European environmental economic accounts (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Leinen, 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 European environmental economic accounts - C7-0092/2010 -.
Jo Leinen
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating, and tomorrow we will adopt, European legislation that, on first impression, seems rather unremarkable, but with this law on European environmental economic accounts, we are probably opening a new chapter in the measurement of progress and prosperity.
We have known for a long time that gross national product is inadequate. The purely quantitative view of economic activity says nothing about the environmental balance sheet, nor about the social balance sheet, and therefore it is high time that we measured whether, year on year, we are doing well or badly in terms of our measures and efforts.
We have monthly statistics relating to our labour market figures and we have annual statistics relating to our economic figures. We therefore know exactly what is happening in these areas. However, we have an incomplete patchwork of data on the environmental impact. This law on environmental economic accounts is intended to help us to draw up an accurate balance sheet in the 27 Member States and to establish whether we are making progress or, as is often the case, whether we are going backwards.
As long ago as 2002, Parliament called for reliable information to be collected on the state of the environment and the most important trends in, influences on, and causes of, environmental change, and for the public to be informed of these things. We want a scientifically sound concept for measuring the consumption of resources to enable appropriate political decisions to be taken.
We are pleased that the Commission took this legislative initiative in April 2010, but in our opinion, it was much too tentative in the way it went about it. We in Parliament and all of the groups have called for this to be done much more quickly, because the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations have already been discussing these matters for 15 years. This is taking far too long. We have therefore made considerable progress in the negotiations with the Council.
It was a very difficult situation in the Council, because some Member States do not produce an environmental balance sheet and we first need to create a foundation in all 27 Member States. The Commission proposed the inclusion of three modules. These modules are air emissions - in this regard, we are very well aware of which gases are emitted into the air. Then there is the financial expenditure arising from environmental taxes and environmental charges. Thirdly, there are the year-on-year national material flows, the input and output, measured in purely quantitative terms. This is a start, perhaps, but it is too simple a start, and Parliament has called for us also to produce water, energy and waste balance sheets and to find out about the status of our forests. These are the modules that we urgently want to see in the very near future.
There was disagreement about whether statistics can also be produced for the marine environment, in other words, statistics on the status of fish stocks. In this regard, our methodology is probably still in need of improvement. Thus, we have achieved improvements in this area. In two years' time - by 2013 at the latest - the Commission is to present a report and, where possible, also propose a revision of this directive. I hope that, at the end of this decade, we will have a green national product in addition to the gross national product. That is our goal.
Olli Rehn
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, as the rapporteur, Jo Leinen, said, the purpose of the Commission proposal is indeed to establish a common legal framework for the collection, compilation, transmission and evaluation of European environmental economic accounts in order to facilitate more balanced decision making with the goal of sustainable development.
With the presentation of this proposal, the Commission has delivered its first item on the 'Beyond GDP' road map. At a time when we are striving, in Europe, to achieve a resource-efficient and sustainable economy, this data will allow us to link environmental factors to economic ones and thus offers the possibility of more comprehensive and better-informed policy making.
Following very fruitful cooperation between the three institutions, I believe we have reached our common objective, namely, the establishment of this framework regulation on European environmental economic accounts with its first set of three modules, which cover air emissions accounts, environmentally-related taxes or levies and material flow accounts.
Currently, this data is collected on a voluntary basis by the majority of Member States. For the most part, therefore, the collection of the relevant data will not impose any additional burden on respondents, as the Member States concerned should be able to compile the data by using existing data sources. With this regulation, we have established an important basis for statistical information about the interplay between the economy and the environment, which we hope to expand with further modules in the future as included in the report and the draft resolution.
As the various other possible modules are at different stages of methodological maturity, including, for instance, timber and fish as well as unused extraction, a modular structure has been adopted for the regulation with a view to possibly introducing new modules as annexes to the core text in the future.
As agreed, the Commission will report to Parliament and the Council every three years on the development of new modules and, if appropriate, the Commission may also put forward new legislative proposals for the new modules.
Let me conclude by thanking the rapporteur, Jo Leinen, the shadow rapporteur, Mr Martin, and all the members of the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for their constructive approach and their very valuable contributions.
