1. Madagascar (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on Madagascar.
Charles Tannock
author. - Mr President, the illegal and unelected regime of Andry Rajoelina is riddled with corruption and has orchestrated serious human rights abuses in Madagascar, yet Rajoelina came to power pledging an end to corruption and human rights abuses that allegedly flourished under the ousted former President, Marc Ravalomanana. This irony cannot be lost on the long-suffering people of Madagascar, many of whom live in abject poverty. The EU now needs to consider a substantial reinforcement of targeted measures against Rajoelina and his henchmen and cronies and, if necessary, to invoke the Cotonou Agreement's provisions on failures of governance and to apply the necessary sanctions.
The African Union (AU) could do far more. We have heard many platitudes from the AU, but we have seen little concrete action so far. Such action should include brokering an agreement between Rajoelina and Ravalomanana, allowing the former president to return to Madagascar without any risk or prejudice. Rajoelina should also allow his rival to stand in the presidential election planned for September this year.
Sadly, the portents for stability and reconciliation in Madagascar are not good. I hope that in the next few months, matters will be resolved peacefully.
Véronique De Keyser
Mr President, this is not the first time that we have discussed the drama in Madagascar in this Chamber.
Things have hardly changed for the people of Madagascar since the resolution in February 2010, except for the worse. They are the focus of my concerns, as they are the main victims. Beyond that, we are now seeing an apparently never-ending power struggle being played out.
More than a year ago already, the European Parliament clearly expressed its support for the idea of a democratic process which could lead to elections. That has still not transpired. Rajoelina is still in place. As we restate in this resolution, he must not be able to stand in new elections - that must be made clear.
I would simply like to ask for the negotiations in progress with the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which have not yet produced a conclusive result, to be given a chance to do so. That is why I would opt for a measured tone in relation to the situation so that we leave an opportunity for negotiations, which should take place very urgently and, I hope, reach a conclusion.
Marie-Christine Vergiat
author. - (FR) Mr President, just for once, today, the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left can only regret the tone of the resolutions before us. This is particularly true of the resolution on Madagascar. I have already had occasion to deplore this and other resolutions, in February 2010, when the previous urgent resolution on that country was adopted.
In that country, as in many others in Africa, the European Union is demonstrating its political impotence, and we are not going to change things by calling for harsher economic sanctions to be imposed on that country. The only victims of the situation are, and will continue to be, the people of Madagascar, who do not need this. We would have preferred it if the European Parliament had sent a clear message of support to the mediator of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), who has worked hard for a year to try to find the most amicable solution possible.
We would have preferred a message congratulating Mr Chissano on his mediation work, which led him to present a road map to the SADC for the resolution of the political crisis in Madagascar. A new meeting of the SADC is to be held in Johannesburg on Saturday in the presence of all the representatives of the different strands of political opinion in Madagascar to ratify this road map.
We wish to make a plea for the people of Madagascar and to reiterate that it is up to them, and them alone, to decide, without international pressure, who governs them. The role of the European Union is to help them. We do not therefore wish to be associated with this partial resolution, which risks adding fuel to the fire instead of supporting the efforts of the SADC, and we refuse to support the imposition of harsher economic sanctions.
Cristian Dan Preda
Mr President, just as the previous speakers have also mentioned, I, too, wish to say that since February 2010 when we discussed the situation in Madagascar, we have seen no progress. We could say that the transition has taken place not to democracy, but to an even deeper crisis than a year and a few months ago. The Southern African Development Community meeting in Gaborone was admittedly presented as a final chance. Unfortunately, we have all seen that it was a failure. I believe that we can retain the hope that during the meeting this weekend, on Saturday, there will still be some positive developments.
On the other hand, it is true that Madagascar's economic and social situation is extremely dire, with the majority of the Madagascan population living on less than USD 1 per day. How can they get out of this situation? Through a neutral, inclusive and consensual transition process. We are not here to give our backing to one side or the other, but to support the idea of this kind of process.
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica
Mr President, following the coup d'état, Mr Rajoelina's government has turned Madagascar into a hub of political instability. It is a country where there is no separation of powers, the media are controlled by the government, human rights are violated and there are abuses by the current Malagasy security forces against the people of Madagascar and it is they who have directly suffered from the political consequences. This illegal regime is causing enormous humanitarian problems in a resource-rich country through the lack of basic foodstuffs, water and sanitation, health and education services.
The European Union must continue with its humanitarian aid to the people and must contribute to finding an agreement between the parties that facilitates a neutral transitional government, which is consensual and inclusive, in order to restore constitutional order and call free and transparent democratic elections that allow all political movements and leaders to participate freely and let the Malagasy people decide their future.
Nicole Kiil-Nielsen
author. - (FR) Mr President, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance once again deplores the conditions under which Mr Rajoelina came to power in Madagascar. The political situation of that country, which is very unstable, is extremely worrying. There have been numerous human rights violations: violence against demonstrators, illegal arrests, arbitrary detentions, as well as abuses against journalists and political opponents. The security forces enjoy total impunity.
Leaders of opposition political movements have been imprisoned. We are demanding their release. In addition, the uncontrolled management of the country's natural resources threatens prospects for development for future generations and paves the way for an ecological disaster. We condemn the illegal exploitation of the mineral resources as well as the pillaging of precious wood, particularly rosewood.
The restoration of the rule of law in Madagascar is an absolute priority and requires the organisation of free, transparent and democratic elections supported by international aid and, first and foremost, the European Union.
Filip Kaczmarek
In our resolution, we condemn the human rights violations and abuses by the Malagasy security forces against their own population, and call for the dissolution of political militia, for full respect for human rights, as well as civil, political, social and economic rights, and for the restoration of the rule of law. We call for the immediate release of political prisoners and for the direct return of political exiles. A return to constitutional order is a condition for the return to normality in Madagascar. What is needed are free, transparent and fair elections organised under the supervision of the international community and which will comply with democratic standards. Our main dilemma concerns how to increase humanitarian aid to the people of Madagascar, since we do not recognise the unconstitutional regime. I hope that in spite of this, such help can be effective.
Corina Creţu
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, two years have passed since power was taken by force in Madagascar by a military regime that has not fulfilled at all the commitments made to ensure a transition to democracy, political pluralism and freedom of expression.
The fact that the African Union has suspended the country's membership, declaring the political regime illegal, along with the suspension of assistance by the IMF and the World Bank, have led to the government's international isolation and deepened the problems of a population deprived of foreign aid.
Therefore, our proposal for a resolution outlines two sets of measures: an appeal to the EU and also to the Security Council to extend to all the member countries the visa ban adopted by the African Union and also to increase humanitarian aid to the civilians in Madagascar.
