3. Chad
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on Chad.
Erik Meijer
author. - (NL) Mr President, colonial rule in the former territories of French West Africa and French Central Africa came to an end between 1958 and 1960. This was not the outcome of a protracted conflict and the resulting emergence of a collective national consciousness, but rather a way of preventing the development of liberation movements. It was a top-down rather than a bottom-up process. From French overseas departments they first became autonomous territories and then independent states.
With the exception of Guinea (Conakry), French influence has nevertheless always remained greater in these states than in other former colonies. The big desert state of Chad still has a French military presence and that has certainly influenced who was allowed to rule the country and who was not. This powerful European influence has not led to the development of European standards of democracy and human rights in these countries. The states and their national borders derive not from domestic movements which shaped an independent state, but simply from the colonial past.
This means that ethnic differences can lead to ethnic confrontations. In countries like these that means a continuing struggle for power, over who are the first-class citizens and who the second-class citizens. Ethnic and geographical diversity is often not reflected, or only poorly reflected, in the composition of the government. The problems this causes cannot, in my Group's view, simply be resolved by stationing a new body of European troops there. There has always been a military presence there, and it has made the present situation worse rather than better. The answer lies not in stabilising the current situation, which only benefits the current rulers, but in making space for change from the bottom up.
Filip Kaczmarek
author. - (PL) Mr President, in the draft resolution we refer to the Cotonou Agreement and, specifically, to the section on humanitarian aid.
I must however remind you about an unfortunate occurrence during the last ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Ljubljana, which took place one month ago. The ACP side rejected the Assembly's compromise resolution on Chad. What is more, those promoting the rejection of this resolution were delegates from countries that are Chad's neighbours, even though their concerns had been taken into account in the compromise text. It was difficult for us to understand why our partners from Africa decided to reject this resolution.
I hope that the European Parliament resolution, which we will adopt in a few minutes' time, will fill the gap created by the absence of the much-anticipated ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly resolution. I think we can all agree with the statement by Chad's President Idriss Deby that looking after 300 000 Sudanese refugees and 170 000 internal refugees in Chad is a heavy burden. European society is aware of this, and this is why 14 European Union countries have decided to carry out the UN Security Council mandate and are beginning to send 4 000 soldiers to Chad.
We are pleased that the European Union has taken responsibility and showed solidarity in this way, even though the scope of this solidarity could be wider. Most of the 14 countries that have decided to take part in the mission, including, to name but a few, Ireland, Finland, Romania and Poland, have no historic or economic links with Chad. These countries, in directing assistance to Chad, have displayed not just solidarity, but also selflessness in their desire to help defenceless civilians, victims of the conflict in Darfur and of the internal strife in Chad, refugees in camps on the Saudi-Chad border and staff in humanitarian missions working in the region.
I hope that this mission will be effective in resolving the conflict and will help the people of Chad and Sudan, and we wish the people of Chad successful, free, democratic and transparent elections in 2009.
Ewa Tomaszewska
author. - (PL) Mr President, since 3 February 2008 there has been no information at all about the fate of Ibni Oumar Mahamat Saleh, the spokesman for the Coordination of Political Parties for the Defence of the Constitution.
Torture, imprisonment and various types of repression are systematically used against the opposition. There are restrictions on free speech, and the right to a free trial is also limited. The security forces as well as armed groups from Sudan threaten civilians and attack humanitarian organisations, especially in the eastern part of Chad.
In Chad there are over 250 000 refugees from Sudan and about 57 000 refugees from the Central African Republic, as well as refugees from Darfur. The conflict in Darfur has spilled over into Chadian territory. The armed conflict is accompanied by a humanitarian catastrophe: there is not enough food for refugees, there are sudden increases in the price of food, barely 20% of children attend school, children are forced into the armed forces, and violence against children is becoming increasingly widespread, especially sexually-motivated attacks on girls.
It is vital to enable refugees to return to their own homes. It is vital to stop not just the armed conflict in Chad but also the fall-out from the crisis in Darfur. Only a resolution to the armed conflicts can possibly give a chance to help the 4.5 million people in Darfur and Eastern Chad. Only an end to war can make it possible to reduce violations of human rights.
Images of skeletal women sitting outside their burnt-out houses with hungry children in their arms, images that were common in Poland and in other European countries during the Second World War, are now a daily reality in Chad and Sudan. Europe was able to emerge from those tragic circumstances. Let us help the people of Chad and Sudan to regain hope. Let us stop further armed struggle with a peace mission.
Marios Matsakis
author. - Mr President, Chad, the fifth largest nation in Africa, has had a very troublesome post-colonial history. Civil conflict, guerrilla warfare, military coups, religious and ethnic divisions, combined with a hostile, semi-desert environment and a problematic regional neighbourhood, have led to almost continuous unrest in the country. Consequently - and despite the fact that Chad is rich in gold, uranium and oil - Chad is a state suffering from severe poverty and resultant poor health and social conditions.
The present governing regime, led by President Deby, having come to power after a coup in 1990 and with a number of dubious electoral wins since then, has been reportedly involved in numerous acts of severe oppression and persecution against opposition politicians, human rights activists and journalists. Arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture and extrajudicial killings have been documented.
Let us hope that this motion for a resolution will send a clear message to Mr Deby, as well to all other parties involved in that troublesome part of the world, that the time has come for national reconciliation, the strengthening of democratic processes and respect for human rights. At the same time, this resolution aims at trying to reassure the people of Chad that the European Union stands by their side in their hour of need and will continue to do its utmost in order to assist in the achievement of peace and prosperity for all the citizens of their country.
Marie Anne Isler Béguin
author. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, according to consistent witness evidence, Omar Mohamed Saleh was arrested at his home by armed men in uniform on 3 February 2008.
Since then, there has been no official word and his family and political colleagues fear that after his arrest he was cold-bloodedly executed. This lack of information cannot be allowed to continue and President Idriss Deby must pass on the information that he has.
We are therefore calling on the French Government in particular, which has, as we know, provided aid to the President of Chad, to obtain all possible information on the disappearance of Mohamed Saleh, about whom we are extremely concerned, and also on the fate of all the other political prisoners. That cannot, in any event, disguise the tragic situation of over a million people caught in the crossfire.
For that reason, it is imperative to open dialogue between all the parties, the Chad Government, the opposition and the rebels, to which they committed themselves with a view to free elections in 2009, in accordance with international standards. The aim of the Eufor mission is to keep the peace between Chad and Sudan and to guarantee the security of humanitarian operations to aid refugees on all sides. The mission cannot succeed without the active participation of all the European Union countries.
In addition, since Eurofor includes a large contingent of French forces, it is essential to distinguish between the Épervier plan and the European forces. It is also imperative for the millions of refugees, as an initial emergency measure, but also in the longer term for the countries of Central Africa, that political stability should be restored by a ceasefire, reopening of dialogue and respect for human rights.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FI) Mr President, the resolution highlights the two areas of the crisis which the government and international agencies need to focus their attention on. Firstly, the humanitarian crisis is widespread and for a long time now the aid organisations there have been sending back reports about the growing numbers of internal refugees. The poor levels of security in the refugee camps, the widespread sexual violence, and the difficulty of delivering food aid have made the situation even more critical. Secondly, there are massive restrictions on freedom of speech and many journalists have had to leave Chad for fear of arrest. Supporters of the political opposition have been threatened and have disappeared. This fact often remains in the shadow of the humanitarian crisis, although if things were to improve in this area it would be one important step along the road to a more stable regime.