Hans-Peter Martin
Mr President, when Mr Leinen and I come back to political positions of the last millennium, we are mostly in agreement, and that is also the case with this report. This is something good, sensible and important. After all, statistics can be sexy, particularly at a time when the European Union has a huge credibility problem where European citizens are concerned. I would say that that is largely unjustified if we look at the major issues and not at the other matters on which Mr Leinen and I are divided.
I think it is very good to be able to stand here, not only as a non-attached Member, but as someone who, with this opinion on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs - it was not a shadow report, but a supplementary opinion that is even more comprehensive than that of the lead committee, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety - is able to represent these positions that we have set out with a vote of 37 to 0. In specific terms, this means that we want - as I put it - to move towards a system of European sustainability statistics, nicely abbreviated to ESS. That would give us something to work with, particularly where young people are concerned and those who know that we will need new agreements on common goals in the future in order to be able to bring Europe out of the shadows and to the forefront in this brutal competition with the United States, China and many other powers.
This clearly also means - as Mr Leinen has already mentioned - that we urgently need more modules. In this regard, we can look back to the 1970s and 1980s, when all of this had already been worked out. It would be very nice if the Commission could make swifter progress in this regard. I think it is very good that there has been movement in Eurostat with regard to the collection of data, even if it is under difficult circumstances in relation to Greece. With a vote of 37 to 0 to 0, we are of the opinion that the Commission clearly needs more money in this area for an ESS, for this system of European sustainability statistics. However, we can achieve that by reallocating funds: use the enlargement dividends at last. Take the officials who were so busy with the enlargement phase for the large states and put them where we so urgently need them, where they can help with the functioning of a European project.
Horst Schnellhardt
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when I read the first proposal from the Commission, I was very sceptical about the way it dealt with this matter. However, what the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs and my predecessor, Mrs Joly, have now presented is something that we are able to accept and also support.
In most countries, environmental economic data - whether or not they relate to these three modules - are already collected on a voluntary basis. We need a clear overview of the results that are achieved in the individual Member States with regard to air emissions, environmental taxes and material flows. That is very important. It can give us a better understanding of the relationship between the environment and the economy. We can also examine how sustainable economic development in Europe is progressing and how we can refine our environmental policy. That is a very important point that we should include here.
I would like to issue a word of warning, however: in our soapbox speeches, we are always talking about reducing bureaucracy. I would like to appeal to the Commission not to create additional bureaucracy in this area. That would be the wrong approach. I would therefore like to ask the Commission whether it is planning to create new positions within the Commission for the collection of the data, or whether it will manage with its existing staff, because I think it is very important that the collection of this data does not result in new burdens. Only once we have the first implementation report in 2013 can and should we decide what other modules should be included, because we need to see how this new system develops and what impact it has on legislation.
I was very shocked when I discovered that this was not intended to be debated here in Parliament today. That would have been a big mistake, because, as the rapporteur said, this is the start of something completely new.
Marita Ulvskog
Mr President, I agree with the previous speakers. It is incredibly important that we have a climate and environment policy that is based on facts. We need access to clearer and more reliable indicators in this area. The same conditions apply to environmental policy as to economic, redistribution, development and industrial policy. We cannot take sensible decisions and bring about the necessary changes and adaptations in society if we do not have access to the facts.
We now have an opportunity to obtain these facts. This is extremely important. The GDP yardstick does not work as well in this particular area because it is too narrow. We now have an opportunity to work with a broader perspective. There is also considerable value in coordinating environmental statistics at European level. It would make it easier to compare the effects of environmental policy between the Member States and it will give us a better picture of which policy measures actually work and which do not, and which ones may even be counterproductive.
Once we have taken this decision during this sitting, I hope we will also be able to ensure that it becomes an important part of the basis for the decisions that Parliament and the Member States will take in the future. I hope that this method of determining the quality of a society is given high priority and that sufficient resources are earmarked to enable it to work properly and not to simply remain an unimplemented idea.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Mr President, my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, for his report. After many years of pushing and cajoling, we finally seem to be taking this step towards sustainable national accounts and that is highly necessary as - let us be entirely honest - the economic system that we have at the moment is simply not working. At the moment, you can still damage nature and the environment practically free of charge. The current system therefore does not work. These costs that no one pays are diverted onto society instead. Why is sustainable energy more expensive than conventional energy? The answer is that nobody pays the social costs of burning coal, gas and oil.