Politically, the EU should insist more strongly that political parties in Madagascar rise above their obvious conflicts and agree on the road map proposed by the Southern African Development Community to overcome the crisis.
In this respect, a decision by the former President Marc Ravalomanana to return to his country is essential, taking into consideration the fact that the current leaders are forcing him to choose between exile and forced labour for life.
Kristiina Ojuland
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, a military coup d'état in Madagascar has been followed by continual violations of human rights and civil liberties. We have had to witness the concentration of executive, legislative and judiciary powers, together with the media, in the hands of Andry Rajoelina, who prides himself on the title of the President of the High Transitional Authority.
I am pleased that the EU and its Member States have not recognised his illegitimate government. We should never give credit to any authoritarian ruler by engaging in formal relations, even if we have done so in the past. Therefore, I welcome the sanctions that have so far been imposed on the regime, and encourage the international community to extend them in order to overthrow Rajoelina's government and bring about a true and definitive transition to democracy.
Monica Luisa Macovei
(RO) Mr President, the coup d'état which took place in March 2009 has been followed by acts of violence, human rights violations, including the random arrest of opposition leaders, and internal insecurity. These matters must be investigated and their perpetrators punished. The regime is boycotting the international and regional efforts to restore peace and organise free elections for a legitimate, democratic government. However, the efforts to find solutions must not be abandoned. In addition, the political militia must be disbanded, as a matter of urgency, and the abuses carried out by the government's security forces against the population ended. It is vital for free, democratic elections to be organised as soon as possible so that legitimate constitutional order can be established and the country's reconstruction can get under way. This is why I call on the Commission and Council to continue their efforts and step them up more quickly so as to provide solutions and the environment for organising free elections and protection for human rights in Madagascar.
Mitro Repo
(FI) Mr President, the people of the world's fourth largest island have been suffering since the military takeover in 2009. Madagascar has an illegal government in power which the people have not elected. Even its natural riches and renewable natural resources have failed to promote prosperity. The Madagascans live in squalor and poverty on their island.
Repeated violations of human rights, the harassment of politicians, religious people and civil society, frequent arbitrary arrests, the looting of churches and the intimidation of the press are everyday occurrences in the country. The list could go on to include media censorship, keeping the nation in poverty, unlawful arrests, disappearances and torture.
In addition to the human suffering, Madagascar's biodiversity is under threat. The island's flora and fauna have evolved in isolation and are irreplaceable and unique, when considered globally.
The nation must be able to decide its future itself, and the European Union has to be involved in supporting the Madagascans in every way possible.
Seán Kelly
Mr President, the situation in Madagascar is the classical situation where the new is no better than the old. This illegal regime came into power in 2009 with military support and matters have not improved one bit. So all the old bad habits remain: unlawful killings, mental and physical torture of prisoners, overcrowding and pre-trial detention are rampant, and, of course, poverty abounds with the minimum wage of USD 35 per month.
The solution is obvious. We need a democratic regime there and we at the European Union must do our best to establish that because, without that, progress cannot be made. If we can get free elections and a new government in place, the European Union, in conjunction with other international bodies, particularly the African Union, can help nurture this country along on the road to democracy and the road to economic recovery.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, since the transfer of power in March 2009, the political situation has continued to be unstable, and there have constantly been new disturbances in Madagascar. Rajoelina's administration breaches human rights and oppresses its own citizens.
In May 2011, representatives of the Africa Caribbean Pacific-European Union (ACP-EU) group took the view that Madagascar should have a viable temporary administration, and soon. Right now, an attempt is being made to resolve this crisis, and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) has invited 11 Madagascan political parties to a summit in Botswana. Three of the main opposition parties, however, have rejected this road map, because it would allow Rajoelina to continue in power until the next elections. Up till now, Rajoelina has reneged on all earlier possible attempts at agreement. Why, then, should he be trusted this time? That is why the EU and the international community must intervene in the situation, and this illegal government headed by Rajoelina should be brought to an end.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
(PL) Mr President, the cause of the current political crisis in Madagascar was a military coup d'état, which forced the democratically elected President of Madagascar, Marc Ravalomanana, to resign and go into exile two years ago. The seizure of power by the military was strongly condemned by the international community, including the European Union, which immediately cut off development aid. In addition, Madagascar was suspended from the Southern African Development Community and the African Union, which contributed to further isolation of the island. The political crisis in Madagascar is just reaching a crucial point, in which there is the opportunity that the negotiations which are in progress between the political leaders will bring about an end to the crisis. This is an ideal opportunity to restore constitutional order and call new elections. The talks also have fundamental significance for the restoration of funds to the country, which had payments of over EUR 600 million in EU development aid suspended. I hope the sides which have been in conflict will now manage to introduce a road map which will provide for the establishment of an interim government until new and - I trust - fair elections are called.
João Ferreira
(PT) Mr President, I wish first of all to deplore the delay in providing the Portuguese versions of this afternoon's resolutions. Some of these are still not available as I speak, and I therefore wish to register my strong protest.
Regarding the situation in Madagascar, the European Union may give its support to a process of reconciliation, but it must do so without intervening or interfering in matters which only the Malagasy people can decide. Above all, the European Union must refrain from taking sides in the conflict. All our efforts should be in the interests of the Malagasy people and not of any one of the conflicting parties.
It is important to value and follow up the efforts of the Southern African Development Community to resolve the conflict and find a political solution to the crisis in the country. For our own part, we wish here to reaffirm the necessity of respecting the ability of the Malagasy people to choose and determine their own future.
Elena Băsescu
(RO) Mr President, the current political crisis in Madagascar poses a risk to democracy and stability in the region. The removal from power of the democratically elected president has resulted in a climate of violence and insecurity being imposed. I should remind you that international donors have withdrawn the financial support given to the island's population. This means that Madagascar is now faced with a poverty rate of 80%. The US has stopped offering tax exemptions to the textile imports from this country for the same reasons. This has resulted in the disappearance of one of the main sources of national income. I welcome the efforts of the Southern African Development Community to put an end to this crisis and restore democracy in the country. I think that it is vital to involve regional organisations in resolving these tensions in order to reach a political compromise.
George Sabin Cutaş
(RO) Mr President, the political crisis in Madagascar has led to this country being isolated on the international stage. Financial aid to Madagascar has been suspended by the European Union, through the enforcement of the provisions of the Cotonou Agreement, as well as by the IMF and World Bank. I support the measures adopted by the European Union in a situation where the transition to a democratic system is being jeopardised indefinitely by the illegal and, by extension, unconstitutional way in which Rajoelina took power.
