Situation in Taiwan following the recent typhoon (debate)
President
The next item is the Commission's statement on the situation in Taiwan following the recent typhoon.
Meglena Kuneva
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all, let me express my sympathy to the people of Taiwan who suffered as result of Typhoon Morakot and its consequences. The European Community Mechanism for Civil Protection made a contribution to the overall relief effort and showed Europe's solidarity with the population of Taiwan.
On 7 August 2009 Taiwan was hit by Typhoon Morakot, causing major flooding and mudslides. Over 150 people were killed and tens of thousands displaced. Transport infrastructure, including roads and bridges, was damaged and communication networks were interrupted. Around 700 000 homes were left without drinking water. Taiwan requested international assistance on 12 August 2009. In response the European Commission activated the Community Civil Protection Mechanism. The mechanism facilitates and coordinates Member States' in-kind assistance during major emergencies.
The European Commission deployed a coordination and assessment team to Taiwan to assess the needs and to assist the Government in its relief efforts. The team undertook several assessment missions to the affected regions, sharing its findings and recommendations with the local authorities and international partners. The mechanism team also facilitated the delivery of in-kind assistance such as water purification equipment donated by Sweden and Poland, which was delivered to the most affected areas in Taiwan.
The rapid delivery of this assistance ensured a tangible expression of European solidarity. The presence of the European team on the ground was also received positively. The Community Civil Protection Mechanism is a very visible sign of European solidarity with countries worldwide, and I am convinced that it will continue to grow in strength and effectiveness.
Natural disasters can affect any country in the world. They often carry a heavy human, economic and environmental cost. In the future, climate change makes it likely that we will face more disasters. In this regard, solidarity with other countries hit by disaster remains one of the pillars of the European disaster-management policy. I look forward to continuing to work with the European Parliament to make sure our European emergency-management tools are fit for purpose.
Thomas Mann
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Republic of Taiwan was shaken to its foundations on 8 August. Typhoon Morakot swept across the island with unbridled force, leaving more than 750 people dead. Thousands lost their belongings and large areas of land were laid waste. The damage amounts to more than EUR 2.5 billion. The reconstruction of an infrastructure that has been widely damaged will take months. As a token of our solidarity, we Europeans wished to support the Taiwanese people by providing disaster relief.
Mrs Kuneva, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) supports the initiatives that the European Commission has instigated. It is all the more surprising that the Taiwanese embassies were instructed to refuse all foreign aid. That led to strong criticism and on 13 August to much needed adjustments to a completely abortive crisis management programme. Shortly after that, Prime Minister Liu Chao-shiuan resigned.
Another cause of irritation was the visit to Taiwan by the Dalai Lama over several days in September. He merely wanted to pray for the victims with the survivors. Sympathy has long been the message of the much-acclaimed speeches and books of the Dalai Lama. Once again the Chinese government made loud protests and brought a huge amount of pressure to bear. It is outrageous that Peking has once again made a political issue out of a purely humanitarian act by the Dalai Lama. Taiwan must ask itself whose side it is actually on. President Ma Ying-jeou only allowed the Nobel Peace Prize winner to enter the country after strong protests from his own people.
Commissioner, we need to intensify our dialogue with Taiwan - on humanitarian issues, but also on the issue of our fundamental values. Democracy, human rights and solidarity are inseparable, even in this emerging Asiatic country.
Victor Boştinaru
on behalf of the S-D Group. - Mr President, first of all, please let me express my sincere sorrow for the huge tragedy that hit Taiwan on 8 August and in particular for all the people that were killed by the incredible energy of the devastation from this major disaster.
Morakot was the deadliest typhoon to hit Taiwan in nearly 50 years, ravaging the island in early August and leaving about 700 people dead or missing, forcing the evacuation of thousands and burying hundreds of village homes in mudslides.
On this occasion China showed great sensitivity by sending immediate aid to help Taiwanese victims. Not only was the Chinese Government ready to assist the island, but also private companies and organisations of different kinds including the Association for Relations across the Taiwan Straits and the mainland Red Cross Society.
Also, the Chinese population afforded help with fundraising events organised to relieve the island from the disaster.
According to the last figures, the Chinese mainland has so far donated to the typhoon victims about a CNY 1 billion, which is the equivalent of nearly USD 150 million. An important role in this situation was played by the several hundreds of prefabricated houses that were sent from China to Taiwan in order to put a roof over those who had lost their dwellings.
I would like to underline the fact that the European Union, attached to the One China policy, welcomes the help that China offered Taiwan on this tragic occasion because this shows an improvement in the relations between the two territories, and it is clear that an improvement in such relations can lead to greater stability in this region.
I also think, and with this I conclude, that, given the dimension of the disaster, the European Union should make use of one of its core values - solidarity - and offer Taiwan additional material and financial assistance in order to help with the massive task of reconstruction.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, the scenes of devastation and destruction caused by Typhoon Morakot will remain in our minds for a long time, but many people in Taiwan will be living with the consequences of this tragedy for years to come. Over 700 people lost their lives and thousands of others have faced major disruption.
The Taiwanese Government under President Ma responded promptly by deploying soldiers to the worst-affected communities and areas, and requesting assistance from the international community. The Swedish EU Presidency and the Commission should be congratulated on their work in activating the Community Civil Protection Mechanism. I do hope now that the Commission will commit to longer-term assistance to Taiwan to enable full recovery of its people and economy and the rebuilding of the infrastructure.
I have no doubt of the gratitude of the people and Government of Taiwan for the solidarity and support shown by the EU. Furthermore, as chairman of the EP Taiwan Friendship Group, I look forward to finding out the latest situation when I lead a delegation of MEPs to Taiwan next month.
The calamity that has affected Taiwan may well become more commonplace, both in Taiwan and around the world, as a result of climate change. It is therefore essential that Taiwan, as an island vulnerable to such meteorological phenomena and as a major global industrial power, is enabled to participate meaningfully and with dignity in appropriate international organisations, not least those related to weather and climate change. In particular, Taiwan should be allowed to participate in the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change and the World Meteorological Organisation.
Both the Council and the Commission support Taiwan's meaningful participation in United Nations bodies now, and I hope they will use the opportunity, arising from this disaster, that has now been presented to Taiwan to promote Taiwan's involvement in these structures.
Fiorello Provera
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as well as offering my condolences and support to the people of Taiwan, I would like to emphasise the timeliness of the European Union's humanitarian effort in this disaster.
The Commission has played its part, and many Member States have sent aid or teams of experts. The People's Republic of China itself has helped the Taiwanese authorities, and this is a gesture that I consider to be very significant. However, if we want to provide the Taiwanese authorities and the countries of the region with structural help to cope with threats of this kind in the future, the European Union should support Taiwan's admission as an observer to the World Meteorological Organisation and to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Taiwan's admission as an observer has already yielded some good results in other international sectoral organisations such as the WTO, and, in this case, too, Taiwan's admission could be a practical form of prevention and could in future limit the risks for the 23 million inhabitants of the island and for the region as a whole.
Astrid Lulling
(FR) Mr President, Taiwan is just now emerging from a dreadful natural disaster, unprecedented in the country over the last 50 years. It is our duty not only to express our solidarity but also to play an active part in the reconstruction of the parts of the island that have been devastated.
Happily, after typhoon Morakot hit, the Commission and the Council indicated their willingness to help. I urge them now to provide the concrete aid that the government and the people of that country need, because there is an enormous amount to be done. Appropriate instruments exist at European Union level. They should be put to full use.