This report gives the impression of being entirely technical, but ultimately it is about really important matters. You have to measure something to know, as we say in Dutch, and that is what we are talking about here. These European environmental economic accounts are necessary for the switchover to a truly sustainable economy. However, I call on both the Commission and the Member States to actually do something with the data that these accounts will provide. You have to measure something to know about it, that is very important, but using the knowledge that we gain from doing so is even more important and that, surely, is the essential next step. I sincerely hope that this, for example, will lead to the removal of the hundreds of billions in subsidies that have a deleterious effect on the environment and nature that we still have in this world.
Let me just offer my sincere thanks to the Commission and our rapporteur once again. This, however, is just the beginning. Let us also follow up on this by truly taking the steps that the knowledge provided by this measure makes possible.
Michail Tremopoulos
Mr President, it goes without saying, both from what we have heard today and from the report, that we need a substantiated evaluation of European environmental policy, based on reliable data. The collection of such data should therefore be compulsory and harmonised.
However, conventional national accounts focus mainly on market transactions and on indicators that reflect important factors in creating prosperity, but do not measure prosperity itself. However, there are new shortages of natural resources. We need other incentives to boost productivity and quality. There is a charge on the physical recipients. By failing to provide accounts on the private and social cost of the use of natural resources and on the damage to the environment, conventional accounts may send the wrong progress message to the decision makers and this may put society on the road to non-sustainable growth.
The introduction of environmental economic accounts is fundamentally important, but is no substitute for the creation of alternative indicators to GDP which cover the various environmental and social dimensions. The Commission should table proposals, before the start of the new Multiannual Financial Framework, so that a limited package of compound indicators can be adopted and used to supplement GDP in policy making. They should include a monetised indicator, such as adjusted net disbursements, and a physical indicator, such as an ecological or carbon footprint, for the environmental dimension, and social indicators which incorporate the social dimension, such as an inequality evaluation (for example, the Gini coefficient) and a social integration and human prosperity index, such as the Human Poverty Index.
The initial proposal for an EU regulation only makes provision for data to be collected and collated on atmospheric emissions, the environmental terms imposed on various economic activities and macroeconomic material flow accounting. A series of proposals and amendments has been tabled and I believe that these will allow us to adopt an integrated report and to achieve progress on the question of environmental policy.
Paul Nuttall
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, a regulation on the European environmental economic accounts sounds very boring but, in my experience, that makes it the most dangerous kind of EU legislation, because you think that the taxpayer and the media will not bother to read it.
Let us be frank. This is about - and I quote - 'air emissions and environmental taxes', just as the last speaker said. So the Sovietisation of the EU continues. The men with clipboards and the statistical spies from Eurostat want more data and - let us be honest - you want this data to tax and control, which explains your thirst for ever more statistics.
The worst thing of all is that this is a regulation, not a directive. Regulations are far worse than directives because they pass into UK law and bypass the UK Parliament. This is very dangerous and, my friends, this is the way democracy dies.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Hans-Peter Martin
(DE) We have been elected as Members of the European Parliament. If you only see yourself as a UK parliamentarian, you will perhaps only be able to answer my question from a UK perspective. With regard to statistics, you talked of Sovietisation. Is this really how you see it? Do statistics mean Sovietisation to you? Are you not in favour of specific figures on living standards and inflation - even if this relates to the control of the banks - being provided by means of statistics, and citizens and decision makers also having access to such information that will then enable appropriate decisions to be taken? Or, as far as you are concerned, does that also fall within the realm of Sovietisation in the United Kingdom?
Paul Nuttall
Mr President, let me make the first point. The fact of the matter is that this place likes to control things from the centre. Let us also make another point, that none of the Commissioners are actually elected by the people. Democracy matters for the whole of Europe so, yes, I do believe that we are seeing a Sovietisation of Europe. The fact of the matter is that these decisions should be taken at Member State level. The fact that regulations can bypass my own parliament, can bypass the people who were elected by the British people, is an absolute disgrace and, yes, it is the Sovietisation of Europe.