On the other hand, the decision to apply sanctions is always difficult due to the inevitable humanitarian, economic and social consequences triggered by this. We must think about the Madagascan people, who need our support. This must be demonstrated not only by appealing for free, pluralist elections to be organised and democratic order to be restored, but also, in practical terms, by providing proper humanitarian aid.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris
(IT) Mr President, it is only since July 2003 that Madagascar began again to take an active part in the life of the African Union, since until the end of the 1990s, its political and economic ties were predominantly with the non-aligned socialist countries.
The military coup d'état of March 2009, however, saw the former mayor of the capital city install himself in the presidential palace, which had already been occupied by the army that supported him. After 19 months of institutional crisis in the country, precisely on the day on which nearly 8 million Malagasy people were called on to vote on reforming the constitution, in November 2010, all hope of fashioning a genuine democracy in this former European colony was lost. Today in Madagascar, there is a transitional government that nevertheless holds no promise of anything good, either on an economic level, if we consider that people there live on less than one dollar a day, or on a humanitarian level.
Since, until now, neither the European Union nor the African Union have managed to achieve any compromise with the government of Madagascar, certain measures have been adopted, including the suspension of aid from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as well as our withholding recognition of the transitional government. We condemn the coup d'état and stress the urgent need for free and transparent elections, monitored by the international community.
William
Mr President, I have great respect for you, but surely it is up to the speaker the speed at which he chooses to speak, and that should be the choice of the speaker. The speakers in this Parliament should not run the risk of having their speech wrecked by interruptions from the Chair on behalf of the interpreters. Could I put that point to you?
(Mixed reactions)
President
Lord Dartmouth, to a large extent I agree with your view, but we also get indications from our interpreters that they cannot keep up with the pace. Of course, when I interrupt the speaker, I always give him the additional time, so everybody is happy - the speaker is happy, you are happy that you get the interpretation, and, of course, our interpreters are happy as well. That is the purpose of the work we are doing here.
(Applause)
Eija-Riitta Korhola
(FI) Mr President, since the military takeover in March, political instability and a deteriorating humanitarian situation have been becoming ever more obvious features of everyday life for the Madagascans. With the political crisis, they have even more difficulties accessing basic foodstuffs, water, hygiene products and health services.
Those currently in power have illegally monopolised executive, legislative and judicial power, and have taken control of the media. The country's security services are guilty of violence against ordinary people. Many activists have been imprisoned for political reasons, and former leading political figures have had to flee the country.
The negotiations that are in progress must be stepped up fast, and a way must be sought to restore constitutional order. The human rights violations call for impartial investigation. The EU should increase humanitarian aid for Madagascar, and targeted sanctions should be continued until a solution to the political crisis has been found.
Günther Oettinger
Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission and Baroness Ashton, the High Representative, are deeply concerned about the situation in Madagascar and we have promised to give our continued support to the people of this beautiful country.
We attach great importance to overcoming the ongoing political crisis and the economic and social effects on the population of Madagascar which are increasing the burden placed on the people on a daily basis.
In the same way as you, the Members of Parliament, we are monitoring developments there very closely and using every diplomatic means at our disposal to bring an end to the crisis.
The last two years have involved many retrograde steps and blocks to progress in the country. Now I believe that we have reached a turning point. Two days ago, on 7 June, talks began in Gaborone between the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and various players in the country, in order to find a way out of the crisis, which is based on neutrality and consensus, includes all the relevant groups, and can be supported both by the international community and by the broad majority of the citizens of Madagascar.
We are hoping for, counting on and working to ensure the success of the talks, so that the African Union and the international community, including the EU, can help and support Madagascar to return to the rule of constitutional law.
We are opposing all attempts to bring about a transition to a one-sided, 'de facto' government. For this reason, the European Council decided last week to extend the measures imposed under the terms of Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement by another six months. This does not affect humanitarian aid or measures to combat poverty, provided that they are compatible with the terms of this article.
We are still prepared to provide political and financial support for this transition process, provided it is consensual. It must be based on the road map agreed by the local players and must be endorsed by the SADC, the African Union and the international community. Against this background, I am hoping for positive developments after two tough and difficult years. Thank you very much.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Tadeusz Zwiefka
For several months, the whole of Europe has been looking at the situation in the countries of North Africa, watching events which are taking place in our immediate neighbourhood with unconcealed anxiety. Today, we return to the question of another African country, which, for a long time now, has been lost in chaos and political oblivion.
Madagascar has become a lawless state in which an illegal regime is allowing the country to be plundered and engulfed in chaos. The regime's repression and disregard for the rights of its own citizens can only aggravate the situation, and this may unfortunately lead to bloodshed. Therefore, although the call for the restoration of constitutional order and the holding of open and free elections under the supervision of the international community may appear to be nothing but demagoguery, it is, in fact, the only way for the situation in Madagascar to return to normal. We must also remember that although sanctions may prove successful, they should go hand in hand with a specific proposal for a solution to the political crisis, because the longer the current situation continues, the harder it will be in the future to bring the rule of law to Madagascar.


Statements by the President
President
Before we begin the sitting, I would like to say that our thoughts and prayers are, today, with the families and friends of the victims and with those who were injured in the railway accident which happened last week in the north of Italy. It was, as we all remember, a very serious railway accident.
I would also like to thank all of you, Members and staff of Parliament - many people from Parliament - for attending and for organising the ceremony on Wednesday last week at 12.00 in connection with the Polish air disaster. The funeral of the President of Poland was held yesterday, and the funeral of the President of Poland in exile was held today. On Wednesday last week, we observed a one-minute silence in memory of the victims of the disaster.
I would like to thank you again for this act of solidarity.
Herbert Dorfmann
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you most sincerely, Mr President, for the sympathy that you expressed for the victims of the accident that occurred in my region and my country, the autonomous province of Bozen - South Tyrol - last week. The people in my region are indeed extremely shocked by this accident, which cost the lives of nine, predominantly young, people and left many people injured. It is all the more shocking because this train was not an old train, but a jewel of our region and it was a new route that was only opened a few years ago. This accident was not due to a technical fault, either. It was purely and simply the result of a landslide, which is something that can occur in a mountainous region like the Alps.
Thank you very much, Mr President. I will pass on your words of sympathy to the victims and to the people of my country.