This disaster once again poses the issue, as already mentioned by some of my fellow Members, of Taiwan's participation in the various agencies of the United Nations. In principle, the EU institutions encourage this, but it is high time for action to be taken to change things. The Taiwanese authorities did not have access to meteorological information indicating how serious the typhoon was. This is unacceptable. It is absolutely vital that Taiwan accedes to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and is thus in a position to avoid the worst, since there is no doubt at all that there will be further climatic depressions in the future.
I am the chairman of the Taiwan-Luxembourg association, and I really must say that we should no longer be pressurised by the blackmailing of Communist China, with regard to our relations with Taiwan. Crystal-clear support from the Commission and the Council on this issue is absolutely vital.
Kriton Arsenis
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to express my deep sorrow about the humanitarian tragedy in Taiwan and to say that, as the European Union, we must help in any way we can.
We now know that 640 people were killed by Typhoon Morakot and over 192 people are missing. One mudslide wiped an entire village off the map and killed hundreds. However, none of this happened by accident. It was preceded by a prolonged drought, which reduced the capacity of the soil to absorb the rain.
Droughts, floods and a rapid increase in extreme weather are gradually increasing due to climate change. A typhoon is caused in sea areas with a surface temperature of 27 οC. The increase in temperature will considerably increase both the number of typhoons and their intensity. To date, 120 million people are living in areas affected by typhoons. Between 1980 and 2000, there were 250 000 typhoon victims.
For all these reasons, our heart must be in Copenhagen, where we shall decide in December if each of our countries will separately defend its own temporary, short-term interests or if we shall all fight for the planet, our home, in a fight to reverse climate change.
So will the developed and developing world stop contributing to disasters such as the disaster in Taiwan? If so, action is needed. We need to pledge to making the necessary commitments for the necessary reduction, in order to prevent the temperature rising above 2 οC. We also need to put our hand in our pocket to provide financial assistance to the developing world, so that it becomes part of the solution and helps to combat climate change.
We are the developing world that caused climate change. We are the polluters and, according to the 'polluter pays' principle which we ourselves adopted, we must pay. We must pay by giving financial support to developing countries.
Bastiaan Belder
(NL) Mr President, this was a disaster on an unprecedented scale for Taiwan. There is great tragedy in the mountains. Whole villages have disappeared and there are a thousand people thought dead or missing. Thousands of survivors, if not more, are being put up in military camps for the time being. This is how Menno Goedhart, the highest representative in Taiwan from my home country, the Netherlands, depicts the devastating effects of typhoon Morakot. First and foremost, I would like to express my sympathies, from this Parliament, to the government and citizens of Taiwan.
In addition to the practical assistance that Menno Goedhart is currently offering his Taiwanese friends, and also whilst appreciating what has already been done from the European side, I would nonetheless like to ask a couple of questions of the Commission in relation to the strengthening of European-Taiwanese relations. First of all, the Commission will be putting forward a proposal next month to relax the visa regime for Taiwanese citizens. The United Kingdom and Ireland have already set a good example in this regard. Secondly, a recent European report demonstrated very clearly that there would be enormous benefits for both Taiwan and the European Union in agreeing trade enhancing measures (TEM). Does the Commission agree with this urgent conclusion?
Finally, Mr President, I would like to lend my full support to those of my fellow Members who have already argued for the ending of Taiwan's incredible international isolation. Such isolation is truly intolerable, certainly when it comes to people's lives, wherever they may be.
Ville Itälä
(FI) Mr President, Taiwan met with human disaster on a huge scale on 8 August. The incident took a heavy toll and the economic damage was immense. Now it is time for us to help. It is time for us to show solidarity with the citizens of Taiwan. We have to show compassion, but, in addition, we have to give financial support, and, as the Commissioner said here, we have to adopt crisis management tools now. We now have to provide the Taiwanese with all the help that is humanly possible. I also wish to express my support for the idea of longer-term assistance to Taiwan as proposed by Mr Tannock, for the best possible results, and so that we can show that they too are human beings and, above all, they are our friends.
Janusz Władysław Zemke
(PL) I would like to thank the Commissioner for this information. However, my question is of a slightly different nature. Taiwan has most recently been struck by tragedy. However, we are fully aware of the fact that many disasters of this kind have occurred in the past, and that many more will occur in the future. Therefore, I would like to ask the Commissioner the following question. Does the European Union, and the Commission in particular, have any standard procedures in place for dealing with this kind of situation? Is there an emergency action package or provisions for specific countries? Is there also a long-term plan of action?
I think it would be unfortunate if we reacted to these tragedies in different ways, depending on the situation in different countries. I think that, as is the case in the military forces, we have to establish certain standard procedures in crisis situations. That is what I wanted to ask the Commissioner.
Johannes Cornelis van Baalen
(NL) Mr President, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, like many groups in this House, sympathises with the population of Taiwan and we are pleased that the Commission reacted as it did. The Commission must continue in this vein. The big problem, however, alongside this human catastrophe, is, of course, Taiwan's isolation. It is quite possible to maintain a one-China policy whilst at the same time establishing good working relations with Taiwan. Taiwan could easily play its part in the World Health Organization as an observer. The same applies to the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. All of this is possible and is no obstacle to the one-China policy. I agree with Mr Belder when it comes to relaxing the visa regime and I also concur with the good things he had to say about Mr Goedhart, the Dutch representative in Taipei. I think, therefore, that there is no need for us to continue isolating Taiwan. Working relations, that is what it is about.
Laima Liucija Andrikien
Mr President, first of all I would like to express my deep condolences to the families of those who died during the Morakot typhoon.
It is regrettable that hundreds have died, others lost their loved ones, and many more were injured.
As many observers have noted, the number of victims could have been lower if the Government had reacted in a more coordinated manner to the typhoon. The Government failed to predict the seriousness of the tropical storm approaching the island. At the same time, we know that Taiwan has a highly developed high-tech sector and is one of the largest manufacturers of GPS systems in the world.
Part of the blame should be attributed to the fact that Taiwan is not yet a member of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), as has already been mentioned by some colleagues. Taiwan could have been better pre-warned if the WMO provided it with timely information. I am therefore convinced that the time is right again to raise the issue of Taiwan's membership in the WMO, not only for political reasons but also for humanitarian ones.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Mr President, Commissioner, the typhoon which struck Taiwan has affected the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed tens of thousands of dwellings. The humanitarian aid provided by the European Union must be unconditional. The aim is to help victims as quickly as possible.
The European Union is an active donor, working with non-governmental organisations and the United Nations' specialist agencies to provide funds for medical treatment, logistical support and the reconstruction of devastated areas. The Copenhagen Conference will have a great deal to discuss, and we are preparing to take some measures aimed at a future post-Kyoto agreement on reducing polluting emissions. Therefore, we are mostly discussing measures for reducing the causes that lead to climate change.
As part of the Copenhagen Conference, I would like to call for particular attention to be focused as well on adaptation measures, as we will continually have to deal with powerful storms, flooding, prolonged drought or forest fires. I also urge the European Union to provide humanitarian support to Taiwan, along with support for reconstruction and, in particular, for the population.
Meglena Kuneva
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I will take the questions in order.
First of all, on the assistance which the Commission is providing to Taiwan to meet the ongoing needs of its people, which was the main point of the question by Mr Mann: Taiwan has been informed of the Commission's post-disaster needs-assessment mechanism, but we have not received any requests so far. If such a request comes, we will take it into consideration.