A genuine solution will of course require strong political will and concrete action on a large scale. Just as important, however, is the need to invest time and effort in the children of Chad and their future by trying hard to prevent them from being recruited into armed gangs of insurgents and investing in their basic education, which could include human rights studies, for example.
Katrin Saks
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ET) My speech too links up with the previous speaker's. I also wanted to raise a point of the utmost importance to today's agenda and it is precisely the situation of children in crisis hotspots. A large number, if not the majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who been left homeless are children. And what is their everyday life like? We have all seen the dispiriting images on our television screens.
The European Union has an obligation to show solidarity with the whole nation, of course, but we must strive to focus our attention on the children because they cannot look after themselves. It is depressing that only one in five children in Chad attends school and that thousands upon thousands of them carry weapons.
I fully support the call for a plan to make human rights an integral part of the school curriculum. It is important for the government of Chad to do all it can to prevent the recruitment of children by rebel groups; the importance of the role of EUFOR will prove crucial here in, for example, communicating with community leaders and focusing their attention on the situation of children in this area.
Urszula Krupa
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, the subject of today's debate is breaches of human rights in Chad. The situation there is as dramatic as in Darfur, Sudan or the Central African Republic, where, in addition to the conflicts fuelled by ethnic, language or religious differences, there are also other conflicts of interest, especially to do with politics and oil.
African countries that are economically poor and poorly developed, even though they may be rich in natural resources, including crude oil, precious gemstones and metals, become not just an arena for trading in these resources or in drugs, but an eager market for the sale of arms, one of the principal causes of human rights abuses. In an atmosphere of growing conflict and war, many unscrupulous local and foreign traders exploit this situation, enriching themselves at the cost of chaos, refugees and the suffering of millions of innocent people, and even genocide, rape and the exploitation of women and children.
This situation is made worse by the passivity of the international community, which is controlled and exploited by great powers that play out their interests on the global stage. Humanitarian missions of various types can do little to help, and sometimes even go against their initial objectives and calling. Such a situation appears hopeless, as long as life and human dignity lose out to practical materialism, liberalism and the growing civilisation of death, which is sometimes propagated even by so-called humanitarian organisations providing education in the name of sexual and reproductive health.
For these reasons, various resolutions and reports may help to ease the consciences of their authors, but will not improve the situation in Africa, until African leaders and the great powers, from both the east and the west, stop benefiting from war and the growing hatred in the African continent.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
(PL) Mr President, despite the signing, a year ago, of an agreement between all the political parties in Chad on strengthening the democratic process, and despite the later non-aggression pact with the Sudanese authorities, the situation is still highly charged. Government forces regularly clash with rebels from armed groups from Darfur, who attack transports of humanitarian aid. The state of emergency has been used to imprison the opposition with impunity and to impose savage restrictions on press freedom and freedom of speech.
Of particular concern is the worsening humanitarian situation in the country where, as a result of the conflict in Darfur and its cross-border consequences, there are over 300 000 refugees in 12 camps along the eastern frontier between Chad and Sudan. As a result of continuing battles, supplies of food to the camps are interrupted, and refugees are left to vegetate in terrible conditions. Following mass displacement, the civilian population is prey to aggression and breaches of fundamental human rights.
In the light of the obvious impasse in stabilising the situation in Chad, international institutions should strengthen their efforts to promote dialogue between all sides in the conflict. Only a global agreement has any chance of averting a humanitarian disaster in the country. It is vital to begin the European forces mission as quickly as possible in order to step up humanitarian activities in the region and to provide increased protection for the civilian population and for refugees.
Zbigniew Zaleski
(FR) Mr President, I should like to refer again to the Ljubljana resolution, which our African colleagues voted against. I was really disappointed and saddened. I think and hope that values for Africa do not come from China, with its aggressive economic invasion that we are witnessing at the moment.
It is impossible to know how to treat our African partners when they treat Chad in this way, but one thing is fairly clear: we have to persuade them about human rights. That is the only choice we have. It seems that this will be a long and costly process, but there is no other choice.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) I also want my voice to be heard in the debate about the complex situation in which the people in Chad find themselves. As we know from the latest information, apart from 300 000 refugees in eastern parts of the country there are 200 000 internally displaced people who live in these camps in conditions barely fit for humans, facing a humanitarian crisis.
When we take into account the lack of food and medicine, the dramatic misuse of the fact that these people have lost their freedom, the spread of drug abuse and diseases among the people kept in these conditions, we have no other option than to call for the support of the democratic process and for the defeat of the rebels with the help of the European forces.
Armando Veneto
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, even though agreement had been reached on a joint motion, it was rejected by the African side at the Joint Assembly in Ljubljana.
The drama lies in the reasons that were put forward: because the Chad delegation was not there, or so it was said. That was clearly a pretext and that pretext was instrumental, but it served to hide the reality of events, the reasons for which the African side rejected the resolution. What that means, in substance, is that political opportunism prevailed over fundamental human rights and the protection and guarantee of the fundamental freedoms.
I believe that the value of Europe - and the new history that Europe is creating - is that it not just observes, but that it also fights to ensure that it is not expediency but human reasons that prevail over all the deceptions of politics. In my view, that is what we should be supporting and affirming and what should once again become a plan for the very life of the European Union.
John Bowis
Mr President, a few short years ago I was with a delegation in Chad, in the aftermath of their civil war and the violence, looking at the optimism that was coming from the arrival of oil and the pipeline. The wealth of that country was hitherto the mango trees of a village, nothing more, and oil was bringing opportunity to this country. The international community was supervising that in such a way that we had hope that this would bring stability and wealth and a future to this country. Now we have a mess, and we have a mess partly because of what has come in from outside - Darfur and so on - and, I have to say, partly from what has come from inside - the corruption, the poor governance and the violence.
As a result, it is the people of Chad who are suffering, and we must urge everyone - internationally, nationally and locally - to work together to bring this crisis to an end, and then build for the future again.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, this week we have discussed China-Africa relations. The situation in Chad is but one example of how oil can become a reason for buying weapons. Unless we can urge China, which is a member of the UN Security Council, to change its foreign and trade policy from the so-called 'no conditions' policy to a 'conditional' policy and fall into step with us, we will bitterly regret our lack of resources to provide sufficient help to hundreds of thousands of refugees and injured persons.
Androula Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, we fully support the call of Members for a restoration of the political process in Chad and for a diplomatic resolution to the tensions between Chad and Sudan.
Concerning the internal political process, we welcome the nomination of a new Prime Minister, Mr Abbas. In our view, his declaration of 18 April was a first promising signal which could lead to the normalisation of the relations between the government and the non-armed opposition.
We are, therefore, hopeful that the constitution of the new, inclusive government of 23 April, where four key ministerial posts have been given to non-armed opposition parties coming from la Coordination des partis politiques pour la défense de la Constitution (CPDC), will pave the way for the relaunching of a more comprehensive dialogue on the basis of the political agreement of 13 August 2007.
Commissioner Michel was amongst the first to express concern about the disappearance of members of the opposition following the attempted coup of early February and to call for the immediate release of any opposition leaders held in custody by the Chadian authorities. Like many of the speakers today, we are still vocal concerning the need to shed light on the situation of Mr Ibni Saleh, spokesperson of the CPDC.
In this regard the European Commission, through its role as an international observer to the National Commission of Inquiry, is seeking to develop clarity about these disappearances, which will help engender trust in the political process.