(Applause)
President
I would like to thank everyone who is present in the House today, because we have overcome very great transport problems in getting to Strasbourg. Not everyone has managed to come. An extraordinary meeting of the Conference of Presidents ended a few minutes ago. The chairs of the political groups have specific proposals for you, which have been agreed and endorsed by the chairs of all the political groups. These proposals mean, in essence, that we will not have a plenary sitting on Thursday, and so there will be no order of business on Thursday. However, on Thursday and Friday, Members will be able to sign the attendance register and work as usual. There will be no plenary sitting and no order of business, but it is, of course, our obligation to work, and those who sign the attendance register on Thursday and Friday will be treated normally, as always on Thursdays and Fridays.
I would also like to emphasise that no votes will be taken this week in plenary or in committee, if any committee meetings are held. A committee meeting may be held, even on Thursday, but without taking a vote. This is what we have decided. The reason for this is that not all our fellow Members were able, physically, to get here, and we cannot deprive them of the right to participate in this part-session. So this has nothing to do with a quorum, because there will, probably, be a quorum, but it has to do with the fact that not everyone has been able to come to the part-session. Deferring the votes is not serious from the legal point of view of our obligations to the Council. The votes are important, and so we are postponing them by two weeks, and they will be taken at the May part-session in Brussels. From the point of view of our work with the Council of Ministers, and of agreements and second readings, this can be done.
I would also like to say that there is an important reason why those of us who are here should meet and discuss, because tomorrow there is an extraordinary item which we had not foreseen. This item, which we will discuss tomorrow morning, is related to the current transport situation in Europe and its consequences for Europe's citizens. Tomorrow, during a two-hour discussion attended by the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, we want to think about the situation in Europe, because mobility has fallen, airlines are in danger, and we are faced with unemployment in places where there are large airports and where European airlines might collapse if they are not able to serve passengers for many days. This is, therefore, a serious threat to all of Europe's citizens, and so tomorrow morning's discussion is of key significance. This item of business had not been agreed earlier; it is a completely new item added as a consequence of the difficult situation in the European Union, and we must think seriously about it. The remaining items will be discussed, except some of the items planned for Thursday.
I would also like to inform you that on 7 April this year, I received a letter from the Member, Mr Farage. In his letter, the Co-Chair of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group refers to Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure and makes a formal complaint concerning a breach of protocol on European Union privileges and immunities. I have forwarded the request contained in Mr Farage's letter to the competent committee for consideration.


Common rules in the field of civil aviation security (debate)
President
The next item is the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (14039/1/2006 C6-0041/2007 (Rapporteur: Paolo Costa).
Paolo Costa
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, Mr Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, I am disappointed that the 'Transport live night show' is not the Council's favourite, since it was the Council in particular that I wanted to address. I believe, in fact, that what I am about to repeat to my colleagues and the Vice-President of the Commission is well-known to them and I think they support my views, while we know that we have some problems with the Council.
Parliament has welcomed with great interest and considerable understanding the Commission's proposal to review the rules that attempt to tackle the problem of security with regard to any attack on airports, aircraft and the aviation system. The Commission has tackled the issue with great openness, keeping in mind that we are setting about performing an important task, namely the creation of a single security system that will reduce inconvenience for passengers and make it possible to increase security and organise ourselves better to achieve that aim.
I think I can say that we have also brought about some improvement by seeking to define the limits within which it is possible to authorise armed personnel on board and by attempting to resolve the technical problems of the difference between carrying standard cargo and mail, identify procedures for organising inspections in airports, and deal with many other technicalities.
We got stuck, however, on one problem with regard to which I have still not managed to understand the logic behind the Council's opposition. The issue is very simple: security is both a private matter and a public matter. Each of us, when we travel, wants to travel safely. When security can be affected by terrorist attacks, however, it is clearly in everyone's interests to defend ourselves collectively against such attacks.
In the United States, for example, this matter is considered to be an entirely public concern and the costs are borne wholly by the taxpayer. On this point, I would like to repeat the idea which we have already put forward - and which we continue to put forward, perhaps obstinately - that we should accept the principle that the costs of security ought to be borne both by the citizen who travels and by the States that are protecting themselves, not least in airports and in aircraft, particularly since all we were asking for was for this principle to be accepted, leaving each Member State free to decide how to balance the contributions from the two sources.
As a second principle, we were asking that the security costs borne by the citizens should be transparent and clearly defined, and as a third principle we were asking for a guarantee that every surcharge paid for security should be actually spent on security.
We only asked for these three principles to be accepted, and gave up on the interinstitutional agreement signed back in 2001, on the basis of which the Commission was supposed to put forward much more detailed proposals to tackle the problem of funding security, which would have then, obviously, been approved by the Council too. On this point we have not had a response and we have not been able to reach a conclusion.
I hope that, if the Chamber cannot recreate the unanimous vote in committee tomorrow, it can at least provide a substantial majority that will demonstrate not the power but the good will of Parliament to find a real solution to the problem for all European citizens.
I would like to stress the fact that unfortunately security is a subject that we will have to live with. Hiding our heads in the sand and pretending that the funding problem does not exist is not a response worthy of the times, the problem and our expectations. We therefore fully back more technically sophisticated organisation on the security front, but we ask that this issue be resolved, at least in principle. If we succeed in achieving this objective as soon as possible, I think that we will certainly have acted in the interest of our citizens.
Jacques Barrot
Mr President, Mr Costa, it is true that this proposal is important. The fight against the terrorist threat clearly remains a priority for all the European Union institutions. Aviation security requires constant adaptation. We need to continue to seek ways to provide greater, effective protection for European citizens. We need to draw lessons from experience and to reconcile the demands of security with the operational necessities of the parties involved: the administration responsible for the implementing rules, airport managers, airlines and, of course, passengers.
The existing regulatory framework on aviation security was established after the attacks of 11 September 2001. It was developed as a matter of urgency, which probably explains the excessively detailed nature of the annex to Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002. The prescriptive and detailed nature of this annex is a handicap that prevents us from introducing new, more effective, technologies or from providing security systems better adapted to the actual risks to be accounted for. Finally, it does not allow us to fill the regulatory gaps concerning air freight and the handling of flights from third countries. Therefore, this new proposal, the purpose of which is to replace Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 with a new regulation that is better because it is both simpler and clearer, is obviously altogether desirable.
The adjustment of the rules on aviation security will improve the protection of citizens; it will make it possible to satisfy the legitimate interests of stakeholders because there will be a better balance between the risks to be taken into account and the extent of the checks to be carried out. I admit, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that I would have preferred this proposal to have been adopted at first reading. This delay is all the more regrettable when one realises, as I am doing today, that Mr Costa's draft report completely validates the necessity for this initiative, and we agree, Mr Costa, with most of the actual operational suggestions.
Mr President, I come now to the amendments that have been tabled. More than half take up the amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading. Obviously, the Commission's position remains identical with regard to them.