Then, on the Commission position regarding the current state of cross-Strait relations, which was the question from Mr Boştinaru, the Commission welcomes the rapprochement between Taiwan and China during the last year. This has made it possible to improve cross-Strait relations, reducing tensions between the two, and to promote bilateral issues such as direct air and sea links.
We strongly support the bilateral discussions between the two parties that may allow further progress. We also welcome the Chinese assistance.
On the question concerning the participation of Taiwan in the World Meteorological Organisation from Mrs Lulling and Mrs Andrikienė, and also from Mr van Baalen and Mr Tannock: in line with the position expressed by the European Union in a statement issued in September 2008 and the EU's One China policy, the European Commission supports, where appropriate, the meaningful participation of Taiwan in international organisations. We will continue to do so.
On the questions from Mrs Lulling and Mr Mann, as to the assistance provided, the Community's Civil Protection Mechanism provided assistance from Sweden and Poland. This help was received with gratitude which was acknowledged by President Ma to Commission President Barroso.
On the question concerning the visit by the Dalai Lama to Taiwan in the aftermath of the typhoon, the visit by the Dalai Lama was a decision taken by the Taiwanese authorities, and the European Commission has no comment on it.
On the question raised by Mr Belder, about the Commission position on granting visa-free access to Taiwanese visiting the EU: the Commission is considering, within the framework of the revision of the appropriate legislation, the possibility of updating the list of countries and entities which may not be subject to visa requirements in respect of visits to the European Union, especially the Schengen Area, and in this context it will also consider the case of Taiwan.
Coming to the question by Mr Zemke on the issue of standard procedures in the event of disasters and how we will proceed in future in such cases, the Commission focuses on two priorities: the first is continuing work on preparedness and response, and the second is the prevention of disasters.
First, we deem it important to ensure the availability of EU assistance at all times. With Parliament's support, in 2008 we launched a pilot project and a preparatory action on the EU rapid-response capability. From this initial experience, if appropriate, the Commission will present further proposals for the development of the EU rapid-response capability, funded from national resources earmarked for EU operations.
Second, we aim to have a comprehensive approach to disaster prevention at EU level. In February 2009 the Commission published a communication on a Community approach to the prevention of natural and man-made disasters. We would welcome Parliament's feedback on this communication.
President
The debate is closed.


US subpoenas and EU data protection rules (debate)
President
The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on US subpoenas and EU data protection rules.
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, Parliament is representing the concerns of many European citizens as it pays increased attention to US authorities requesting data from media communications companies after WikiLeaks' leaking of American state secrets. The Council naturally shares Parliament's concerns about respect for EU data protection rules. However, it is not in the possession of information from which it could determine whether the US court procedure was in violation of EU data protection laws. As regards the case of WikiLeaks, as referred to by several Members, the United States Attorney General has publicly admitted that there is an ongoing criminal investigation. As far as I know, US attorneys urged, in connection with this investigation, that an American court order Twitter to hand over specific data in a ruling, and the court did adopt the relevant ruling.
It is not the task of the Council to comment upon how the US judicial authorities take their decisions. Additionally, it does not even possess information on the basis of which it could question the validity of a reasoned court ruling. There have been court proceedings in the United States where Twitter was able to defend its own position. This is also proven by the fact that the American court upheld Twitter's request to inform its clients about the court ruling. The European Union generally respects the court proceedings of third countries. It is self-evident that when investigating a suspected criminal offence, prosecution authorities must obtain information. It is also a well-known fact that the US procedure for obtaining information differs from that followed by the majority of EU Member States. The main difference lies in that it has a wider scope, meaning that it allows for far more information to be requested from a far greater number of persons than a general European criminal investigation or procedure.
This is quite simply the result of the development of US law, meaning that it is not a matter upon which the Council should express its opinion. The enforcement of EU data protection rules is generally the responsibility of Member State authorities, and, more specifically, data protection authorities. These authorities must ensure that data protection rules are respected, and it is these authorities that have competence over matters of jurisdiction and compatibility with European or national data protection laws. It would be inappropriate to make matters investigated in court proceedings the subject of political judgement. Considering the broader context of the issue, the Council is unaware of a similar court ruling having been adopted before. When US authorities previously intended to obtain information relating to EU citizens that was stored within the territory of the EU, the European Union engaged in negotiations with the United States for the conclusion of an international agreement on handing over and processing the aforementioned data.
This was the case, for example, with regard to the Passenger Name Record or PNR, in connection with which there is a PNR agreement, concluded with the United States in 2007, the renegotiation of which is currently in progress, upon the very initiative of Parliament. A similar case is that of handing over financial messaging data stored in the European Union to the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, or TFTP, of the US Department of Finance. The relevant TFTP agreement was approved by Parliament in July 2010.
Finally, I would like to stress that the Twitter case is completely different from the PNR or TFTP cases. The latter two involve US authorities systematically and continuously requesting personal data for the purpose of combating crime, and especially for the fight against terrorism. The Twitter case, on the other hand, is about a specific court ruling adopted by a court in a specific criminal investigation. It is important for us to recognise the rulings of the courts of other countries as much as possible. Except, of course, in cases where there are factors justifying the opposite. Thank you very much, Mr President.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, in a globalised world, the protection of personal data transferred to third countries is an increasingly important and legally very complex issue. It goes without saying that the fundamental right to the protection of personal data also applies in the electronic world and in cross-border data processing. Nevertheless, as with other fundamental rights, there may be limitations to this right; any such limitations must comply with the law and they must be proportionate. They must also be justified by legitimate interests: national security, public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals and so on.
Under US law, a subpoena is an administrative order compelling an individual to provide a State or local administrative agency with specific information. The legality of an act must be determined on the basis of the law of the country where the act is carried out. Therefore, the assessment of the legality, proportionality and necessity of the US Government's requests must be based on the US Constitution and its legal system. The Commission has no competence as regards the manner in which a third country applies its judicial procedure in investigating suspected criminal activities.
When European citizens use Twitter, they express their consent to Twitter's privacy policy. This policy describes its procedures on the collection, use and disclosure of personal information to third parties, including when it is necessary in order to comply with laws, regulations or legal requests from the US Government. Furthermore, as these personal data are sought from Twitter by the US authorities in the context of criminal investigations, the EU's data protection legislation is not applicable. The EU's Data Protection Directive does not apply to state activities in the area of criminal law, nor does a framework decision on data protection in police and judicial cooperation apply in this case, given that no EU Member State authority is involved in executing the US court order and that no personal data is transmitted or made available by the competent authority of another Member State. So that is how the law stands today.
The global dimension of data processing should not, however, imply a lowering of the level of protection for EU citizens. Indeed, global processing activity demonstrates how important and necessary it is to protect data subject rights and clarify the applicable rules. This is particularly important nowadays, when more and more data are in the cloud.
So what are we going to do about this? First, the Commission's forthcoming proposal to reform the EU data protection framework will focus in particular on the challenges posed by globalisation and modern technologies, most of all when third-country operators target EU consumers.
Second, as you know, on 3 December 2010, the Council gave the Commission a solid mandate with clearly defined EU objectives for negotiating the future EU-US data protection agreement in the area of police and judicial cooperation. One of the EU's main objectives in the forthcoming negotiations is to ensure enforceable data protection rights to data subjects on both sides of the Atlantic, regardless of nationality, and providing effective administrative and judicial redress. I am counting on Parliament to help this happen.
