended the ECHA's mission; we agree with that, but extending it means giving the ECHA the resources to really do its job. We cannot ask the ECHA to do a lot more work, to reduce substance evaluation times, while, at the same time, reducing its resources. If we do so, we risk coming up against simplified assessments, which may well be fast, but which will be superficial and therefore inadequate.
That is why I call on you, Mrs Klaß, to reconsider your budgetary proposal concerning the ECHA missions in this dossier. As it stands, I must say that your proposal is not a serious one, and this will affect the standard of work of that European institution, which is essential to the safety of European citizens and consumers.
This is an important issue. You cannot demand more if the resources are not available, or else the ECHA will just be an administrative agency which responds to the industrial lobby.
Julie Girling
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Klaß. In my 60 seconds, I can only mention two issues in this important and complex dossier. The first is the issue of PBTs - persistent bioaccumulative and toxic substances. Biocides are, by their nature, toxic: they kill something, usually something nasty which is a danger to human health and often to animal health. So if anyone is tempted to vote in favour of Amendment 61, which would make toxicity the lone criteria for substitution, then beware: you will be cutting across the whole rationale of protecting public health and the environment.
This brings me to my second point: the substance Difenacoum. Amendment 243 seeks to restrict the use of this rodenticide to professionals only. A quick look in my local store at the weekend confirmed this active substance to be in about half of the products available, and all with clear instructions for use. Rodenticides create resistance: they need to be used in rotation to remain effective. Taking one product away will upset this balance and could lead to a major public health disaster. Please, colleagues, do not be instrumental in letting this happen.
Sabine Wils
Mr President, biocides form part of many cleaning products, disinfectants, insect sprays and other everyday products which people come into contact with in the course of their daily lives. There are currently more than 50 000 biocide products in the European Union. I would like to make it perfectly clear to everyone that biocides are mainly used by private citizens. Biocides are often non-biodegradable, in some cases, carcinogenic, highly toxic substances, and can cause harm to people, animals and the environment when they are being used and disposed of. People and young children in particular are especially at risk when biocides are used in the home, for example, in the form of wood preservatives and insect sprays.
It is true that the manufacturers say that their products are not hazardous if they are used properly. However, given that 400 000 tonnes of biocides are sold to and used by private individuals in the EU every year, it is important that improper use and the occurrence of accidents are taken into consideration. As this has not yet been the case, I have tabled an amendment on this subject and I would ask you vote in favour of it. This is Amendment 352.
Should the purpose of this regulation be to increase the free circulation of biocidal products within the European Union as the Commission has proposed? Or is this House more concerned with protecting people and the environment? It is essential that we introduce a strict ban on particularly hazardous substances. We must make a decision which supports the cause of consumers, otherwise we will be putting people's health at risk.
Oreste Rossi
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the term 'biocidal product' is used to designate the active substances or mixtures containing one or more active substances, put up in the form in which they are supplied to the user, intended to destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of, or otherwise exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism by chemical or biological means. To give a clearer idea of what we are talking about here, nearly all of the fruits and vegetables that reach our tables have been treated.
Although these products are now indispensable since most animal and plant parasites are becoming increasingly resistant to their effects, they must be kept under control because they often have adverse effects on humans. For example, some of them require a specific amount of time to break down after contact with food products, and for that reason, clearly defined types must be used during specific periods of the year.
Failure to comply with these timescales has serious consequences for people who consume treated products: from sudden allergic reactions to reactions associated with long-term use, which can include serious diseases or their precursors. Genuine poisons such as rodenticides, which are sold freely for domestic use, are also considered biocides. Unfortunately, even though allowing the free trade of these products may pose risks, we cannot conceive of prohibiting their use at a time when we are seeing a considerable increase in parasite and rodent infestations in European cities.
Particular attention must also be paid to the free movement of goods within the European Union, to the use of different types of biocides, whether permitted or not in the various Member States, and especially to the entry of goods from third countries where they are not yet regulated. We must guarantee, at EU level, that these products are used with the utmost seriousness and in strict compliance with the time required for their toxicity to break down.
Catherine Soullie
(FR) Mr President, as our rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, reminded us, biocidal products play an essential role, be it in the domestic - and hence private - sphere or in relation to public places. Biocides safeguard our hygiene and health on a daily basis.