I should like to make a few comments regarding some of the new amendments that have been tabled. Firstly, Amendment 46 seems timely to me. It will allow the Commission to cooperate more closely with the ICAO for the purpose of exchanging information and mutual support in connection with audits and inspections. Therefore, Mr Costa, we welcome the approach set out in this amendment.
Amendment 33 includes a sunset clause for all the implementing measures that are to be reexamined after six months. However, in a joint declaration annexed to the new decision on comitology, Parliament and the Council have nonetheless recognised that good legislation demands that the executive powers conferred on the Commission should be without time constraints. I do, of course, understand the argument whereby a text that has come into force as a matter of urgency subsequently has to be reexamined, but nonetheless I am worried. The systematic application of this principle could cause legal uncertainty, and the aviation sector may then be led to amend its procedures or to create new ones with disastrous consequences for the effectiveness of the procedures, passenger information and costs. That is why I would prefer to reject Amendment 33 as it stands. Having said that, I am inclined to accept the inclusion of a commitment to revise the text.
I shall take advantage of this opportunity to emphasise that the Commission constantly reviews the good functioning of measures adopted and that it does not hesitate to amend them if necessary. Last week, as part of a half-yearly review, the Commission postponed by a year the introduction of a restriction on the size of hand luggage in order to be able to review the merits of this measure and, if necessary, to ensure that operators are better prepared to implement it.
Amendment 37 gives Member States the opportunity not to implement measures that they consider to be disproportionate. This provision, if it were adopted, could undermine the system of EU-wide harmonised basic standards on aviation security. We would be in danger of going backwards, to a patchwork of 27 uncoordinated national regulatory systems, and of reducing to nothing five years of work towards harmonisation. This amendment is also liable to undermine the system of 'one-stop security' for intra-Community flights.
A series of amendments - Amendments 10, 67, 77, 79 and 81 - is intended to make it easier to draw up security agreements with third countries. The intention of these amendments is good, but unfortunately they are not linked with a mandate. They have the effect of making the task more difficult, contrary to their objective. Therefore, we must reexamine chapters 4 and 5 of the annex to the proposed regulation on the basis of the Council's common position, in order to ascertain the aspects on which the Commission could reach an agreement. These amendments, however, do not seem to me to be necessary to achieve the intended objectives. That is why the Commission would prefer to reject them.
Mr Costa, you have identified, for the Council in particular, what the main stumbling block is: namely, funding for security in the field of aviation. Clearly, this is an important debate. For my part, I shall content myself with a more pragmatic approach to this issue. Europe needs an instrument that helps ensure that standards adopted in relation to aviation security are implemented in accordance with rules guaranteeing fair conditions of competition. This level playing field must apply both within the European Union but also with regard to global competitors
Having said that, it is true: who pays the bill? I should like to take as an example one proposed amendment. It says that Member States that introduce security procedures that are more numerous and more stringent than those required by European Union legislation should indemnify the operators for the extra costs that those stricter measures entail. I understand very well the underlying logic of this viewpoint. It is also true that the Commission has a tool in this field, and that is the Treaty rules on State aid. Therefore, we ourselves will look at how these rules can be used properly in the context of the financial support measures for service providers in the field of aviation security.
I fully understand what Mr Costa said in his address to the Council. I should like, however, to draw Parliament's attention to the drawbacks of a delay in introducing an improved technical regulation on aviation security. There is somewhat of a danger that we will take this draft Community regulation as a kind of hostage against the financial decisions to be taken at Member State level. I would therefore like it if Parliament were to separate the technical standards of the security funding issue in order to clear the way for the swift implementation of a better regulation. That is my wish, but the decision is yours.
Philip Bradbourn
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, firstly I would like to make one point. I would like to put on record my objection to legislation of such importance to European citizens being put on the agenda in the late evening. It seems to be common practice that codecision legislative proposals are discussed when the fewest MEPs and members of the public are present, and that is wrong.
The core issues being discussed in this graveyard slot are the revisions to the 2001 aviation security rules, which are very much welcomed. Having common regulations on this issue, as well as a common interpretation of the rules around all of the EU's airports, means that security and passenger safety can be improved at a time when it is most needed.
However, we cannot expect the travelling public to have to foot the bill yet again. I refer here to short-term special security measures such as the ones we saw last year at Heathrow airport in London. These measures are a direct result of Member State decisions and therefore should be funded by general taxation, not by the passenger, who is already fleeced when travelling by air. This issue has been the most contentious with Council. Parliament, however, stands united. This should send a strong message that the issue is not for negotiation.
Also, when looking at our previous aviation security legislation, we see that problems have developed, especially in the context of implementation. As we say, the devil is in the detail. For example, tons of in-transit duty-free goods are being confiscated from consumers. I now hear that this issue is being addressed and that the Commission will be coming forward with proposals to alleviate this problem. I must pay tribute to Commissioner Barrot and to Commission President Barroso for taking action here and I hope to see Commission officials follow their political lead and come up with speedy and workable solutions.
I must also insist that Parliament be kept informed of developments in this and other areas, as it is MEPs who have to answer to their citizens when things start to go wrong at Europe's airports. I do not want to see a delay to the implementation of these proposals over relatively minor issues.
To conclude, we must not play politics with passenger safety.
Saïd El Khadraoui
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I should like to start, on behalf of my group, by thanking the rapporteur for the good work, and express our support for the strategy he has proposed, namely to stand firm as long as the Council refuses to change its position. The issue in question is an important one for Europe's citizens, and Parliament has its role to play.
For my group, there are two key aspects in the negotiation process. Firstly - and this is something to which the rapporteur has already made reference - anything related to funding. Let me give you a brief outline. There is, actually, not a problem with regard to funding the measures that are issued by the notorious committee of experts, because it is only logical that industry, passengers and the government should all contribute towards the costs. What is important is that this is done transparently, that, in other words, the consumer is informed of the cost of safety, and that what is set aside in terms of safety costs is also actually spent on safety and not on something else. There is, of course, the problem of additional costs which, as we see it, should be covered by the states, provided we can assume that the safety measures are of a high level and are commensurate to everyone's safety.
A second aspect, which is not unimportant either, Commissioner, is democratic control. You have to understand that we can hardly give this committee of experts some kind of carte blanche. It is not that we are in any doubt as to their competence, but when these measures have such an impact on the way our citizens move, then we have a duty to do our job, namely to check whether the decision is sound, whether it is proportionate to the threat, whether it is efficient, whether the people are sufficiently informed, etc.
This is why we would like to find a way of assessing these things and the impact they will have. We have tabled an amendment to this effect. We are prepared to thrash this out in a debate, but I think it is important that in the ultimate scheme, Parliament has a role to play.