With regard to the political process, through our 10th European Development Fund and Instrument for Stability we are developing Chad's capacity to hold legislative elections in late 2009, as envisaged by the 13 August 2007 agreement. This includes support for electoral preparations and the conducting of a national census. Chad has also been included as a country to be followed up in view of a possible EU election observation mission in 2009, if all conditions for such a deployment are met.
Concerning the relations between Chad and Sudan, the issue of the rebel groups can only be considered as part of the wider situation, and we are encouraged by the recent Libreville meeting of the Contact Group established under the Dakar Accord between Chad and Sudan. We believe that such sustained diplomatic efforts are essential to calm down the two countries.
Our humanitarian assistance in East Chad is ongoing (an average of EUR 30 million each year), and needs are adequately covered. Nevertheless, to complement humanitarian aid and the increase in security of refugee and internally displaced people camps that the EUFOR/MINURCAT deployment will bring, our Programme d'Accompagnement à la Stabililisation de l'Est du Tchad will support the conditions in areas to which internally displaced persons and refugees may choose to return in eastern Chad and northern Central African Republic, with particular regard to access to drinking water and food security. Activities will start under this programme before the rainy season commences.
In view of the success of the MINURCAT mission as crucial to safeguarding the long-term stability and development of Chad, as seen in our EUR 10 million contribution to the MINURCAT operation, we are encouraged that training has started for the first 77 commanders of the Détachement intégré de sécurité.
To help embed progress, our 10th European Development Fund will include EUR 25 million in support of reform of the justice sector, including the development of the police force, as well as an additional EUR 25 million for Security Sector Reform.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place after the debates.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Alessandro Battilocchio
in writing. - (IT) The situation in Chad has now become critical. Armed groups from Sudan are carrying out raids in the eastern area of the country with indiscriminate killing, violence and rape, especially among the weaker groups of the population, with no reaction at all from the government there. On the other hand, the evident difficulty of managing the growing number of refugee camps receiving refugees from the Darfur region, threatened by the conflict which has arisen in the country between the government and the opposition forces disputing the validity of the elections, has led the authorities there to declare a national state of emergency.
The first result of that measure, as reported by Amnesty International, has been the creation of an ad hoc committee to censor newspapers and radio stations which, as well as bringing about a series of arrests of journalists and political opponents, has led to the disappearance of the spokesman for the party for the defence of the Constitution.
This escalation of violence absolutely has to be stopped. The European institutions have the task, the resources and the responsibility to ensure and defend human rights throughout the world, especially in particular regions such as Chad where citizens are already suffering humanitarian crises and attacks from outside.


European rail network for competitive freight (debate)
President
The next item is the recommendation for second reading by the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the Council position at first reading for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a European rail network for competitive freight (11069/5/2009 - C7-0043/2010 - (Rapporteur: Marian-Jean Marinescu).
Marian-Jean Marinescu
It is the European Parliament's duty to draft legislation which will improve the situation and provide greater added value in the relevant area. I believe that the compromise we are debating today meets these conditions. This compromise has been reached after countless discussions, which, unfortunately, were brought about occasionally by pressure being exerted by parties involved in this Regulation.
The Council has made a positive contribution by introducing the annex containing the first new corridors. This initiative speeds up the implementation of the Regulation, even though I feel that the timeframes requested by Member States of three and five years are, in some cases, excessive.
The corridors are established on the basis of certain criteria, the most important of these being economic efficiency. Every corridor will be managed by an executive board and a management board. They will coordinate the implementation of investments, the drafting of the timetable, development of the terminals and standardisation of regulations.
The timetable will still be drafted in accordance with Directive 2001/14/EC. A single point of contact will be established for allocating capacity within the timetable already approved. This is a great step forward in terms of both transparency and efficiency for the transport company business.
Freight does not have any priority. Passenger traffic will not be disrupted. On the contrary, it may have advantages, thanks to coordinating decisions at corridor level. If traffic is deregulated, the rules decided on at corridor level will be applied in order to keep to a minimum the period required to return to normal operation.
I believe that the Council's agreement to open the corridors to all the relevant beneficiaries is another major benefit of this Regulation. It is also possible that Member States will not get involved in creating a corridor for important reasons.
Ladies and gentlemen, the crisis triggered by the volcanic ash highlighted the lack of coordination of railway traffic at European level. Companies missed an important opportunity to demonstrate that rail traffic can offer an alternative to air traffic. In fact, the enforcement stage of the First Railway Package shows us very clearly that this sector does not have a genuine internal market.
This Regulation marks a step forward in terms of making rail freight transport more efficient. It remains up to Member States to fund the development of their rail infrastructures. I firmly believe that the needs of the market will highlight the benefit of these investments. During the current crisis when there is also the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions, it is obvious that transporting goods by rail is a positive factor which must be taken seriously.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Liberadzki, Mrs Bilbao, Mr Eppink, Mr Cramer, the Spanish Presidency and, especially, Jesús Izarzugaza and the staff from the Committee on Transport and Tourism. I must also express my thanks to Mathieu Grosch for the support he has given.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank first the rapporteur, because Mr Marinescu and his shadow rapporteurs have done very positive and important work. Now we are at the end of the second reading, and the Commission would like to reaffirm once again - and in the strongest possible terms - the political and industrial importance of the subject on which Parliament has to decide.
Notwithstanding the adverse economic cycle we are in, there are some clear lessons to be learned: how to revitalise the rail freight sector, because rail freight transport is primarily international, and an indisputable factor in its success is the availability of good-quality rail infrastructure at the European level. That is what the customers ask for. Good-quality rail infrastructure across borders is an essential condition for the competitiveness of many rail freight market segments, and it is primordial if rail wants to compete with other modes of transport.
This also explains why the Commission proposed, at the end of 2008, the development of a European rail network for competitive freight based on freight corridors. These corridors link the main industrial regions of Europe, where the most substantive flow of goods originates and terminates along the main international axes. The legislative proposal to which your attention is drawn today contains decisive elements which favour this development of high-quality rail infrastructure at international level. These include cooperation between rail infrastructure managers, reliability of infrastructure capacities allocated to the corridors, good coordination between rail infrastructure management and goods terminal management, and non-discriminatory access to these corridors for all operators.
The Council's position at first reading maintains the basic principle put forward in the Commission's original proposal but waters down some of the elements. The TRAN Committee has reintroduced, at second reading, important amendments which strengthen the regulation, and they bring back the original Commission proposal. The Commission considers that the compromise obtained during the negotiation is balanced and that the general objectives of the Commission's proposals are duly taken into account. We are very grateful to Parliament in that it has succeeded in reinforcing the role of the one-stop shop, which had been reduced to a mere mail box in the common position of the Council.
I know, rapporteur, that some people want to go back to the common position. I invite you and Parliament to resist these attempts, because they would weaken the compromise that you have been able to reach.
For the railway undertakings and for other applicants which wish to have access to the corridor infrastructure, the one-stop shop is a considerable simplification of the present, very burdensome procedure, because the one-stop shop will be able to take decisions itself instead of referring matters to the individual infrastructure managers, which cover only national sections of each corridor. But, of course, the one-stop shop is limited to catalogue or reserve capacity: that is, the capacity which the infrastructure managers themselves have already decided to set aside for freight trains. Corridor managers have also several options as to the way in which the one-stop shop should be established.
Let me emphasise that the one-stop shop is a joint body set up or designated by the management board of each corridor: its function is that of a coordination tool. It may be a technical body within the corridor management structure, or one of the infrastructure managers concerned, or the bodies already established by Rail Net Europe. So it is not a supranational body, but it is a tool which speeds up and simplifies, in a very transparent and non-discriminatory manner, the path allocation process.