It is important that we achieve a coherent Community text. It needs to be coherent, first and foremost, with other European legislation. REACH legislation, for example, cannot and must not come into conflict with the regulation on biocides. It is important to avoid administrative and legislative red tape which strangles and suffocates our businesses.
On this point, I should like to express my support for the compromise achieved by our rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, on the thorny issue of exclusion criteria and candidates for substitution. Similarly, the frame formulation approach for all biocidal products is an essential element of the regulation. It will significantly increase the efficacy of the Community authorisation system.
Then, it is a Community text. The introduction of the concept of centralised authorisation in the Union, and the simplification of the procedure and the reduction in the authorisation times for certain tests relating to research and development activities, are two initial positive steps towards the harmonisation of the European market in biocidal products.
Finally, we must not lose sight of our ambitions for this text: protection, of course, but the construction of our Community market and European innovation must also be an integral part of our approach.
Jo Leinen
(DE) Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, along with industrial chemicals and agricultural chemicals, household chemicals represent the third large group of substances which are of significance for the environment and human health, and we are introducing rules covering these products in the biocide regulation. I believe that we have made significant progress since the old directive which dates back to 1998. Other speakers have already mentioned this. We are introducing a comprehensive regulation which applies not only to products manufactured in the EU, but also to imported products. This is very important. We are improving the labelling of these substances and, as Mr Jørgensen has said, we are calling for animal testing of these products to be replaced with alternative methods. We want to see animal tests reduced to a minimum or even abolished altogether in this area. In addition, we want particularly hazardous substances to be replaced with substances which are less dangerous.
All of these measures represent progress and we can explain to the citizens of Europe that they will benefit human health and the environment. I was surprised about the level of disagreement as to whether or not the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki should be responsible for monitoring and authorising these products. We want the same standards to apply throughout Europe and we want it to be possible for these products to be sold on the European market. For this reason, it is right that the ECHA takes responsibility for this area. I would like to ask Mr Tajani whether the ECHA has sufficient funding and the right organisation to be able to take on this task.
My thanks go to Mrs Klaß and to the shadow rapporteurs for achieving a consensus on this subject.
Frédérique Ries
(FR) Mr President, from my point of view, Amendment 18 to Article 1 perfectly sums up what should be our philosophy: we need to ensure a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment and, at the same time, improve the functioning of the internal market.
Clearly, no one in this House wishes to question the use of biocides, which are very useful in combating rodents, cockroaches, lice - I understand that this is the time for lice in schools - and pests in general. The challenge actually lies elsewhere; it lies in their increasing numbers, in my opinion, with manufacturers putting more and more products on the market but balking at the idea of safer solutions. As the rapporteur said, more can be less.
The other major challenge is to find risk-reduction policies, which are too often postponed by governments when they are ambitious, and yet they are essential, because users tend to forget that biocides may be familiar substances, but they are still dangerous to use. The European Parliament also needs to spread this message of precaution.
James Nicholson
Mr President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur for her hard work. The regulation of biocides and biocidal products requires a balanced approach which takes into consideration the interests of manufacturers, on the one hand, and the welfare and safety of consumers and our environment, on the other.
I wish to say a few words on one aspect of this report. I was very concerned with the initial proposal from the Commission, which may have led to a ban on rodenticides. These substances are the most widely used products in the fight against rodent infestations and are a vitally important tool in the agricultural and agrifood sector.
I have received many representations from farmers and public bodies in my constituency, and other interested parties, who are totally opposed to such a ban, arguing that it would have serious negative implications for their respective industries. While the agriculture lobby may not be 100% happy with this regulation as it stands, I was reassured to see that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety passed some amendments which will hopefully go some way towards guaranteeing the exemption of these rodenticides. In this regard, I would urge colleagues to uphold the committee's position and vote for the relevant amendments in tomorrow's debate.
Paul Nuttall
Mr President, I must say that it is quite enthusing to see that there are so many MEPs who treat this place with the contempt I do. Out of the 736, there are fewer than 30 of them here - which is under five percent - and it is half four on a Tuesday afternoon.
As usual, EU rules and regulations are running out of control. But that is nothing compared to the rats and mice that will run out of control when the EU takes away common rat poison from ordinary householders. This is what Amendment 243 of this report will do. This daft piece of legislation will ensure that only professionals will be allowed to put down rat poison, which is freely available in shops. So, if rats are in your front garden, spreading their diseases and chewing everything up, the ordinary UK householder will be forced to wait for the Council rat catcher or have to pay for Rentokil.