I should like to make one final point, Commissioner, and it is that a few weeks ago, you announced that an evaluation of the liquids regulation was in the offing. I should now like to ask you when we can expect it.
Vladimír Remek
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to pay tribute to the work of the rapporteurs. The document before us is a complex one and it was certainly not easy to seek and find compromises, as the debate has ultimately demonstrated. Despite this, the report that has emerged is in my view a solid one, and as a shadow rapporteur I should like to thank both the translators and my colleagues for their cooperation.
I feel that it is possible to support the report in principle, although it does contain around four issues on which, following consultation with a number of experts, I still have reservations, and about which I should like to speak in more detail.
First and foremost is the question of the funding for safety measures in the area of civil aviation, as has already been mentioned. I feel that it would be difficult to resolve the funding issue within the framework of this regulation. For example, in the case of road and rail transport it took a parallel directive to resolve similar issues. In the case of civil aviation we do not have an adequate statutory act and we are proposing a different course of action.
Another controversial part of the report is, in my view, the proposals on incorporating transparency of the cost of safety into the price of plane tickets. This is difficult to accomplish because companies selling plane tickets do not have the necessary overview of security costs for airports. Those who do know what the costs are incorporate them into airport fees. Similarly problematic is the use of the expression 'that protect the safety of civil aviation'. This phrase applies mainly to the protection of civil aviation from terrorism, which is important but forms only part of the package of measures on protection against unlawful acts. I believe that there is a danger of inaccurate interpretation here and of the problem being narrowed to include only terrorism, whereas there are many other unlawful acts in the area of civil aviation.
In referring to the controversial points of the report before us I would not like in any way to call into doubt the overall quality of the work and of the document as a whole. I will conclude, however, by warning that Amendments 4 and 45 will lead to the Commission's position being very much strengthened, which, in my opinion, is not necessary at this time.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am aware that these comments include more than the usual level of detail, which is due to the fact that the proposal has, to a certain extent, the character of a technical regulation, the objective of which is to establish basic parameters for safety standards in the area of civil aviation. I have attempted therefore not only to incorporate these into the proposed Amendments but also to express my views as a former pilot, where I considered it necessary, in respect of the document as a whole.
Georg Jarzembowski
(DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President, my group stands four-square behind the rapporteur.
Let us make no bones about this. Our Parliament reminded the Member States back in 2002 that they had to meet their share of the cost of measures for the protection of public safety and order. We asked you to formulate a strategy for resolving the issue of funding the security measures without distorting competition between airports. You then presented a report, but in that report you neither said, 'Here is a way we could resolve the issue without distorting competition', nor did you say there was no point in making a proposal. So we still await a proposal. We told the Council last year that we expected it to acknowledge clearly its financial responsibility. It stated once more that it was not prepared to do so. We are no longer prepared to play these games, which have been going on since 2002, in other words for five long years.
There is no real pressure to carry out this revision, because you were able to enact the basic regulations we now have - the measure regarding liquids in hand baggage being the prime example - on the strength of these rules. I am not entirely sure whether this measure will remain in place for long. There is no reason to say that it has to be scrapped now because it is blocking some other security measures. If you want to propose new security measures, bring them before Parliament. We are open to new proposals.
What we mean is that, besides the issue of liquids in hand baggage, on which the Committee on Transport and Tourism is to hold a hearing, we must tackle risk analysis as a matter of priority, and I hope we can do that together with you. I have serious doubts as to whether the present Regulation actually enhances security or whether it is too heavy-handed. But let us discuss that openly. Please do not say, 'The intelligence people have information that they cannot pass on to us'. We have a responsibility to the public to provide straight answers. Your departments, and more particularly those of the Council, must be prepared to lay their cards on the table, for we will no longer tolerate the present tactics.
Ulrich Stockmann
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the revised version of Regulation 2320/2002 is good and should be applied as quickly as possible.
First of all, let me make two points about the sunset clause. We are confronted here with a dilemma. No politician, and indeed no civil servant, will take responsibility for rolling back inefficient security structures. Accordingly, the burden of proof must lie with those who seek to extend an implementing regulation and not with those who want to let it expire. That is the main argument.
Secondly, there is sometimes a need to respond very quickly, as you did in the case of the liquids, but the fact is that the risk assessment and cost analysis must follow, so that the process takes its right and proper course. The sunset clause is also a good means to this end.
Now to the main issue, the dispute about funding. We should refocus on the problem that exercised us at the beginning, namely how we can eliminate distortions of competition and obtain transparent and, as far as possible, uniform funding models in Europe. The Commission must intervene here in a mediating role. We should not focus so sharply on the question whether taxpayers or passengers should foot the bill. That discussion, I believe, has become unproductive and no longer addresses the real issue. We need proposals on ways to achieve transparent funding models in Europe that are as uniform as possible.
Jim Higgins
Mr President, while there is a lot of huffing and puffing about aviation security and its restrictions on international travel and inconvenience to passengers, the reality is that there is a real international security problem. 9/11 did happen; thousands of people died. The threat to British aviation was a real and not an imaginary threat. The people who perpetrated 9/11 as well as those responsible for the foiled attack on Britain are not only still in existence but they have also publicly stated that they intend continue their campaign of international terrorism.
Let us be real. The Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Council have a common cause here, and what is it? It is the protection of the aviation sector and the protection of the millions of passengers who travel annually. Looking at the standoff between the Council and the Committee on Transport and Tourism, one would imagine that we had a polarisation of two ends of the planet, representing two different interests, instead of two parallel political participants here in Europe who are supposedly looking after the common interest of the travelling public.
If there is to be conciliation, let us get on with it right away. What is needed is a civil aviation security agreement that guarantees security and safety. What is needed is a civil aviation security agreement that allows individual Member States to decide to opt out of certain proposed measures such as the sky marshals. What is needed is a commonly agreed set of measures designed for passenger security which - and this is a crucially important point - firstly, will be subject to a review every six months, secondly, to see if they are successful, thirdly, if they need modification and fourthly, how much they cost.
What is not needed is the kind of standoff that we are debating here this evening. We all have one common cause - passenger security- so let us get on with it. Is it any wonder that the people of Europe are, to put it mildly, sceptical about the way we operate in this Parliament when we have this kind of standoff between the Commission on the one hand, the Council on the other and Parliament, while we all have a common cause?
Robert Evans
Mr President, I would also like to commend Mr Costa on his report. As he said in his introduction, we all want to travel safely and securely.