The infrastructure managers have the responsibility to predefine capacity. The one-stop shop just sells paths to applicants on the basis of decisions already taken by infrastructure managers on the predefined infrastructure capacity. Some have gone as far as saying that, with this regulation, the Commission wants to give priority to freight trains over passenger trains, thus threatening the efficient provision of rail passenger services, in particular at regional and local level. Now let me be very frank: this is improper, it is not the right reading of the proposal, and it does not correspond at all to the texts that everybody can read in Article 14, in Article 15. Priority rules for trains are not something the Commission will ever want to decide from Brussels. Freight traffic is systemically discriminated against today because passenger traffic always has priority, even in cases of disturbance.
What the text says is that the infrastructure managers themselves must take the responsibility to define transparent, consistent, non-discriminatory rules for both types of traffic so that freight trains which are on time do not have to be systematically delayed in case of disturbance. This is, I believe, a very good compromise, and if you parliamentarians adopt it and if it is also then correctly implemented, the Commission is convinced that it will contribute to the revitalisation of rail freight and will help the European economy to start again after the present crisis.
Mathieu Grosch
Madam President, Commissioner, it is a shame that the Commission's statement and explanation here in this Chamber were not as well received in the press as the things that certain parties here are saying about this regulation.
You hit the nail on the head today: the creation of an integrated rail network for freight transport is, for us at least, absolutely essential and extremely important. For the companies, it will ultimately lead to a practice that they are not keen on, as past experience has shown. It is the practice of simply working together with other countries.
We recently talked about liberalisation. We subscribe to liberalisation together with the Member States, but 21 Member States are managing to do nothing when it comes to rail transport.
We are now talking about freight transport. We should not normally need to draw up this sort of regulation. We want to help make freight transport more efficient. Study after study shows that we need to transfer more traffic from the roads onto the rails, and with every initiative aimed at thinking in European terms with regard to rail transport, there is always one or another company or country that says: no, we do it better and you should accept our rules.
I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the work they have done together with the Commission and the Council. We are in favour of this cooperation. We would stress that passenger transport remains a priority, as laid down in 2001. We want transparent rules at the outset to prevent haphazard decisions being made in crucial situations. All of this is intended to give those who profit from passenger transport as well as the infrastructure managers in the country itself all the confidence they need to be involved in this. But no, they do not want that! Why is that? Quite simply because this directive will set a new emphasis that will eradicate certain monopolies, including certain national monopolies.
The rail system of tomorrow cannot work like this. I therefore hope that tomorrow we will have a broad majority that will vote in favour of this compromise that we have arrived at together, and that the 40 signatures, which mainly come from my group, will not receive the support of the majority. In any case, I would like to thank you for your work.
Bogusław Liberadzki
Madam President, we have almost a year of work with two presidencies behind us, fortunately under the same good leadership of Mr Marinescu, on the draft regulation which would indeed change the face of rail transport.
I would like to emphasise two key points. Firstly, what we want is competitive rail freight transport. Secondly, we want the regulation to give full added value. My political group sees the chance for added value in the fact that we will begin to create the structure of a European rail area, something along the lines of a European Single Rail Market, so that we can move from state railway systems to a European system.
The provisions and solutions which were most important in ultimately persuading us to support this regulation are, firstly, the one-stop shop as a concept which is convenient for the customer. Secondly, the fact that we want to open nine corridors in a system which covers the continent, so for the first time it will be possible to cross state borders with the involvement of all interested states. Thirdly, we are talking about the fact that this is an opportunity to increase interoperability. For what is the reason for the poor fortunes of the railways? Very low interoperability. Fourthly, we have created conditions in which we can, within five years, determine strategic investment needs. Finally, there is a timetable, so that we do not put off the project indefinitely and so that there will be an institutionally unified method for the management of each transport corridor.
These are the points which persuaded us to give our support, and it may be they will be promising points, if the pessimistic scenario described by Mr Grosch does not materialise, in other words if the railways want to be a business and an industry.
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica
Madam President, I sincerely hope that this directive will turn rail freight transport into a real alternative to road transport once and for all.
We need to achieve this objective for energy efficiency and environmental reasons, but also because consolidating some genuinely trans-European rail corridors will increase flexibility, efficiency, intermodality, and options for the movement of goods in particular and for logistics in general. These are both basic factors for the competitiveness of the real economy in Europe.
Behind the decisions that we are adopting today, there are many hours of hard work that have made improvements to the initial draft. It is right to establish regulations regarding the characteristics required in order for a section of railway to achieve categorisation as a European corridor, because this will help the state and regional authorities to plan, coordinate, and understand each other.
It is also very important that institutions at all levels are integrated into this planning, because it is more efficient in terms of optimising investments and also because it is a really visible way of integrating and building Europe from the ground upwards and making everyone feel that they count in European projects.
Contrary to what we have been hearing and reading in recent days, I would like to say that it is also an improvement to give each corridor a one-stop shop as a management tool. It is the most efficient and most balanced option from a purely political point of view, it is more appropriate to the ideas of subsidiarity and proportionality, and it fits in with the idea of the European project. The one-stop shop will be able to take decisions for itself, which will simplify the current processes as well as being a transparent and non-discriminatory way of allocating paths.
The managers also have various options regarding how to set up the one-stop shop. I would also like to say that, as Commissioner Reding said, this regulation does not prioritise freight transport over passenger transport. This is also something that has been said, and it is not in line with the interpretation of Articles 14 and 15.
Finally, I would like to thank all the groups for their work in including a section of the rail project that is very important for my country: the 'Y Vasca'. This is an important issue for an economy such as the Basque economy, which is obviously an export economy, and clearly improves the prospects and possibilities for developing our commercial ports, which will play an important role in the future as a basic element of what is known as the 'Motorways of the Sea'.
Finally, I hope that we will also be able to improve transparency and the integration of Parliament's role in the future project, because it has been somewhat laborious to arrive at our position in this debate.
Michael Cramer
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs.
We in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance do not want to prioritise freight transport. We want the greatest possible degree of flexibility in order to use the available capacity efficiently for all types of transport by rail. We do, however, want a one-stop shop as a point of contact for customers.
The intention now, however, is for this one-stop shop also to decide on the train paths. For countries with heavily used rail networks and mixed modes of transport, that will be a disaster. I still find the current wording incomprehensible. I therefore consulted qualified lawyers and economists. However, even they could not help me, and, in any case, we will not support a contradictory linguistic monstrosity.
Although the amount of funding has been reduced by almost a third, from EUR 20 billion to EUR 8 billion, the number of corridors has been increased from six to nine. That is simply a refusal to face reality! There are four problems, for example, with corridor 3 - Stockholm-Malmö-Copenhagen-Hamburg-Innsbruck-Verona-Naples-Palermo. In Hamburg there is a bottleneck, the fixed-link Fehmarn Belt crossing has been cemented, the two Alpine tunnels that have just been completed in Switzerland are being ignored and the bridge across the Messina road is intended to be a European project. The more cost-effective, shorter and faster alternative is the connection from Copenhagen via Rostock to Nuremburg through the newly built Alpine tunnel to Naples. We want to stop climate change with an alternative transport policy. Pointless large-scale projects, coupled with a refusal to face reality, will only gobble up money. That is why we reject this report.