So what are we doing in the meantime, before that new instrument becomes effective? I would strongly recommend that operators be very transparent upstream with their consumers and that they indicate clearly that their service is operating primarily under US law as far as criminal investigations are concerned. Therefore it is clear that consumers are leaving EU jurisdiction even if they do not leave EU territory themselves.
Axel Voss
on behalf of the PPE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank the Council and the Commission for the clarifications. We are faced with a problem that is typical of the globalised world in which we live. The fact is that we, naturally, respect US law. It is also a fact that we are aware of the difficulties that arise with the global medium of the Internet and law enforcement.
However, the fact that law enforcement agencies are now accessing private databases on a routine basis is something that requires a response from us. Commissioner, your words struck a chord with me because I share your ideas about how we should proceed, namely that we should regulate this matter in a dedicated future revision of the EU data protection framework, while at the same time taking the opportunity to say that we also wish to regulate and promote the EU-US Data Protection Framework Agreement because we see the need to regulate such data transfers in this global world.
It is therefore important to remain focused on this issue, as I said earlier. Naturally, it is not our intention that such a process should cast a negative light on the processing of data. However, it is good to provide a positive example here by drafting good laws, developing the framework agreement and, in particular, better illuminating and regulating the area of law enforcement in relation to access to private data and the criteria for permitting and ending such access.
Claude Moraes
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, I think that the Commissioner, skilfully as usual, anticipated the questions that we have. First of all, what do we do in the meantime when it is now public knowledge that the US has issued a number of subpoenas directed at social networks and internet service providers like Yahoo, Twitter and Google? This clearly gives the US access to information about data-sharing between WikiLeaks and third entities. Of course, it is the third entities - European citizens, people who are perfectly innocently accessing the internet, young people, people who are curious - who will be the targets and who will be damaged by this data regime.
This has huge implications for the right to privacy of all EU citizens. Those who signed up to tweets by WikiLeaks due to an interest in the ongoing Assange case are ironically left vulnerable to US subpoenas and collection of their personal data. Sites like Twitter are subject to US legislation, as their servers are based in the US. Although I understand when you say that we cannot affect the law of third countries, we can do something in the interim.
I think it is a legitimate concern for all of us in this House that we have to explain to our constituents what protection they can have from the European Union. What is the point of ensuring data protection standards for EU citizens if they can simply be lifted at the request of a US subpoena?
It is clear that more has to be done to safeguard the personal data of EU citizens, who should be protected by strong, high-level EU legislation. I know that you are working on that aim. Until now, Framework Directive 94/46 has provided very strong protection in the internal market, but the time has come to review the directive, increase the level of protection and extend the same protective measures to judicial and police cooperation.
We will ensure that these objectives are reached through our future legislative work, and you have mentioned that. In this respect, one of the main elements that the Commission intends to introduce in the review is EU protection to withstand the US subpoenas. We must remember that this issue does not stop at sites like Twitter, but can apply in cases of national jurisdiction. We have this in one of our own Member States today with the UK census, which is a massive undertaking being overseen by an American company. This is a genuine and ongoing concern of EU citizens. You have given some partial answers today, but I think we are right to raise this and to get more detailed answers.
Sophia in 't Veld
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the Council and the Commission. I am pleased to note that they share our concern. Let us be very clear: I do not think anybody here is claiming that the US was acting outside its jurisdiction. That is not the problem. The problem is that its jurisdiction, through the internet, becomes extremely vast. Its jurisdiction seems to extend even into the European Union, because the problem here is that although the vast majority of the internet-based companies we are talking about are based in the US, many of the users are based in the European Union.
I should point out that this oral question is already a bit out of date, as there has been another court ruling in the meantime, but the argument that is being used by the American courts is that once you use Twitter, as in this case, you cannot have a legitimate expectation of privacy any more. That means that anybody based in the European Union - EU citizens - no longer have any legal protection, because Twitter is US-based. As Commissioner Reding pointed out, that is a huge problem that must be addressed in the context of the review of the Data Protection Directive.
Commissioner, you say that once someone has used Twitter they have given consent, but what does 'consent' really mean? It means that we become outlaws, that we abandon our rights to legal protection. I realise there is very little that we can do here, but I would like to ask what the Commission and the Council will do to provide legal protection to EU citizens. Will they talk to our American counterparts and try and get more information? There are probably other companies that have been subpoenaed.
Finally, you say, Commissioner, that this case cannot be compared to SWIFT because it concerns a very specific investigation, which is true. At the same time, they have requested large amounts of ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Jan Philipp Albrecht
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to say that this is yet another case in which we are debating the fact that different legal cultures obtain on either side of the Atlantic when it comes to personal data and, in particular, when it comes to police and judicial cooperation.
I am actually shocked by the response from the Council, stating that the company Twitter is located in the territory of the United States and therefore the measures and legal framework applied there has nothing to do with us. I think that is wrong. I also believe that the citizens of the European Union will view things differently; after all, we are continuously increasing international cooperation at policing and judicial levels, particularly with the United States; people are increasingly confronted with the laws of other states, by which I do not just mean the laws of different Member States within the European Union, but also, in particular, US law. This is particularly the case when it comes to personal data.
I would expect the Council, as the governing body of the European Union, to take up this problem and to enable the citizens of the European Union to have confidence in the laws that they encounter on the Internet, in particular as they affect their civil rights and liberties.
Daniël van der Stoep
(NL) Mr President, the delegation of the Dutch Freedom Party attaches particular importance to everyone's privacy and to data protection. We are not being short-sighted here, just pragmatic. However, privacy has its limits. Privacy should be guaranteed wherever possible, but the security of civilians must be secondary to the prevention and detection of terrorism.
Mr President, contemporary terrorism is dominated by Islamic terrorism. That is the reason why we all, unfortunately, need to sacrifice a little bit of our privacy, in order to protect the security of our citizens. Obviously, the personal data of internet users, such as IP addresses, ought to be protected. This right to protection, however, is outweighed where there is a strong suspicion that the individuals who are hiding behind that data have terrorist motives.
If the US authorities ask for data on individuals on EU territory who are associated with terrorism, they should simply be given it, but, obviously, only after proper consultation and where there are strong arguments for this, so that we can prevent abuse. However, let us, above all, not forget that they are not asking for information just for kicks. They have very good reasons for doing so.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
(ES) Mr President, Mrs Reding, I am grateful that you are here this late in the evening at this plenary debate in Brussels to listen to the Members of the European Parliament, and I would offer you my encouragement in your work on redefining EU data protection standards. In particular, I should like to mention the Commission communication on data protection, which you should present as a real opportunity to bring into alignment the revolution in technology and knowledge tools, on the one hand, and, on the other, advances in European constitutional law like the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, fundamental rights to privacy, and all rights linked to accessing, rectifying and cancelling any personal data, in line with the European public's freedom to give their consent, but also in line with international law. This is because we are talking here about a bilateral framework for the European Union and its Member States to negotiate with third countries, and with the United States in particular.
Messages on this need to be very clear: Council Framework Decision 2008/977 and Directive 95/46/EC must be updated and brought up to the minute. This is not just in order to be able to provide the United States with police and juridical cooperation in line with the technique of subpoena aid or with any judicial orders that could affect fundamental rights, but also to reinforce the principle of freely giving consent, of knowing what personal data are in possession of third countries and are transferred to third countries, and of how we can also update this right to rectify and cancel any data that affect personal privacy and that undergo automated processing of personal data. Therefore, they are submitted to online processing.