We are already told that you are never further than 20 yards away from a rat in a city centre in the UK. This piece of crazy legislation will only make things worse. To put this into perspective, this is a piece of bureaucracy for a rat poison that has been safely used by ordinary folk for the past 30 years - not only in the UK, but across Europe and in the USA.
I will finish by asking a question. Why are you doing this? Do you want more vermin? Do you want more disease? Or is it just about control and your obsession with trying to govern every single aspect of our lives?
Horst Schnellhardt
(DE) Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate has shown that this was a very complex report and that we have now reached a good compromise. My thanks go to the rapporteur and to the shadow rapporteurs.
The compromise compensates for the deficiencies of the existing directive. It standardises the authorisation processes, which I feel is extremely important, and it provides comprehensive protection for human health and the environment.
However, in other ways the provisions do not go far enough. The point has been clearly made in the debate today that these products are very important for our environment, for the growth of the agriculture industry and for the food sector. I would just like to mention the example of rodenticides. Products for combating rats and mice are essential in the agriculture and food industries. I have seen the evidence of the problems caused by mice and rats which farmers have to contend with in their fields. These pests cause considerable losses. Anyone here who says that all the products which would help in this situation should be banned should think carefully about how to protect our food supplies.
This report is an effective solution, because it takes action against hazardous substances. If replacements are available, then they must, of course, be used. This is absolutely clear.
I would like to ask the Commission to focus more heavily on the new form of nanotechnology in its research and to make greater use of it. It will give us the opportunity to find substances which are less hazardous and more effective.
Mario Pirillo
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a regulation concerning biocides that we are analysing is designed to simplify the authorisation and renewal procedures for the placing on the market of biocidal products.
This simplification will lead to a reduction in costs and administrative responsibilities for companies, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, without reducing the level of protection of the environment and of human and animal health. It was very difficult to maintain a balance between these two aspects, but I believe that some of the compromise amendments proposed by the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs, who I would like to thank for their hard work, represent an important step forward.
Precisely in order to remain consistent with the request for simplification, I believe that the comparative assessment procedure currently required for all biocides should not be required for biocides that have been demonstrated as safe for use. I hope that the amendment tabled along those lines in plenary will be adopted by my fellow Members.
Chris Davies
Mr President, it is good to hear the UK Independence Party confirming that they do not care a jot about animal cruelty, that they are happy to have the world treated like a giant chemistry set. Thalidomide and DDT would be on everyone's breakfast table if they had their way.
A concern has been raised here that we have seen in British newspapers, about the effect of banning anti-coagulant rodenticides and the question of whether this will lead to rat infestations in cities and towns. We have worked with the Commission; we have raised the issues brought to our attention by professionals; and working with the Commission, changes have been made. They are now in Article 5, and I believe they have the support of the Commission. That should deal with the major problem which has been expressed.
But there is the issue that Mrs Girling has raised: Article 44 about Difenacoum. I would like the Commission to explain whether it supports Amendment 243 because it seems to me that it contradicts in some ways the changes being proposed to Article 5.
Struan Stevenson
Mr President, I am delighted that attempts to ban all anti-coagulants and rodenticides have failed. Had such a ban won majority support, it would have led - as we have heard already - to an explosion of rats and mice across Europe, with the consequent damage to stored crops, farms and domestic properties on a large scale.
It is estimated that seven per cent of all house fires and 50 per cent of all farm fires are caused by rodents gnawing electric cables. Sadly, the Environment Committee did adopt one specific ban of a widely used second generation, anti-coagulant rodenticide. As we have heard, that rodenticide is Difenacoum. I hope the House will vote against Amendment 243 so as to enable this effective rat poison to continue in use, particularly as it has already undergone rigorous scientific assessment and has been through a proper and detailed regulatory process.
Anna Rosbach
(DA) Mr President, various hitherto unknown allergies, people with fertility problems, an increase in the incidence of rare diseases, poisoned fish and shellfish and food from animals filled with medicine residues are just some of the issues that concern the people of Europe. More and more chemical substances fill our everyday lives to make life easier for us and to make consumer goods seem a lot more attractive. Do these chemicals do us good? No, they certainly do not. Nevertheless, with this report, we now need to find a legislative balance between driving competitive enterprise in a sensible way while, at the same time, focusing on the environment and people's safety.