Anna Rosbach
Madam President, I am a strong supporter of the transport of freight by rail. The current European rail network needs improvement and coordination in view of both the congested road network and environmental concerns. Many EU Member States have for years failed to maintain their rail network, which has favoured the transport of freight by road. We are now paying the price for this. It is high time that we gave the operation of trains a higher political priority. We need action and a new vision of rail transport in Europe in general.
But - for there is a 'but' - the railway is not a magic or problem-free solution. It has its Achilles heel. Freight has to be taken from the place of production to the railway by lorry, after which it is transported by train to a station near to the end user. It is then transferred to another lorry for the last stretch. This automatically makes the product more expensive, prolongs the transport time and increases the administrative burden. So, unless we locate all of our industrial production right next to a railway line, these drawbacks will remain.
We need to look at the national situation in the individual Member States and see how it can be improved and coordinated. We need to consider how we can work together instead of imposing some form of harmonisation on the Member States from above. Our Member States and our rail systems are very different and we need to respect that and use it as the starting point from which to work.
Michel Dantin
(FR) Madam President, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on the excellent work that has been done. The text has developed between the two readings, and seems to be going in the right direction. In the year since we began discussing this issue, I have noticed that the public - at least in my region - is baffled when they see how little coordination there is between rail companies today.
How can we, in this House, legitimately call for more ambition with regard to the environment? Should we merely express our regret that Copenhagen was not a complete success, when we in Europe are incapable of actually shifting our freight transport to rail, either purely to rail or to multimodal transport?
Some sectors of multimodal transport have developed, and it has taken time for road hauliers to adapt, but they have been able to appreciate the complementary nature of this system and demonstrate that it is effective. We cannot have a debate today if nothing comes of it afterwards; we have an obligation to act, and to act quickly.
It is true that, beyond this text, there may be some problems here and there with infrastructure. I would particularly like to draw your attention, Commissioner, to the issue of cross-border sections. They are often nobody's responsibility, yet they are the link we need to successfully complete our European project.
I have also heard some parties, and more specifically the social partners, express the fear that some powers may be lost. However, I am convinced that the success of this project will provide an opportunity for us to work harder, and to work harder together. I feel this is very much an issue on which Europe can show its practical side to our fellow citizens. We certainly need this.
Saïd El Khadraoui
(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, in turn, should like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their fine work. In my opinion, the result is an important one and one to be proud of. After all, over the last 20 years, rail freight transport has almost systematically lost market share to the roads, and it was also hit hard by the economic crisis. Therefore, measures need to be taken to give rail transport a further boost.
Of course, the present Regulation is just one means to improve the competitiveness of rail freight transport. A whole range of other measures will also be necessary, for example concerning technical interoperability and financing of infrastructure. Other necessary measures include optimising the operation of the market and promoting intermodal transport. Clearly, however, the development of international freight corridors facilitating the passage of freight trains through Europe is an important step in the right direction.
The 'one-stop shop' system opposed by some of my fellow Members is actually a way of making the corridors easier, simpler and more transparent for potential customers to use. It is not a duplication of what national infrastructure managers are already doing today. On the contrary, it complements their work and ensures better coordination.
I also agree with those fellow Members who have emphasised that this Regulation will not be to the detriment of passenger trains. However, clear prioritisation criteria do need to be established to optimise the deployment of freight and passenger transport.
Gesine Meissner
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, we are in complete agreement about the need for an internal market in rail freight transport as well. This is very important. We have had this on paper for a long time, but unfortunately we do not yet have it in practice.
If we still have a few differences of opinion, that is due to the fact that we have different experiences in the various Member States in terms of the functioning or non-functioning of the rail network.
I come from Germany, where it would be terrible if freight transport took priority over passenger transport. That would have a very negative effect on local public passenger transport. At the same time, we are very well aware that we need a continuous system in Europe. This is something that we want as well as need. There is just the question of how it will be implemented, how many corridors it will have and then, of course, also who will now lay down the one-stop shop rules, who will allocate the train paths. There are completely different opinions on this. Some people think that we would create a parallel system if we had a one-stop shop per corridor and not functional national one-stop shops, which should perhaps be included. That is the only source of dissent that we have. Otherwise, we all agree that we need this freight transport in Europe.
Tomasz Piotr Poręba
(PL) Madam President, scrutiny of the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a rail network for competitive freight reveals what a great challenge it was to achieve an understanding on such a difficult and politically conditioned matter. Unfortunately, however, there are still provisions in this regulation which I find controversial, both in the context of the competitiveness of rail transport and of the entrepreneurial independence of rail infrastructure managers. I have in mind those provisions, and mainly the new paragraph to Article 12, which give the right to assign infrastructure capacity to the one-stop shop for each corridor, in so doing violating the exclusive right of the manager in this respect and restricting his independence.
I also find very controversial the proposal of paragraph 3 that in the case of other work, the manager shall inform the one-stop shop that it has been assigned, and the one-stop shop shall give an answer to the applicant. The possible communication of a refusal via the agency of a one-stop shop will, without doubt, increase bureaucracy and delay the process of assigning a train path, reducing at the same time the possibility to react with flexibility to the changing needs of carriers. It is obvious that this might reduce the competitiveness of rail transport.
Also very doubtful are the provisions of paragraph 4, which constitute a breach of the principle of confidentiality of commercial information. Instead of ensuring the transparency of operation of one-stop shops, this may become an instrument for fighting the competition by using dishonest practices.
Inés Ayala Sender
(ES) Madam President, we have just returned from the TEN-T Days held in Zaragoza recently. At the conference the Commission, Parliament, the Spanish Presidency and the EU transport ministers reconfirmed their diagnosis: the proportion of freight carried by rail is seriously declining, even in countries that were leaders in the field not long ago, such as Germany.
There was also an agreement regarding the treatment to be followed: the need for shock therapy in order to reactivate this traffic, firstly if we want to fulfil our Kyoto commitments to reduce emissions and also due to the urgent need to diversify the alternatives to rampant road traffic before there is a total collapse.
There is therefore an urgent need to increase the quota of freight carried by train, but this needs to be done at European and cross-border level, with a vision for the future. This involves trains that are 900 metres or more in length on continuous or priority corridors with full security, as proposed through the European Railway Traffic Management System.
That is why this issue is so important. I would therefore like to congratulate Mr Marinescu and all those who took part in the negotiations on the commitment that it represents, which is still an initial commitment with the possibility of other corridors being included. I am particularly grateful that it has been made clear that a strong synergy is already planned with the review of trans-European networks. That is why I would particularly like to acknowledge and express my thanks for the inclusion of freight corridor 16 when it is completed, and for the importance of dry or inland ports as well as sea ports.
As has been said, until now we have seen the proportion of passenger rail traffic increase to the detriment of goods traffic, and I think that the best example of this is my country. So do not worry, as there is no risk whatsoever of passengers losing any of the rights that they have acquired from freight.
With regard to the allocation of the slots to the one-stop shop, my German fellow Members should not be concerned: the national operators will have the authority to make decisions. Deutsche Bahn is protected.
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Madam President, this regulation for creating a European rail network for competitive freight will, in my opinion, have a negative impact on rail operations throughout Europe. Using a sledgehammer to smooth the way for European network management will not solve the existing problems. On the contrary, centralising and fragmenting the responsibilities will generate new problems. If freight trains have priority in future, it will put passenger transport, which we want to promote for environmental reasons, at an even greater competitive disadvantage.
The EU cannot call for environmentally sound behaviour, make motoring more expensive by means of biodiesel regulations and then, by means of privatisation regulations, separate off secondary lines from rail transport and dictate that there should be freight corridors on the large interconnections at the expense of passenger transport. Particularly during peak traffic times, we need to proceed in a sensitive way here, so that we do not penalise commuters.