Both Mr Higgins, just now, and Mr Bradbourn, before him, referred to the alert over liquids in the UK last summer. Unlike Mr Jarzembowski, most of us think that this threat is not just ever-present, but that it is one that is changing all the time. We cannot let up or compromise where aviation safety and security is concerned. European countries need to work together to achieve the highest possible standards, and yes, that does mean that some countries may wish to go further and put additional measures in place.
But on other aspects passengers are confused. Why are some airports seemingly more secure than others? Why is there no European agreement yet on hand baggage allowances - on what is permitted and what is not? Mr Barrot, you said that we need to guarantee that safety rules are applied, and that is crucial. But you also spoke about fair competition, and I am not sure where competition comes into this debate. Competition could mean compromise and, as others have said, there is no compromise when talking about aviation security. We all have to work together in this field.
Reinhard Rack
(DE) Mr President, we all want the highest possible standards. The only question is who should decide what will guarantee the highest possible level of security. To a certain extent, all of us here can regard ourselves as experts, simply because we are almost daily air travellers.
One thing we do know is that every single one of us can easily circumvent the new rules on liquids at any checkpoint. What is on the table here is a placebo, designed to ensure that people feel safe but certainly not increasing security. That is the real problem. We have to tackle it, which is the purpose of the two amendments tabled by Mr Stockmann and myself, through which we seek to ensure that this House debates what constitutes a genuine security-building measure and what is merely a placebo.
On this point we can truly regard ourselves as experts, and so we say in all clarity that, six months after the introduction of this provision, we have no need of special rules; what we need is a more rational consideration of this issue than it has previously been given. In actual fact, what we have here is a kind of extraterritorial US law, enacted jointly with Britain. That is how we see it. The British or even the American tail is wagging the European dog. That will not do.
We therefore call for the most rapid possible review, and if that review does not result in a real increase in security, the measures must be allowed to expire. That would compel us all to think seriously again about real potential remedies to the present problem.
Jacques Barrot
Mr President, I should like first of all to thank all of the speakers and, in particular, to thank Mr Costa for his report. It is clear that a better balance between security demands and operational aspects is a real challenge for all of us. That is why we need a new framework regulation that is simpler and more flexible; I must insist on that.
I am going to answer a few questions before turning to financing. Mr El Khadraoui, the Commission is endeavouring to keep the European Parliament regularly informed of developments, and in a few days' time you will have a hearing of experts, for which Mr Costa has kindly taken the initiative. I believe that this is the right method for trying to understand and to have some information from those who were behind these provisions.
Mr Bradbourn, I must say to you that we are actively working on the problems relating to duty free goods. I hope that, in a few weeks' time, I will be able to give you some answers on this point. He is not here, but I am speaking to all Members.
I come now to the problem of funding. Firstly I should like to say that I understand very well the position of the Commission and of Mr Costa. I think first of all that we must try to avoid distortions of competition. That seems perfectly logical to me. I realise, like Mr Jarzembowski, that we have to try to find a compromise. Nonetheless, together with the Council, we have to take account of the finance ministers. The transport ministers do not entirely lay down the law in this field. That, then, is where we come up against a problem.
What stays in my mind from this discussion between us, is your desire for transparency over the cost of security. On that point, I cannot contradict you. I think, in fact, that it is essential for the cost of security to be made transparent; this should at least be a first stage. What I can say to you is that we need this regulation, as I have explained to you. I would not want all that to fall apart because of a total lack of understanding on both sides between the Council and Parliament. That being so, the Commission will play its role as mediator and we shall try, as far as is possible, to find a solution, Mr President, because, in the field of security, we must have the right tools and the appropriate tools.
That is why I am insisting somewhat on the adoption of this revised proposal, recognising at the same time the validity of Parliament's approach, which, on the subject of funding, requires greater transparency, more fair competition and, insofar as is possible, an effort towards harmonisation on the part of the Member States.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 11.30 a.m.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Christine De Veyrac
in writing. - (FR) The Commission proposal introduces provisions that will enable definite progress to be made in the area of aviation security. The issue of funding for these security measures has not been mentioned, however.
The amendments that we have adopted within the Committee on Transport and Tourism solve this problem and provide justified and balanced provisions.
It would not be fair to allow the whole burden of the cost of security measures to be passed on to air passengers. It is desirable to avoid overburdening financially the users who already pay very high taxes on flight tickets.
That is why in my opinion we should support the proposal for mixed funding of security measures, that is, by the Member States and by users, and for funding of the more stringent measures to be made the responsibility of the Member States, and of them alone.
Furthermore, I support Amendment 33, which makes extending security measures dependent upon a thorough assessment of the risks, costs and impact of these measures.
One cannot apply indefinitely security measures that cause great inconvenience to passengers, such as the restrictions on liquids in hand baggage, without examining closely whether they are still appropriate and their consequences for travellers.
James Nicholson
in writing. - Aviation security issues are of the utmost importance to our safety and need to be dealt with in a swifter manner than has so far been the case. A common minimum standard of security is needed not only because of the real threat of aviation crime, but also for the perceived threat that a lack of security shows the public.
It is essential that Member States pay for the cost of new security mechanisms and short-term special measures. Passengers should not need to pay for security. Smaller regional airports might have a hard time paying for new expensive measures, while airlines cannot be asked to increase their ticket prices. This is not a matter of passengers paying for the privilege of safety (this is no privilege but a given right), it is a matter of states keeping aeroplanes from crashing into populated areas on the ground.
An effective evaluation of the measures we put into place is essential. Some measures might turn out to be superficial; others might need to be more efficient. New mechanisms might need to be put into place.


A more efficient and fairer retail market (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on a more efficient and fairer retail market.
Anna Maria Corazza Bildt
rapporteur. - Mr President, did you know that retail provides almost 20 million jobs and continued to employ throughout the crisis? Our report is about creating more jobs in Europe. The time has come to recognise that retailers are drivers of growth. Did you know, and can you imagine, that if you buy a toy in one Member State for your child, you have to retest it to get additional certification in another Member State? Did you know that you have to repack a cheese to market it on a cross-border basis? What a waste.
Our report is about removing borders and barriers to the free movement of goods and services. This is the backbone of European integration and the single market. For the first time we are putting retail on the map of EU policy-making. This has never been done before. I am very grateful to shadows and colleagues who have made a great contribution in making a cross-political commitment to call for an action plan for retail, based on a long-term and holistic approach.
I am really glad that this has been anchored in the new Single Market Act. We are not shying away from controversial issues: unfair commercial practices, private labels, extra fees, to name but a few, as well as tax and trade laws. I know how many colleagues care about people and consumers with reduced mobility or who live in remote and isolated areas or in town centres. We are calling for action on this as well.