What concerns me in particular is the issue of the rights of the child. This is because there are limits on the capacity of minors to act and on their capacity to possess the right to exercise fundamental rights, about which we need information. It is not just minors, but the minors' surroundings that are affected by techniques and tools for protecting online privacy.
I therefore want you to know that we will follow this discussion very closely. We will follow the process of updating data protection rights and bringing them up to the minute very closely and, in particular, the negotiation of bilateral tools with third countries, in particular the United States.
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Mr President, the old saying 'I love treason but I hate a traitor' is something that is proven true over and over again. Anyone who blows the whistle on wrongdoing is celebrated as a hero by the public and the media, but viewed as a betrayer by the affected institutions. Thus, as we know, US Private Bradley Manning has gone to prison for passing information to WikiLeaks. The way in which this explosive information is handled in the land of unlimited opportunity and liberty and the fact that Twitter was compelled to reveal personal data is worse than ominous. It remains to be seen whether the widely rumoured demands by the US authorities for user data from other Internet companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon prove true.
The approach taken by the US authorities and the fact that the courts do not view the publication of names, e-mail addresses and banking details as a violation of privacy are certainly symptomatic of overseas data protection provisions, which are obviously still in their infancy.
Malcolm Harbour
Mr President, I will reflect on some of these issues from the perspective of the Chair of the Internal Market Committee, because I think that very fundamental economic and internal market issues are at stake here, as well as the really important issues about the protection of our citizens' rights that we have talked about today.
I have been writing a report for my committee on this issue. I want to thank Ms Reding for the Green Paper on which that was based, because I think that one of the core, ambitious issues that she raised in there is at the core of what we have been discussing tonight. She was saying that if, as a European citizen, my data was held on a server or database in a country outside Europe's jurisdiction, I should have the same rights over that data as I would have if the server was within the European Union. That is a really ambitious programme. I hope we can achieve that. It will need a lot of negotiation. I would just say to my colleagues, particularly Ms in 't Veld, that if we are going to offer that, then other countries will demand reciprocal rights as well.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I share the legitimate concerns of this House when it comes to the protection of the private data of European citizens. Because I share this concern, I have presented an initial analysis on how the reform of the 1995 directive could look, in order to answer the questions which have been raised today and which do not have a legal answer under European legislation as it stands.
There is good news regarding relations with our American counterparts. On 16 March, the White House took a decisive step in announcing that it intends to work with Congress to produce a privacy bill of rights. That is a huge change in the United States, and it could also help us in our efforts to conclude a general EU-US agreement on data privacy concerning police and judicial cooperation.
I hope that we will be able to start the negotiations in this direction soon. I am counting on Parliament to help with this endeavour and with the reform of the 1995 directive.
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your understanding, that is, for not disputing that we cannot intervene from here in an ongoing criminal procedure, and that in all cases the law in force at the time of an offence must be applied.
I would like to inform you that nothing demonstrates the commitment of the Hungarian Presidency to data protection better than the fact that, at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in February, we adopted Council conclusions on the subject of data protection, comprising about fifty items. In this we also addressed two very important questions to the Commission that are relevant to the present debate. We called attention to the importance of informing citizens, as well as to the importance of Internet-related data protection, and I am certain, as the Commissioner has also mentioned, by the way, that the Commission will take these into account when drafting its proposal.
The Council also fully agrees that it is important to modernise legislation and adapt it to technical developments. We are looking forward to receiving the proposal for a new data protection directive from the Commission. We promised it for June, when the Hungarian Presidency will not have much time left, but we will do everything in our power, and I am sure that the Polish Presidency will approach the issue of data protection with similar commitment.
We believe, Mr President, and with this I conclude my speech, that we do not have to choose between freedom and security, namely data security, but that these can also be ensured simultaneously, and our goal is to create such a data protection legislation for the EU.
President
The debate is closed.


15. Green Paper: Diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens (vote)
- Report: Ioannis Varvitsiotis
- Before the vote:
Ioannis Varvitsiotis
rapporteur. - (EL) Madam President, I feel I must thank the three shadow rapporteurs, Mrs Kaufmann, Mr Moreno Sánchez and Mr Guardans Cambó, for the close and extensive cooperation we have had, and all the Members of the Commission for accepting my arguments.
The large majority by which the Commission accepted my report shows that the Member States must lay aside their petty objections and take action soon, so that this Green Paper can become a reality, a legislative instrument which will help all the citizens of the Union.


Novel foods (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Liotard, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods and amending Regulation (EC) No xxx/xxxx (common procedure) - C6-0027/2008 -.
Kartika Tamara Liotard
rapporteur. - (NL) Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, as they helped me a great deal in improving the Commission report. I must also mention the cooperation with the Czech Presidency. They, too, had a good deal of positive input to offer and we were only a couple of small unresolved issues away from reaching an agreement at first reading, although it is, in any case, that bit more democratic to have a vote in the House first.
When I first heard that the Commission was putting forward a proposal for a regulation on novel foods, I did wonder what was meant by 'novel foods'. I was also surprised that the Commission proposal took the internal market as its starting point.
I will begin with that point. Like so many topics in this Parliament, this topic, too, can be approached from the perspective of the internal market, the producer or the economy. It can also be approached, however, from the point of view of food safety, consumers, health and the environment: in other words, on the basis of the welfare of the European citizen. In the EU, there is much talk about the environment and animal welfare and my thought was that this report should be more than just words: we should have action too. So when there was a choice to be made in my report on novel foods, in the first instance I opted for food safety, consumer welfare, the environment and animal welfare. I sincerely hope, and indeed the shadow rapporteurs have already informed me that it will be the case, that they support me on this point in the vote.
Innovation is, of course, tremendously important. That brings me on to my second point, namely what are 'novel foods', actually? That was never really made clear in the Commission proposal. The Commission informed me that what we were talking about was, for instance, nanotechnology and meat from cloned animals. Let me deal with nanotechnology first. I had absolutely no idea what it was. I think that lots of consumers are in the same position, but it appears that it already occurs in our food more than we might think: in energy drinks, in packaging materials for fruit and vegetables, but also in the likes of certain oils and teas. Regulation is therefore needed very urgently, as technology is all well and good, and can be a boon for the consumer, but we do need to know for sure that the food on our tables is safe. It therefore needs to come within the scope of the regulation.
Turning to meat from cloned animals, Parliament has already stated in a resolution to the Commission that it did not want meat from cloned animals on the market as food. If meat from cloned animals were to come within the scope of this regulation, we, as Parliament, would be admitting indirectly that we would, in fact, approve of meat of this nature coming onto our market. That is not acceptable, and meat from cloned animals must therefore be left outside the scope of this regulation. This is not really a safety issue. Cloning for meat is usually associated with a great deal of animal suffering, and many of these cloned animals do not even live for long. It therefore has no added value for food supply at this point in time.
Androulla Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, on 15 January 2008, the Commission submitted its proposal on novel foods to the Council and the European Parliament, with the aim of simplifying the administrative burden for food-business operators when requesting pre-market approval for innovative food products.
The current proposal maintains the principle of the need for pre-market authorisation for innovative products, to reassure consumers that new breeding or new production techniques are safe for humans and animals and respect the environment and consumers' interests.
The proposal streamlines and speeds up the authorisation process through a centralised food safety evaluation by EFSA and sets precise deadlines at every stage of the procedure. It also includes an improved safety assessment, tailor-made to different types of foods, thereby allowing safe traditional food from third countries to enter the EU more easily.