Shifting competences from the national infrastructure operators to the one-stop shops will result in a fragmentation of responsibilities and thus in an inflation of the bureaucratic apparatus. By weakening the national entities, the intention is clearly to successively set up Europe's own infrastructure operators, which is neither sensible nor appropriate. The rules contained in the regulations will, in addition to the loss of competence, result in a loss of capacity as a consequence of the early train path applications. Therefore, the proposed compromise that is on the table should, in my opinion, be rejected.
Axel Voss
(DE) Madam President, I would like to emphasise that in principle it is, of course, nice that we operate in an internal market and that we include rail transport and freight transport in this and promote cooperation. I would simply like to point out that we have different systems and rail networks in the Member States. Thus, this will naturally always be very difficult in the densely populated regions. We do not have separate systems; in other words, a one-stop shop will de facto result in some sort of priority being given to freight transport, and even when new train paths are established, this sort of central entity will also have a corresponding influence on passenger transport. Here, too, we will be able to see some sort of priority being given to freight transport, even if it is not explicitly stated. However, we need to ensure that passenger transport also remains an attractive option in the densely populated regions.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) In recent years the Commission has focused on three main strands for rail transport development: opening up competition, improving the national rail networks' interoperability and safety and developing the rail transport infrastructure. However, rail freight transport in the European Union accounts for only 18% of the total amount of internal freight.
In order to improve the efficiency of rail freight transport in relation to other means of transport, the European Union must establish and guarantee the most efficient operation possible of the rail freight corridors. They must be designed to guarantee the internal continuity of each corridor by ensuring the necessary interconnections between different existing rail infrastructures and allocating the necessary capacity along the entire path of the corridor.
The creation of such a corridor must ensure better interconnections with the rail infrastructure in neighbouring countries. I think that it is vital for infrastructure administrators involved in the freight corridor to use interoperable IT applications for handling requests for international paths and managing international traffic within the corridor.
Seán Kelly
Madam President, firstly, the European Union does an awful lot of good work. Only last week we saw success at the European Court of Justice on roaming rates. I think Commissioner Reding had a very important part to play in that, and I compliment her.
The motorways of the sea is another example which colleagues have mentioned, and now we are discussing this very important topic: transport of freight by rail. I think the point made by Mr Marinescu is important. While the amount of freight transported by rail has declined over the years, the climate has now changed. With global warming and volcanic ash, people are more amenable to travel by rail and to send freight by rail. There are difficulties, I know, but the gains are immense in terms of cost, in terms of less pollution, less log jams, less accidents on the roads. If I may use a pun, you are on the right track - the railway track! Keep it going and have as much success as you had with the roaming charges.
Werner Kuhn
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I, too, would like to emphasise that, as far as continued liberalisation and the opening of the rail market are concerned, the freight priority legislation represents a step in the right direction in terms of competition on the rail networks throughout Europe.
If we want this freight priority legislation to be accepted, we of course also need to consider the fact that in Europe, there are countries like Germany which will have to carry out the greatest proportion of the transit. Several speakers have already mentioned that in Germany we have laid our corridors straight through the large conurbations. The Commission put the priority freight corridors here, and the integrated system, which has clock-face scheduling in local passenger rail transport and also allows regular-interval long-distance transport in Germany as well as freight transport, needs to be particularly well coordinated. Therefore, if the one-stop shop is to work properly, it simply needs to be able to work in perfect harmony with the relevant national infrastructure operator.
Josefa Andrés Barea
(ES) Madam President, one of the trans-European transport corridors is the rail corridor known as the 'Mediterranean corridor'. It is a vital link that will link North Africa with Europe.
It is vital for Spain because this line is a priority, given that it would link Algeciras with Europe. It would not exclude other priority corridors and would pass through Almería, Murcia, the Community of Valencia and Catalonia. The reason was mentioned by Commissioner Reding: greater economic activity and a greater concentration of land transport. This is one of the two conditions. It would open up the possibility of linking with various sea ports in the Mediterranean. We need to provide economic impetus and be competitive - something that the Commissioner was also saying - because this area produces more than 50% of Spanish exports.
Therefore, if we promote a strategic rail network through the Mediterranean, we will achieve greater competitiveness for Spain and for Europe.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Madam President, rail rather than road should be the guiding principle of European policy for freight transport in the 21st century, and instead of extending the EU Directive to provide for the approval of 'gigaliners', our goal needs to be to move freight transport onto the railways. The railways should ultimately be quicker and more cost-effective for hauliers and therefore also attractive enough for them to leave the roads.
What surprises me about this draft is the fact that it makes no mention of the Brenner Base Tunnel. This tunnel is, after all, a central element of the 2 200 km-long rail connection from Berlin to Palermo and an important project in the context of the trans-European network. As we all know, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the funding to be provided by Italy, and the EU is refusing to make any further legally binding financial promises for the period after 2013.
The Brenner Base Tunnel must not become a black hole for billions of euro. I expect clear information about this construction project. We owe that to taxpayers and to those living north and south of the Brenner Base Tunnel in Italy and Austria.
Georges Bach
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I agree with my fellow Member who mentioned earlier that much remains to be done; nevertheless, I believe that this proposal is a major step in the right direction. I think this text has the potential to culminate in an ambitious European project. It is high time we took action to increase the competitiveness of rail freight, particularly by promoting cooperation and coordination at all levels.
I do not share the fears of some Member States, which see this text as a threat to national operators' control over the rail network and fear there may be disadvantages for passenger transport. I do not think this regulation will have any negative impacts on passenger rail transport. On the contrary, it will help increase the quality of freight transport and prevent any further shift to road transport.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, let me thank Parliament for the work which has been done, and let me also say that the conclusions which have been presented by the rapporteur will send a very clear message to the Member States and to the stakeholders, because we all know that freight corridors are necessary for the revitalisation and development of rail freight. And we also know that their implementation has to be coordinated and coherent at European level. We see active participation of all the rail actors.
In the light of this debate, let me insist once again on two issues. The first: the one-stop shop is not a supranational body but an operational tool to make the path allocation process more efficient. Second, this regulation can be implemented in full respect of the need for capacity of other types of transport, in particular passenger transport. The Commission thinks it will be very good for Europe if this proposal could be voted strongly tomorrow.
Marian-Jean Marinescu
The compromise is supported by at least four political groups. It is also supported by the Commission and a statement to this effect will also be made tomorrow. The compromise is supported by the European associations of hauliers and infrastructure managers.
We have a single amendment tabled under pressure from a single operator in the rail freight transport market which is actually playing, in my view, a deceitful game. Discussions are going on in the local press about disruption to passenger transport, while the amendment tabled in this House actually refers to getting rid of the single point of contact which provides transparency and ensures fair competition.
Approval of this amendment will lead us to a conciliation procedure and will remove any added value from the Regulation's text. This Regulation will become useless without this single point of contact, making too few changes to the current situation. There is one point which I would like to mention to you. The statements made in this Chamber about the single point of contact allocating capacity are not true because capacity is allocated in accordance with Directive 2001/14/EC just as, at the moment, infrastructure managers also decide about the route to be taken by the freight trains and about making reservations for ad hoc requests, while the one-stop shop carries out this allocation process within these decisions already made by the infrastructure managers. Therefore, I am sorry, but the view maintained by anyone else is wrong.