This is a difficult balancing act. I do not see a greater focus on the protection of people and the environment. Therefore, I can only recommend that we vote in favour of those amendments that set the highest safety limits. However, it will be a positive development if we can increase our chance of ensuring that EU countries do not import goods from parts of the world that do not meet our safety requirements.
Pavel Poc
(CS) We have to realise that biocidal medicines, while their use may be unavoidable, are simply poisons that we come into contact with on a daily basis. As such, they simply represent a risk to human health and a burden on the environment. It is therefore logically necessary to adhere to the highest levels of protection for human health, for animals and for nature. Excessive flexibility represents a considerable risk, because the risk is not only in these materials, but also in the ways of using them, and misuse as regards the quantities in which they enter the food chain. I would consider it a major success to have a complete ban on extremely hazardous biocidal medicines, including mutagenic and carcinogenic substances and substances that are toxic from the perspective of reproduction. The new legislation is and should be ambitious and, in my opinion, the ECHA is quite capable of commencing with the unified European licensing of biocidal medicines by 2015 rather than waiting until 2017.
Holger Krahmer
(DE) Mr President, it is good that we are looking at biocides, because they are hazardous, toxic substances. However, I am wondering why we do not base every piece of chemical legislation that we implement on the same system as that of REACH. We have passed the most comprehensive piece of chemical legislation in the world. The principles have been laid down: collect the data, evaluate it, authorise the product. Why are we using a different system for subsequent chemical legislation and defining new exclusion criteria, which ultimately also results in chemicals that we need and that, in some cases, do not have alternatives, being withdrawn from the market?
I think that we will end up in a blind alley if we draw up our policy on chemicals purely from the perspective of toxic substances. Pest infestations can be much more dangerous, in particular, for small children because of the risks of disease transmission, than the few milligrams of biocides which we use to combat them. I would like to see the situation being put into proportion and, most importantly, I would like to see regulations that can be used not only by large companies which have the resources to enter into a discussion with the authorisation bodies, but also by smaller companies which supply useful products for niche markets.
Ashley Fox
Mr President, the aim of this regulation is to protect public health and the environment. The current regime for authorisation is too slow and bureaucratic. We must ensure that the authorisation of new products is more efficient, both in time and money.
Pest control is central to the protection of human health. I welcome the amendments that will improve the availability of some products that kill rodents but, as has already been discussed, a problem remains over the treatment of Difenacoum. This is an effective and widely used rodenticide. It should be classified as an authorised substance. It is essential to the effective control of rats and mice. Its removal from Annex I by the Commission is simply irrational, and I invite the Commission to explain why this occurred. The authorisation of products should always be based on the result of scientific assessment, not by politicians seeking to grab a headline.
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
(HU) Congratulations to Mrs Klaß, who has prepared a balanced report on an extremely complex topic, although debate did arise in the Chamber because some Members take the question of biocide regulation seriously while others want to reduce it to a fight against rodents. I wish to point out that this is a very serious matter, and the report excels by addressing environmental protection, consumer protection and chemical industry concerns simultaneously. The new biocide regulations add greater safeguards and protect housewives and domestic workers, but not pests. Therefore, I believe that we have to support the Klaß report, and that the fears expressed on the other side of Parliament lack foundation. Yes, there is a need for increased protection and the Helsinki Agency will perform this function with distinction. 2017 suits Hungary and the new Member States.
Jarosław Kalinowski
(PL) On the one hand, the chemical composition of biocidal products makes them quite dangerous, especially for people who are more susceptible, such as children or pregnant women. On the other hand, however, they are essential and simply indispensable for protecting human health.
Therefore, it is necessary to establish - and this, indeed, is happening - standards which are common to all EU Member States, so that people can feel safe and the firms which produce these substances will have clearly established norms which will not cause a reduction in their competitiveness. The harmonisation of legislation should cover the entire cycle of the existence of these products in the market, from production to waste management, so that they do not pose a threat to the environment or to human health. This should, indeed, be a priority. This does not mean we should not be concerned about maintaining good conditions for modern industry.
John Bufton
Mr President, the adoption of the report by Ms Klaß would undoubtedly see an explosion in rat populations, jeopardising sanitation in homes and on farms.
Rats carry diseases such as e-coli and salmonella and can cause significant damage to property, in some cases, leading to electrical fires. Farms, especially, fall victim to rat infestations without effective pest extermination. Anti-coagulants are the most widely used method of rat poisoning and are by far the most effective, accounting for around 95% of rodent control.