I would like to welcome the work of Parliament, whose report addresses major issues concerning the development of a safe food sector. I would particularly like to confirm my support for the following principles: the need for a definition of engineered nanomaterials and the clarification that all such products require a case-by-case authorisation by the EU institutions; and the confirmation of the fact that food products from cloned animals are novel foods and therefore cannot be placed on the market without having been assessed by EFSA and authorised through a regulatory procedure.
I look forward to hearing your opinions on these sensitive issues and would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Liotard, and the shadow rapporteurs for their valuable work on this important report.
Zuzana Roithová
rapporteur of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. - (CS) Mr President, I would like to thank my fellow Members for supporting the proposals I set out as rapporteur. These include, for example, the submission of disputed cases to the European Group on Ethics in Science and Technology and also a reduction in the data protection period to 5 years, which will speed up innovation. I fully agree that it is essential to uphold the precautionary principle. However, I would also like to point out that in 12 years only 86 applications have been submitted, 28 new food products have been licensed and 3 rejected. The legislation which has applied to date is not very transparent and therefore we are now integrating the procedure for all Member States in this area, thereby simplifying the approval and placing of novel foods onto the market.
However, I do not consider the draft report to be very satisfactory. I am sorry that my fellow Members are unfamiliar with the link to the regulation on genetically modified food products and animal feed. Genetically modified food products were exempted from the effects of this regulation because at the present time they fall under a separate regulation and there is no reason for duplication here. I am therefore opposed to the proposals concerning the protection of animals and the environment, animal feeds and genetically modified food products. They simply do not belong in this regulation and tend to complicate the proposal, even though they represent a very important area. On the other hand I am in favour of a regulation which sets out the rules for food produced using nanotechnology and which will ensure definite food safety for the people of Europe.
Philip Bushill-Matthews
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, this is a complicated dossier on which there are many differing views, so I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur for going along with some views in the spirit of compromise, when she may have personally preferred otherwise. There is, however, general recognition amongst all political groups that there needs to be clear regulation for novel foods, both to protect the consumer and give legal certainty to producers.
I would now like to thank the Commissioner for not just her work but her introduction, making it so very clear that the aim is to simplify and streamline this whole process. Indeed, one of the important principles for our group is that such regulation should help to facilitate the development of such foods and not put so many restrictions in the way that they never see the light of day. For this reason we have asked for a roll-call vote on Amendment 30 to confirm support for this key objective.
We also believe that any regulation should be proportionate and practical. For this reason we are against the suggestion that any product made with the aid of nanomaterials should have this separately stated on the label. We are also against the suggestion that a novel food cannot be approved if 'it has a negative impact on the environment after being consumed or becoming waste'. That may sound reasonable, but who is to establish such a fact and based upon what evidence? Would not some existing products also be banned under such an edict?
We agree with the need for the Commission to present a legislative proposal on cloning. We also agree with the need to strengthen data protection for a certain period. We are grateful that a number of our amendments have been accepted in committee and hope that those of our amendments which narrowly lost in committee will finally be passed in the full plenary tomorrow. But I can confirm that, as a sign of our general support, we will propose to vote in favour of the report at the end and to get the show on the road.
Åsa Westlund
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (SV) Madam President, I would like to thank the Commission very much for this proposal. I would also like to thank Mrs Liotard for an extremely good report, which, compared to the Commission's proposal, has substantially enhanced the parts that I think are particularly important, those being public health and consumer protection. I also recognise many of the questions that we have worked on together on a previous occasion with regard to food additives.
It relates to questions regarding nanoparticles and nanomaterial. They are dealt with extremely well in the rapporteur's proposal, but also in an amendment by Mrs Breyer, which I recognise from the work on the Cosmetics Directive. In that connection we submitted almost the same proposal, which has now been taken up in the directive and which, of course, should also be included here. It relates to the labelling of nanomaterials and the fact that the contents must always be evident to the consumer so that anyone who wishes to do so is able to choose to avoid foodstuffs containing nanoparticles or nanomaterials.
Other aspects that I recognise and welcome include the fact that we must be able to take account of how the food affects the environment. This is an extremely important issue and its importance is growing. There are also ethical aspects to this, for example with regard to cloning, which has now been included in the report in a constructive and clear manner. It is not about how consumers are affected by eating cloned meat, but above all it is about ethical aspects that we really must take into account when taking decisions on this sort of legislation.
I would also like to say that I agree with the rapporteur that approval must also be required in respect of nanomaterials in packaging that comes into contact with food.
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament is of the opinion that the rapporteur's proposal is an extremely good one. We will also support some of the amendments. We hope that we can still reach an agreement with the Commission fairly soon.
Magor Imre Csibi
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, novel food regulations should provide for the diversification of food products on the European market, while ensuring that these new products are safe for the consumer.
However, under the current regulation very few novel foods are approved on the EU market due to highly complex application and assessment procedures. If we had applied the current procedures to the authorisation of the potato or the kiwi fruit we might not have them on our table today. The revision of the current regulation should aim to set up a more efficient and practicable system for the authorisation of novel foods.
I understand some of my colleagues' concerns about allowing on the market new products that might present a danger or mislead the consumer. However, we should not fall into the trap of safety hysteria and kill innovation, and we should not discriminate against novel food, placing it a less favourable position than products already on the market that do not necessarily have a nutritional advantage for consumers; nevertheless, consumers have freedom of choice.
My group is generally satisfied with the outcome of the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. However, there are certain issues that go far beyond the scope of this regulation, and consequently we will not be able to support it. For example, we cannot demand that a novel food has no negative impact on the environment. Whether we like it or not, all human activities have an impact on the environment, and such a provision is disproportionate in this context. Instead, my group believes we need to strike the right balance between encouraging innovation and applying the precautionary principle concerning food safety, consumer and environmental protection and animal welfare.
Our approach was to ease the long and bureaucratic procedures for putting novel foods on the market and protecting the industry's investments by means of reinforced data protection.
To that end, for the plenary vote we have retabled a set of amendments to facilitate the procedure for products that are similar to foods or ingredients already existing on the market and where the authorisation procedure has already started under the old Regulation. Applications pending under the old Regulation should be completed according to the rules in force at the time of the submission of the dossier. Reintroducing the application under the revised Regulation would only mean further delays and costs for the industry.
At the same time, we also tried to promote the interests of consumers by reinforcing implementing measures on, for example, marketing and monitoring, supporting the exclusion of cloned animals from the food chain, and specific labelling provisions.
On the issue of cloning, I strongly support the exclusion of foods from cloned animals and their descendants from the scope of this Regulation, and call on the Commission to ban cloned animals in the food chain. In September 2008 the European Parliament adopted by a large majority a resolution asking for a ban on cloned animals from the food supply.
We must be consistent in the political message we send to the Commission and to citizens. There are still fundamental questions to be addressed regarding the ethical implications of cloning animals for food supply, and even the implication of animal cloning on human health and animal welfare.
Therefore, the novel food regulation is not an appropriate framework for such a complex issue. If, in the future, food products derived from cloned animals are to be introduced on the European market, it should be done by means of a specific regulation submitted for public consultation and then democratically adopted.
I believe Parliament needs to take a strong stand and, by means of a majority vote, put pressure on the Commission to find solutions that echo the will of the citizens.
We will also support labelling of nano-ingredients. People have the right to know what they eat and make their choices accordingly. If some people are concerned about nanotechnology, then they should be able to make a different choice. However, we believe that labelling of foods produced from animals fed with genetically modified feedingstuffs is simply not realistic and feasible. I personally am strongly against GMOs, but I cannot imagine how we could trace efficiently which animals were fed with GMOs and which were not.
Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, Regulation (EC) No 258/97 on novel foods is good occasion for clarifying what we are actually dealing with. Are we really promoting healthy, safe food products and protecting the health of consumers, or are we protecting the interests of certain pressure groups and persons for whom not people and human health, but money, is paramount?
If we are concerned about people and their health, we need to make sure that there is honest information for consumers about the origins and ingredients of food products. The information labels must include, amongst others: the ingredients and the quantities; whether the food is environmentally sound or based on GMO products; the additives it contains, if any, such as food enzymes and flavourings; the country of origin and whether it comes from cloned livestock, which in my opinion should be completely forbidden.
Essentially, the necessity of implementing appropriate procedures for issuing permits for the production and marketing of novel foods is something that should not require discussion. The procedures must protect consumers from the danger of unhealthy food and from being misled. The rapporteur, Mrs Liotard, agreed with the Commission's report on the need for transparent authorisation procedures for new food products, even though she has submitted numerous amendments, which shows her engagement with the work on the report, and which must definitely be commended.
Hiltrud Breyer
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Mrs Liotard, ladies and gentlemen, we need new regulations for novel foods. In particular in the case of nanotechnologies, our requirements for foodstuffs should not be less strict than those for cosmetics.
We need a definition of nanomaterials and clear labelling. However, nanofoods must not be approved until specific risk analysis methods have been put in place, otherwise we will be turning consumers into guinea pigs, which I hope no one wants to do.
In the case of gene technology, we must close the labelling loophole as quickly as possible. Foods which come from animals that have been fed GMO feedstuffs must be labelled. We have traceability on paper, so it will be possible. We will see tomorrow how the Members from Germany have voted, because there is a labelling loophole here. We do not want to take away the consumers' right to choose for themselves. They should have freedom of choice and the opportunity to make their own decisions.
We must be quite clear about the fact that we do not want cloned meat to be approved in Europe, for both animal welfare and ethical reasons. We should make this very clear in this regulation.
My final point is that animals should not be subjected to unnecessary suffering. For this reason, we are calling for a ban on duplicating animal testing. Thank you.
Renate Sommer
(DE) Madam President, it would be good if you could allow me the additional half a minute which Mrs Breyer from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has just had.
The Commission has submitted a good proposal for updating the regulation on novel foods. Unfortunately, some amendments have been tabled with the aim of adding objectives to this proposal which are not compatible with the goals of the regulation or which even interfere with existing case law. The obligation on food suppliers to monitor novel foods in terms of the health and welfare of animals would impose too great a burden on retailers.
Once again an attempt is being made to undermine existing GMO legislation, in this case the call for special labelling for novel foods which come from animals that have been fed genetically modified feedstuffs. We have already heard about all of this.
Anything which involves GMO legislation should not be included in the regulation on novel foods. I say this, but I myself tabled an amendment to distinguish between new plant types and the definition of novel foods. However, interested parties in this House must not be allowed to misuse the regulation on novel foods for electioneering purposes. Amendments 62 and 90, for which the Greens have requested a vote by roll call, are obviously an attempt of this kind. Who are you aiming to pillory for this? My group has always supported the right of the consumer to know what foods contain. Why should there not be a reference to nanosubstances in the list of ingredients? Although amendment 62 makes a rather clumsy attempt to anticipate my report on food labelling, I must say that I believe that the labelling of novel foods is fully compatible with my report.
Therefore I recommend that my group votes in favour of the amendments. In my report on food labelling regulations, I will refer to the part of the regulation on novel foods which concerns labelling. This will be possible because the first reading on the labelling of foods has been postponed to the next parliamentary term, against the Greens' wishes. However, it has now become clear how beneficial this postponement was for them.
A brief remark on cloning. It is animal cruelty and we are opposed to it. Nevertheless foods must be included in this regulation, because otherwise ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
(HU) It is very reassuring to European consumers that they can have every confidence in the EU foodstuffs on their plates. In the medium and long terms, this is one of the most important reasons for maintaining the common agricultural policy. We have to compensate European producers for the fact that we impose stricter food safety and environmental protection rules than our competitors outside the European Union.
It would be good if we were to succeed, at the WTO negotiations, in asserting our rightful demand that our global competitors should observe equally strict norms and standards for stringent food safety, animal and plant health and environmental protection.
The regulation on novel foods and the amendment presented in this report are also intended to serve increased food safety. At the same time, the challenges presented by the current global food crisis and the steady increase in population heighten the importance of, and indeed render essential, the search for new solutions. In order for the earth to be able to feed 9 billion people in 2050, the opportunities presented by technological advances, and primarily the use of biotechnologies, are indispensable.
To avoid misunderstanding, this report does not address genetically modified foods. In accordance with the Commission's intentions, however, foods prepared with nanotechnologies do fall within the scope of novel foods. Some of my fellow Members have concerns, which I understand up to a point, but it is important for us to recognise that nanotechnology is one of the keys to the future.
Europe would suffer a serious competitive disadvantage if it were left out of developments in this area. The key is the scientific, comprehensive testing that accompanies the licensing process, guaranteed by the proposed regulation. A major consideration is the strict regulatory system of labelling. We must not allow the foods in question to be open to misleading consumers.
There is also a significant debate concerning cloned animals. It would be more appropriate to regulate cloning in a separate regulation. Following the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority, we should not consider the offspring of cloned animals to be clones, but the regulation should nonetheless refer to the offspring of cloned animals as well. We need to make this absolutely clear to consumers.
Mojca Drčar Marko
Madam President, last year we voted with a persuasive majority in favour of the resolution proposing to ban the cloning of animals for food and the sale of any products from cloned animals and their offspring.
Ahead of voting on the legislation on novel foods we should recall the reasons for having been prudent and aware of risks for the health and welfare of animals. We know, from our past experience with similar issues that tackle both food safety and ethical relations between humans, as the dominant species, and nature, that public perception depends very much on specific knowledge of the matter. Consumers are increasingly sensitive about suffering and injuries to farm animals and therefore they have the right to be informed about the potential of cloning to cause pain and to waste natural resources. Yet the development of animal cloning as a method of food production is being pursued without public awareness.
The problems with cloning do not concern just the welfare of animals, but also consumer confidence in food since it is believed that in Europe food is produced to a very high standard. The Eurobarometer study from last October documented serious public concerns with regard to hypothetical future use of food products from clones. This is linked to the sale of imported food, which could eventually be sold in Europe without being labelled as a product from cloned animals. I therefore agree with the rapporteur's approach urging the Commission to come up with a separate piece of legislation on clones.
Among other problems which have been covered by the amendments tabled by my political group, I wish particularly to support the sharing of information from animal testing so as to avoid the need for new tests involving animals.
Finally, many thanks to the rapporteur for her thorough work on this important piece of European legislation tackling food safety, as well as consumer protection, and animal health and welfare.
Satu Hassi
(FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my many thanks go to Mrs Liotard for her fine work and excellent report. I am especially pleased that the committee took the risks of nanomaterials seriously and wants to ban the use of meat from cloned animals. After all, cloning causes great distress to animals.
I also regard Amendment 60 as important. The intention is that products from animals that have been fed with genetically modified feeding stuffs, that is to say milk, eggs and meat, must be labelled, and I hope this receives the support of Parliament as a whole. European consumers shun genetically modified food, and plant-derived genetically modified food that has to be labelled is hardly found in the shops at all. With feed, however, there is a gaping loophole, which makes it possible to bring genetically modified feed to our dining tables. A good deal of European feed is imported from elsewhere in the world, and mainly from Brazil and Argentina, where the share of genetically modified feeding stuffs is huge.