The current compromise has been achieved as a result of difficult negotiations. The current text includes exactly what the freight sector needs: traffic coordination, investments, management, standard rules in the event of disruption, easy access to the free market for applicants. Conciliation cannot give us any more than we have now. On the other hand, it may weaken the Regulation's content, making it useless. I would find it strange if a single company were able to win a case against the Council, European Parliament and European Commission. It goes without saying that my recommendation and request are for a vote in favour of this compromise in the form in which it is currently presented.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 15 June 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Debora Serracchiani
The development of an efficient and sustainable European transport system requires the revitalisation of rail freight, by means of coordinated action between Member States and cooperation between railway infrastructure managers to develop intermodality, market opening and the management of freight and passenger traffic.
The proposal for a regulation aims to improve the rail freight service by means of a procedure for identifying the European corridors that must ensure a high-quality freight service. Freight corridor 5 has already been drafted at ministerial level in 2006, according to the Baltic-Adriatic corridor, pan-European corridor VI and Priority Project 23. It is therefore right to proceed with the commitments we have undertaken and pursue our established objectives; a point returned to several times during the TEN-T conference in Zaragoza.


13. Macro-financial assistance for Ukraine (
Before the vote:
Vital Moreira
rapporteur. - Madam President, this is just a brief explanation of what we are going to vote on.
In November last year, here in Strasbourg, when we were discussing the approval of four previous macro-financial assistance proposals regarding other countries, the Commission promised us that, under the Lisbon Treaty and until the adoption of a framework regulation for macro-financial assistance, all future individual proposals for such assistance would be subject to codecision by Parliament and the Council. Now, only six months later, you have in front of you not only a proposal for a codecided decision, but also a first-reading agreement with the Council. In trying to reach that agreement, we were operating under a very tight timetable. Therefore, I would like to express my recognition and gratitude to the Spanish Presidency, the Council and the Commission, as well as to the shadow rapporteurs on the Committee on International Trade and everybody involved, for their positive and constructive approach.
Under the proposed decision, Ukraine could get a loan of up to EUR 500 million in order to finance its balance of payments deficit and meet external financing needs. This loan would supplement IMF support and the EU assistance of EUR 110 million that was agreed back in 2002 but has not yet been disbursed.
During our informal trialogue negotiations, Parliament insisted on keeping references to certain disbursement conditions that were important for us, such as the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the assistance. We also insisted on the importance of Parliament being kept duly informed about the actual implementation of the assistance.
(Applause)
In protecting our institutional prerogatives, we also resisted demands to introduce a management committee procedure for implementing measures so that finally an advisory committee...
(The President cut off the speaker)


Concentration and pluralism in the media in the European Union (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Marianne Mikko, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on concentration and pluralism in the media in the European Union.
Marianne Mikko
rapporteur. - Mr President, EU membership has almost doubled since the beginning of 2004. Ensuring the convergence of standards for the protection of democracy and basic freedoms towards the highest existing levels is one of the main post-enlargement challenges. In this context, the report welcomes all initiatives aimed at safeguarding democracy and points out that the media remains an influential political tool which should not be treated solely on economic terms.
The report recognises the decision of the European Commission to entrust determining the reliable and impartial indicators of media pluralism to a consortium of three European universities.
In addition, this report stresses the need to institute the monitoring and implementation systems based on the indicators thus determined. The report also recognises the ongoing efforts of publishers' and journalists' representatives to create a charter of media freedom. In addition, the report underscores the need for social and legal guarantees for journalists and editors.
The report advocates the adoption by the multinational enterprises of the best practice for editorial and journalistic freedom in each country where they operate. It expresses concern over lower standards being applied in the Member States which acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007.
The development and acceptance of new technologies has led to the emergence of new media channels and new kinds of content. The emergence of new media has brought more dynamism and diversity into the media landscape. The report encourages responsible use of new channels.
Weblogs: I understand and I do not understand the concern of webloggers. My entrance into cyberspace has created rapid reaction among a lot of bloggers. I shall make it clear now that nobody is interested in regulating the internet. That is why I support, as rapporteur, the compromise that has reached common understanding in the PSE, ALDE and Verts/ALE Groups and which underlines the following: 'encourages an open discussion on all issues relating to the status of weblogs' - full stop. We remain here.
The report acknowledges the challenges posed to the print outlets by the migration of the advertising revenues to the internet, but points out that the new commercial media landscape is dominated by the established public and private media content providers. It also takes the standpoint that the concentration of media ownership is approaching levels where media pluralism is not granted by the forces of the free market, especially in the new Member States.
The report recognises that the public service media needs a sizable and stable market share to fulfil its mission. It points out that, whereas in certain markets the public service media is a leading market participant, it mostly suffers from inadequate funding and political pressure.
The report recognises the need to increase media literacy in the EU, recommends the inclusion of media literacy among the nine basic competences and supports the development of the European core curriculum for media literacy.
Once again, the report welcomes all initiatives aimed at safeguarding democracy and points out that the media remains an influential political tool, which should not be treated solely on economic terms. Freedom of expression is the key of my report - for that I really stand.
Ján Figeľ
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like first of all to congratulate Mrs Marianne Mikko on her excellent report. The Commission shares many of the views expressed in this report. We are convinced that this resolution sends a very positive signal in favour of media pluralism to all interested parties, including Member States and European institutions, including the Commission.
Safeguarding democracy and plurality of expression - as you have said - is essential. We must maintain a good balance between the objectives of the diversity of voices in the media and the competitive strength of the media. However, earlier and intensive consultations indicated that it would be politically inappropriate for the Commission and the European Union to harmonise media ownership rules or media pluralism. Subsidiarity is effectively a strong consideration here, and a one-size-fits-all measure or model would not suit the variety of situations.
This is the reason why I think that it would be a mistake to over-regulate the very lively blogosphere. Nevertheless, I agree with you that certain legal obligations imposed on the press, such as respect for copyrights or the right of reply, must in any case be respected by websites. Putting user-generated content sites on an equal footing with any other forms of public expression seems to us to be a desirable aim. Conversely, creating a rigid and special status for blogs seems counter-productive and in contradiction to the genuine spirit of the internet.
The Commission agrees with Parliament that the European Community's competition rules themselves can only partially ensure the pluralism of the media. This is exactly the reason why media pluralism is regarded as a legitimate public interest by Article 21 of the EC Merger Regulation. Therefore, Member States may take appropriate measures to protect media pluralism by implementing additional rules beyond the Merger Regulation. They must, however, apply national and EC law.
However, as regards competition rules, I would like to nuance a little your statement on the harmful character of the concentration of ownership on media pluralism. Europe's media companies, including the written press, must be strong enough to withstand competition at global, international level. We are against over-restrictive rules on media ownership which could reduce the competitiveness of EU companies. Situations are not comparable from one Member State to another. There is a real diversity of situations.
I am, of course, in favour of more transparency of ownership and of complete information being available to the public regarding the aims and background of broadcasters and publishers. This is a sine qua non condition to attaining more authoritative and reliable media.
As you insist in your resolution, public service broadcasters are an indispensable element for media plurality. This is why the Commission thinks that their public-service missions must be clearly specified and their funding ensured; otherwise great uncertainty will ensure.