In May, I directed a written question to the Commission requesting formal acknowledgement of the implications of a ban and sought a support framework for those affected, as well as indications as to possible alternative pest control.
The Commission stated they were open to discussion with the aim of ensuring that appropriate solutions were found. What kind of solution does the Commission propose? Has there been an impact assessment into the prohibition of anti-coagulants as rodenticides? Will there be a viable support framework, and have alternative rodenticides been identified?
Antonio Tajani
Mr President, allow me to start by underlining once again how much the Commission appreciates the commitment and interest of the Members of this House on this dossier.
Although this is a highly complex proposal, it contains several important and sensitive aspects from a political point of view. The remarks you have just made and the questions you have raised illustrate just how well the Members of this House have understood the various facets of this issue.
I must also reiterate the Commission's concerns in terms of the amendments to the scope of the EU authorisation system. Although the Commission can, in principle, support extending the EU authorisation system to a larger group of biocidal products, we consider that this should be accompanied by sufficient resources for the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the Commission, and gradual implementation mechanisms. It is only if these two conditions are met that we shall be able to implement an efficient system, which is our common objective.
As regards the questions raised by Mrs Sartori and Mr Leinen as to how to guarantee that the ECHA will be able to take on this workload in future, ensuring that the resources made available to the ECHA are adequate is one of the Commission's main concerns in connection with proposals to extend the scope of the EU authorisation system.
We are working with the sector in order to establish more precisely the number of biocidal products currently available on the EU market. Estimates vary from 9 000 to 60 000 products. It is therefore very difficult to forecast the additional workload that including a larger number of products in the centralised system would involve for the ECHA. The general objective of the proposal for a regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market in biocidal products, while at the same time guaranteeing a high level of protection for the environment and public health.
I am even going to reply to Mr Schnellhardt on nanomaterials. The Commission agrees that we need a definition of nanomaterials. It is waiting for the outcome of the public enquiry organised by one of our scientific committees and hopes to be able to propose a definition which meets the criteria in the near future.
As far as Amendment 243 is concerned, I shall reply to Mr Davies. The Commission cannot support this amendment, because it calls into question Annex I, which is based on an in-depth impact study and which has just entered into force.
I am therefore satisfied that we have done a good job. We must continue the constructive dialogue between Parliament, the Council and the Commission at second reading.
Christa Klaß
Madam President, I would like to thank all my fellow Members for the debate today. However, sometimes I think that we do not really know what we are talking about. I would like to say once again that we are talking here about products which we and our standard of living depend on, which help us to meet important hygiene standards, which combat disease and parasites and which provide protection for stored goods. All of these things are covered by the term biocide. They are essential to us and also to our future. The main priorities in all our discussions were the environment and standards of health. It is clear that we are working to achieve clear exclusion criteria, limited exceptions and objective information for consumers.
Mr Tajani, I am not completely satisfied by the answer you gave on the subject of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). ECHA has the resources, it has the hardware, it can manage the REACH system and it can certainly do a great deal with regard to biocides in future. What we need now is simply some clever ideas. We will have time for this during the phasing-in period. Let us make use of this time to come up with some intelligent ideas together. It is not possible simply to say that we have no money and we cannot do it. If we want to do the right thing for the internal market, then the future lies in an EU-wide authorisation process. I invite everyone to take part and I am also asking the Commission for its support.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska
The biocidal products market in Europe is estimated to be worth around EUR 890 million annually, which is about 27% of the global market. Biocides are used in domestic situations and in industry on a daily basis. These materials are used as disinfectants, preservatives, insecticides and rodenticides. When using biocides, however, particular attention should be paid to the safety of consumers, for it is important that the use of biocides should not pose a threat to the health or life of humans or animals. Therefore, we should conduct a thorough review of all biocides imported into the European Union and of their market turnover, especially as regards newly introduced products. Caution is also important when buying biocidal products, and the system developed in the Union should accomplish full unification on the question of legislation. In addition, within the Union's structures, a programme is under way to review the active substances used in biocidal products. The Union should draw up, to cover all Member States, a unified list of nanomaterials which are being tested and which will then be able to be used in chemical production processes. This will mean that nanomaterials, which may have a major impact on technological development, will not be excluded from the market, and that the environment and the health of consumers will not be endangered.