It is time we extended the principle of transparency to feed and the idea of genetically modified labelling to animal products. The Prime Minister in my country supported this idea two years ago, and I hope that Finland will also support it in the Council of Ministers.
Avril Doyle
Madam President, I welcome the revision of the Novel Food Regulation, which must stimulate innovation in the food and drink industry. It must protect the functioning of the internal market and public health and, at the same time, facilitate market access for novel foods.
However, I have some concerns generally about what I will call the scientific antipathy and distrust of this European Parliament - and, indeed, of our national parliaments - which has become a matter of serious concern on a whole range of areas at this stage. We do not do justice to ourselves with emotive, hysterical or populist responses to the latest peer-reviewed scientific developments, and we do not do justice to our democratic mandate. When GM products, cloning and nanotechnology are mentioned in this House, then it is belt-and-braces and the answer is 'no'; then, we slowly open up and delay authorisation.
I am concerned with EFSA, Madam Commissioner, and whether it has the resource capacity to process dossiers under this regulation in a timely but thorough way. If our embarrassing experience with the GM food and feed authorisations and rate of progress thereon are anything to go by, the answer must be 'no'. Why do we respond as if we are scientific illiterates on any new aspect of this area? Why do we distrust peer-reviewed science to such an extent? Have none of us, or very few of us, scientific backgrounds in this Parliament at all? The same question can be asked of national parliaments. We must base legislation on thorough, serious science and accept that. If not, our credibility as legislators is in question.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Madam President, guided by what is good for consumers, and taking into account the great extent to which the food we consume affects our health, I agree with the rapporteur's view that we need to clearly define the purpose of the regulations on novel foods. We should make all efforts to ensure that the transparency and effectiveness of the system of issuing permits for novel foods will ensure consumer safety and improve the functioning of the internal market.
In my opinion, the current definition of novel food must be refined, taking into account the general principles and requirements of food legislation. I believe that a food product should only be marketed when it does not mislead the consumer, it is completely safe and the nutritional value of the product has not been impaired. As the substances or compounds thereof have not yet been used for human consumption, particular care should be taken in making any decisions relating to their legal regulation. I support all activities that will help maintain a high level of food safety, and those who talk about ...
Androulla Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to elaborate on a few very important points which were made by honourable Members.
Concerning nanotechnologies, I have taken note of recent scientific opinions and I am convinced by the related documents in Mrs Liotard's report. The European Union will be first in the world to have a regulatory definition of engineered nanomaterials and a coherent and flexible approach to this technology.
In order to clarify the Commission's position on the definition of nanotechnologies, I would like to make the following statement on behalf of the Commission.
The Commission notes that work towards a common definition of nanomaterials is still evolving. The Commission therefore confirms that, in future Community legislation, progress on the common definition should be taken into account, and notes that the comitology procedures included in this proposal also enable the definition in this proposal to be updated.
Regarding the mandatory labelling of all food produced with the aid of nanotechnology, I would like to note that the Commission is indeed in favour of consumer information about the presence of nanomaterials in food. However, under the Novel Food Regulation we have a case-by-case authorisation which also lays down conditions for use of such products, including the labelling requirements. Labelling will thus be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Let me now clarify my position on the important issue of cloning. I have already stated that I consider that the Novel Food Regulation is not the most suitable instrument for managing all the issues of cloning. Novel Food only deals with food safety and market authorisation. Therefore the use of clones in breeding programmes - semen, embryos and ova - cannot be regulated under the Novel Food Regulation, nor can issues linked to animal health and welfare be addressed here.
On 13 January, the College of Commissioners held an orientation debate on the cloning of farm animals for food production. The Commission agreed that there remain a number of unanswered questions. In this respect the Commission is working closely with EFSA and ensuring that related scientific research is conducted. At the same time, I launched discussions with our main trading partners: the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
Yes, we need more information and data on cloning techniques and the way in which progenies of cloned animals should be handled from a regulatory perspective.
As some of you have mentioned, in July last year the European Food Safety Authority delivered its opinion covering the scientific aspects of cloning for food in the EU. The general conclusion of the opinion is that the risk assessment is insufficient due to the limited data available. With regard to the health and welfare of animals, the opinion makes it clear that a significant proportion of clones have been found to be adversely affected, often severely, and with a fatal outcome both for cloned animals and for the surrogate animal.
The opinion of the European Group on Ethics also highlights a number of scientific questions that need to be answered, and research that needs to be carried out, on food safety, animal health and welfare, traceability and labelling.
In conclusion, I wish to acknowledge that, with regard to cloning, there is certainly an issue to be addressed, but the Novel Food Regulation is not the right place to regulate all the questions surrounding this sensitive matter.
Nevertheless, I would like to make a commitment, on behalf of the Commission, to produce, as soon as possible, a comprehensive report on all aspects of cloning techniques with a view to the production of foodstuffs, including animal health and welfare in relation to clones and their offspring, accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals. Let me stress that I believe that a solution can be found on the issue and, in this respect, I thank Parliament for its understanding and cooperation.
Liotard report
The Commission can accept Amendments 7, 12, 34, 35, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53 and 63.
Amendments 3, 8, 15, 20, 58, 64, 65, 76, 87, 88 and 89 can be accepted in principle.
Amendments 1, 6, 10, 25, 30, 31, 36, 40, 66, 67, 69, 77, 82, 84, 85 and 93 are acceptable subject to rewording.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 86, 90, 91 and 92.
Kartika Tamara Liotard
rapporteur. - (NL) Madam President, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my fellow Members for their input into the debate and for the support I have received for various points in my report. There were some critical comments too, of course. That, too, I am happy with, as it can only be good for the debate.
Our aim is to guarantee to consumers that food produced on the back of new technologies or new food coming onto the market is safe. Through our input and our proposals, we will succeed in achieving this aim. This will also provide certainty for those producers looking to innovate, in that they will now know what is allowed and what is not. The report also covers data protection in relation to those producers, something that also promotes innovation in the field of food safety.
I would, in addition, like to offer my heartfelt thanks to the Commissioner for what she said about nanotechnology. In this field it is true that there is still much change to come, and if we lay down a definition now, at the beginning, it must be possible to revise it as the science moves on.
I would also like to thank the Commissioner for what she said about animal cloning. I would, however, like to point out to you that Parliament has already adopted a resolution in which we make clear that we do not want meat from cloned animals on the market as a foodstuff. This point, too, comes up again in this report, and I would urge that the cloning of animals be excluded from the regulation on novel foods. The report calls for that to happen and, as you have just heard, this House is strongly behind the idea.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere thanks to my staff, Thomas, Vivian and Jan-Jaap, who worked very hard alongside us in order to produce this report.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday.


Welcome
President
Ladies and gentlemen, if you will allow me, I would like to point out that a group of guests have been in the gallery, a group of men and women who are known in my country as 'war children'. They were children who, between 1936 and 1939, fled Spain, the fascist bombardments, who were evacuated and who found solidarity and care in families in Belgium and the United Kingdom. Today, with all of them over 75 years old, they have come to visit Parliament, to be amongst us, and it is very important and very moving for us to pay tribute to them and, in particular, to pay tribute to the solidarity of the British and Belgian people, who took them in and provided them with the families that they had been denied in their own country.