In this respect, Ladies and Gentlemen, we all agree that the definition of the public service remit is, in principle, a matter for Member States, rather than the Commission, to decide. Member States also decide the means of financing public service broadcasting, as indicated in the Amsterdam Protocol. In this context, the Commission's role is to minimise distortion of competition between all types of media. The Commission also appreciates your position on codes of conduct and self-regulation as instruments to support media pluralism.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 25 September.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Katerina Batzeli
Concentration and pluralism will continue to be at the centre of debate at national and Community level. Today's society and citizens receive live information and can see discussions on the media. Against this background, then, the primary objective is to settle and define the limits within which the public and private media can cooperate and intervene. In each case, there must be an assurance that information will not be manipulated. Independence from political power, the financial independence of the media, transparent funding of the media, safeguards for journalists' working conditions, and the quality and variety of news reporting - all must be guaranteed.
As democratic dialogue through the media opens up, a new means of communication is being developed: the blog, which individualises the exchange of views. In many cases, however, this form of expression has turned into a 'collective protest', such as on crucial issues like the environment and society.
Self-regulation codes can at this stage form an adequate basis for mutual respect between users and readers; they need not impose any limitation on the right of expression and response on either side. The media and online exchange of information forums are being expanded, assessed and regulated with unfailing regard for the principle of democratic expression and participation, and respect for human rights.
Ivo Belet
in writing. - (NL) We attach great importance to pluralism in the media and we also endorse the broad principles of the report. It is a pity we were not able to agree on every last point in it.
We fully agree that public service broadcasters must be given room to play their part in a digital, interactive media environment, in proper balance with the commercial broadcasters, of course.
An open debate on weblogs should be encouraged. Blogs and other 'user-generated content' provide a lively contribution to the multifaceted media landscape and are increasingly influential in the interpretation of news and current affairs.
But the quality of a blog stands or falls by its author and not all bloggers are equally honourable in their intentions.
If blogs are not to degenerate into anonymous sources of libel, we need to think about how to deal with breaches of privacy or the right of reply, for example. But Parliament absolutely must not be overly paternalistic.
Adam Bielan
in writing. - (PL) I would like to emphasise that the European Union needs to make sure there is a balance between private and state media in Europe. Interference in information content by the proprietors of television or radio stations is a breach of democratic standards. I come from a country where the present government is destroying the independence of the media. A whole series of measures is being taken to make the state media subservient to the ruling elite.
I would like to express my support for any initiative aimed at protecting public mass media, since these constitute a powerful political tool. Public service broadcasters need additional protection because of the lack of sufficient funding and the political pressures to which they are subject, particularly in the new Member States.
Hélène Goudin
in writing. - (SV) The European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education seems to have a problem of underemployment and, in its eagerness to find subjects to keep it busy, it produces reports which the world would manage quite well without.
The report on concentration and pluralism in the media in the European Union is an example of this. It is an own-initiative report from the Committee and, in her original text, the rapporteur proposed a voluntary classification of blogs on the basis of the professional and financial responsibility and interests of the author and publisher. There are many objections to such an idea, as regards both implementability but also, and even more importantly, its possible implications for freedom of expression.
Although the draft report was amended during its passage through committee, it still contains much that is unnecessary and harmful.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
in writing. - (FI) I wish to thank Mrs Mikko for her report on pluralism in the media. This is a burning issue in European society: what is our role and our influence? History has made it crystal-clear that the concentration of power is never for the good. People are always ill-disposed to power in whatever shape it presents itself, and concentrated power makes the whole of society sick. This is also true of the fourth estate, the media.
One of the main functions of the Union is to guarantee competition in the single market. Why should that not also be true of the media? The notion in the report of interlinking competition law with media law to avoid conflicts of interests between media ownership concentration and other forms of power in society is justified.
Nevertheless, I am more worried about the media's ability as the watchdog of what is good in society, because the interests of both are more and more exclusively about profit.
The Church has not spoon-fed morals to the people for a long time. This has been the work of a certain kind of press, because sin, defamation, and condemnation are what it thrives on. In an ingenious way, this type of journalism can combine the adoration of immorality with extraordinary narrow-mindedness to make a productive business: provoke, condemn and make money.
'For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.' These words showed a good knowledge of the human mind. When will the media itself address itself to the question of whether it ultimately achieves something socially evil or socially good through its actions?
Ramona Nicole Mănescu
in writing. - (RO) As we all agree, pluralism should be a vital element of the mass media. Pluralism must be supported, and the adoption of the Mikko report constitutes a major step in this direction.
The need for a balanced mass media market should be recognised and supported by the Member States, which should commit themselves, both individually and collectively, to giving European citizens the opportunity of obtaining accurate and diverse information.
Cultural diversity, as well as the ever-increasing need for integration of the migrant population and of minorities, along with the importance of providing quality information to the active population, are the priority reasons for creating a Media Freedom Charter. I would like to express my full support for the European Parliament's recommendation that public media services should be encouraged to act as alternative providers of information to ones based exclusively on commercial criteria.
Active exercise of rights and obligations by European citizens, and their being informed and capable of understanding and criticising the provision of information is a necessity which should bear on every measure to be adopted in the future both by European institutions and by each Member State.
Toomas Savi
in writing. - The report of Marianne Mikko reflects very well on the general tendencies in the media in the European Union, pointing out an extremely important aspect in paragraph 35, regarding public broadcasting services.
In order to maintain sufficient media pluralism and diversity, public broadcasting corporations must also provide programmes that might not gain the highest ratings or advertising revenue. I have always been convinced that if a public service broadcaster becomes extremely popular among the people and profitable for the state, it need not be a public broadcaster at all.
The purpose of the public broadcaster is also to cater for the various needs and interests of the people, who are not always the unexacting audience of private broadcasters that tend to go with the mainstream. The public service broadcasters across the European Union should not neglect high-quality niche programmes in order to compete with privately owned broadcasters.
One of the principles of providing public goods is solidarity. Public broadcasting services should operate in solidarity with viewers of more demanding or fastidious tastes as well.
Inger Segelström
in writing. - The report concerns an important subject, media diversity, which is an important element in safeguarding democracy and the right of citizens to have access to reliable and independent media. Countries where economic, religious or political interests control the media have difficulties offering their citizens a variety of means of gathering information, which creates large gaps in their ability to absorb information and guarantee free and impartial elections.
Now we in the European Parliament are voting on a report concerning these important issues. We Swedish Social Democrats had really hoped to be able to vote for this report. But as it stands today, we will not do this. There is great purpose in the compromise proposal reached, but there remain several ambiguities, mainly around issues that affect web-blogger status. We do not want to contribute to the European Parliament equating web-blogging with traditional media by questioning and proposing discussions on web-blogs status, as proposed. This is not required for other groups, so why the web-bloggers? However, we share the view, with many web-bloggers, that violations and slander are equally punishable on web-blogs as in other media. Therefore, we will vote against this report.
Daniel Strož
in writing. - (CS) The European Parliament own-initiative report on concentration and pluralism in the media in the European Union is very significant and useful, and in many places accurately describes the situation already existing in the Czech Republic for a number of years. Here I want to emphasise two particular aspects that the report rightly criticises in broad terms and on which it calls for redress. The first one is the almost total concentration of the daily newspapers in the hands of foreign (specifically German) syndicates, whose economic and political interests clearly contradict the objective interests of the Czech Republic, in particular with regard to the pluralist view and media independence. In the Czech environment, these have become nothing more than a fiction. Instead, there is a clear tendency towards a radical right-wing slant and bottomless manipulation. The other aspect concerns the activities of statutory television broadcasting that exclusively serves the interests of the present right-wing government and is so tendentious in news coverage and journalism that the term statutory does not apply to it any longer. Consequently, my recommendation to the authorities and institutions that are concerned with the issue of media concentration and pluralism in the EU is to pay increased attention to the situation in the Czech Republic in particular.