Actually our entire report is a call for action. We are asking Member States to implement and enforce existing internal market legislation and competition law, goods packages, service directives, the Small Business Act and to remove the hidden and hideous new restrictions that have been put up in recent years.
We call on the Commission to take tough measures against breaches of internal market legislation, to crack down on unfair commercial practices, to create a true common European payment area and to remove obstacles, especially for e-commerce. We asked the stakeholders to accept their shared responsibility - with regard to the environment and corporate social responsibility - and to continue to innovate as they are doing. They also have to invest more in skills and competence-building.
I am really grateful that colleagues in committee overwhelmingly trusted my line, based on self-regulation. Measures imposed top-down and parachuted will not yield better results or be more efficient than measures that the retailers throughout the supply chain would themselves adopt, share, shape and own. This will require much more commitment from us in public-private partnerships.
This is my first report. In eight months of consultation it has been a fantastic journey, which has already produced results. We have seen more direct, more intense and more constructive dialogue from people whose relationships used to be solely confrontational. I am very encouraged to see these signs of commitment and shared responsibility from the retail community.
Please, colleagues, let us give voluntary initiative a chance. But we also want to see concrete results. The time for denial is over. That is why, in the report, we gave ourselves an instrument to continue to assess progress and keep all parties engaged with the yearly retail round table. This is a living report.
From the Vikings to Venice, trade has always been a force of progress, economic development and peace. Let us keep up our commitment to putting the real economy at the centre of the political agenda. We should not give in to the wind of protectionism that is blowing throughout Europe. We should keep our commitment and stand up for a truly border-free Europe.
Malcolm Harbour
Mr President, it gives me great pleasure to speak again this evening both as committee chairman and as the shadow rapporteur for this really important report. I want to congratulate Anna Maria Corazza Bildt on the very ambitious and very courageous way in which she tackled this report. She had a clear vision of what she wanted to achieve and she has carried it through, and she has cooperated effectively with everyone involved. That is crucial, and she does not exaggerate the importance of what the committee has achieved.
As she said, we have had visits and representations from people in the retail sector whom we had never seen before and who had never engaged with the European Parliament before. And yet, as she emphasises, retailers of all sizes are absolutely at the cutting edge both of the internal market and in delivering for consumers. That is the first point in many cases where consumer protection has to operate. So this is indeed a landmark report, but it is also one that demonstrates the value of the political initiative. We took up an embryo initiative from the Commission, a working document. The Commission had not decided to proceed to any sort of Green Paper. I now hope that they will take it more seriously. I think they will, as I hope Mrs Malmström will confirm later.
In conclusion, it is a great shame that in this Chamber we now do not have the chance to have a proper debate on really important reports, such as the one we have just heard about from Mrs Rapti and this report from Mrs Corazza Bildt. The procedures of this House need to be changed to allow us to engage with successful rapporteurs and to have really full debates on these issues, instead of these very truncated sessions that we are now forced to live with.
Ilda Figueiredo
(PT) Mr President, it is true that the retail trade is under serious attack, particularly in countries where this trade is exercised by micro- and small family businesses, and where in some cases people's buying power is diminishing. In particular, less urban areas, where they play an important social role, are going through very difficult times. I am speaking from experience, that of my country, Portugal, where this family-based retail trade is currently the target of serious attacks, whether as a result of unequal trading due to unfair competition by the large retail outlets, or difficulties in accessing credit, or people's low buying power due to increasing poverty and unemployment.
Therefore, these are the details (which have already been brought up here but which I also wanted to add) to which I believe the Commission should pay greater attention.
Seán Kelly
(GA) Mr President, I was delighted by what the rapporteur Anna Maria Corazza Bildt said on this important matter.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words about it.
Coming from Ireland where we are in the middle of a difficult recession - IMF bail-out, etc. - I can see exactly where the problems in relation to retail are. One of the real issues here is the survival of businesses - SMEs - in town centres, etc. which are competing against the big multinationals. While we need regulation I am prepared to go along with self-regulation up to a point, but at the same time we have to ensure that the consumer, the processor, the producer and the retailer are all given fair play, and particularly that consumers can have confidence that they are getting fair value for money. I think what we can do at EU level is to give some kind of coherence to that, and certainly this is a start in that regard.
Cecilia Malmström
Mr President, honourable Members, the report we are discussing marks an important new step towards recognising the key position that the retail sector occupies in the internal market, as discussed in the Commission's 'Retail market monitoring report' of July 2010. I would therefore like to thank Mrs Corazza Bildt for her excellent work and for this draft report.
The Commission also strongly believes that this sector ...
(The President interrupted the speaker)
requires special attention, as it is a vital element of Europe's economy. The Commission has demonstrated this belief in its report on monitoring the retail market and through the Single Market Act.
The Commission is therefore delighted that Parliament is in favour of the general approach proposed in the July 2010 report, which looks not only at economic performance in the retail sector, but also at the direct impact that practices and decisions in this sector have on citizens, consumers, employees, farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), not to mention on the environment.
The Commission also recognises the need to coordinate the various policies and initiatives relating to this sector. We are therefore going to examine the possibility of producing a Europe-wide action plan for the retail sector, which would put in place a more explicit, coherent strategy for the sector, whilst at the same time being based on the initiatives already developed by the Commission, such as the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain, or the sustainable development initiatives.
I also welcome all the initiatives proposed in the report that are aimed at improving dialogue between the institutions and the parties involved, such as the 'Retail Market Roundtable' to be organised by the European Parliament.
I have taken note that Parliament wishes certain problems that we identified in our report of July last year to be dealt with as priority areas. Among these, I will mention in particular the continuing, largely unjustified, obstacles to the free movement of goods and services, especially the ongoing difficulties that businesses have in accessing certain markets.
I would also like to mention the growing problems of the accessibility of shops and access to e-commerce faced by consumers, especially the most isolated. In this respect, I would like to highlight Parliament's concerns over some national rules that may place restrictions on operators from other Member States who try to establish themselves in that country.
Unfair contractual and trade practices between businesses are a matter of concern that both our institutions share. The Commission has begun working on the subject, and within the next few months it plans to adopt a communication, in line with what Parliament is asking for, on the national legal and regulatory frameworks governing unfair business practices, the problems these raise from the EU point of view, and whether or not it would be beneficial to take some action.
The final shared concern I would like to mention is the need to encourage sustainable consumption.
To conclude, Mr President, the Commission is delighted that the retail sector's rightful place is being emphasised, considering its economic and social importance and its importance for society as a whole. The Commission will give the issues associated with this sector the full attention they deserve, in close collaboration with the European Parliament.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 5 July 2011.