Richard Seeber
(DE) Mr President, Mr Nuttall is complaining about something that the United Kingdom, like many other States, has been doing since 2006. This process that we will conclude tomorrow at parliamentary level - Mr Leinen has done an excellent job in this regard - will enshrine in law something that has already been practised for a long time. Why do we need these data? It has nothing to do with Sovietisation. Data are only as good as their comparability, and this comparability is the key element.
That is why we have this European economic accounting and why we have used this system globally since the 1930s - including in the United Kingdom. It is such a good system because it is based on uniform standards and therefore, we can compare the prosperity of individual states and their economic and social success. The US dollar is usually used as the currency for comparison. Here we have a major opportunity to elevate the euro to the status of a comparison currency. I believe that is the second element.
However, we also know that there are many gaps in these economic accounts. Consider Fukushima. Fukushima will now have a positive effect on the Japanese gross domestic product because a lot of investments are being made in this regard. They are flow accounts rather than stock accounts. We need to compensate for these things, and therefore the Commission subsequently put forward its 'GDP and beyond' proposal.
These sustainability accounts that we will be adopting today and tomorrow will be the first step. Why is that? It is because investing in energy efficiency and consuming less energy, for example, will have a negative effect on the gross domestic product. Even someone like Mr Nuttall cannot disagree with that.
This is not so much about big policies; it is simply about us wanting to make our policies testable: what taxes are levied in this area, how much material are we using. Thus, we want to improve the legislative process, and if you were not in the Union, you would have to use the same system, otherwise your data would be worthless. Therefore, I would say that this is a positive first step. I would like to thank the Commission and the rapporteur.
Kriton Arsenis
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to congratulate Jo Leinen on his excellent report. We really do need to proceed with environmental economic accounts. We can no longer consider the economy and the environment separately. The dual crisis hitting us - both environmental and economic - leaves us no such margin. The paralogisms of the past must stop.
Mr Seeber quoted the example of Fukushima. Another, simpler, daily example is that of fires. A fire which destroys a forest and the biodiversity and eco-systemic services provided by the forest, by which I mean clean water, clear air and the framework for reproducing food, which destroys the cultural heritage of a place, which destroys agricultural production, is measured positively in terms of GDP, because investments are made to restore the damage, despite the fact that the country, the region, the area, will have sustained long-term damage. In the long term, it will be poorer than it was before.
The environmental economic accounts we are calling for today are not perfect. However, they are an important step in the right direction. They are a step towards better policies based on a more complete, more objective view of reality. They are a step that will allow us to ensure that our policies are consistent, that will allow us to achieve international commitments and the objective of a greener European economy.
Riikka Manner
(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I wish to congratulate Mr Leinen for the excellent and important work that he has done with respect to this report. This regulation on environmental economic accounts is very important, as has been said here more than once, because at last it establishes a statutory basis for a system of accounts integrating environmental and economic statistics that is crucial for environmental policy, and, in the broader context, social policy.
As for its scope, it is very important that, during the first phase, the focus should specifically be on air emissions, material flows and environmental taxes. There are good reasons for this. Furthermore, it is probably a very realistic approach, considering the capacity that the Member States have, to start a system of accounts in these areas. Of course we need to realise that, among our various countries, we are at different levels with respect to statistics systems, and it is important that this does not create any additional red tape, as the Commissioner said.
As far as new modules are concerned, it is important that they strongly emphasise themes that support the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy.
Oreste Rossi
(IT) Mr President, this regulation forms part of the framework of measures designed to establish more comprehensive indicators to supplement GDP. European environmental economic accounts should contribute to the evaluation of policies, providing data about the interaction between environmental and economic factors. The Commission's proposal is commendable, although new and complex bureaucratic procedures are being created in order to be able to monitor the environmental policies that Member States actually develop. For this reason, we will abstain during the vote.
We are against the report, however, insofar as the rapporteur wishes to add further accounting modules. A first-reading agreement was reached with the Council on the basis that the introduction of the new modules proposed by the rapporteur would be subject to evaluation under the review clause so that, where appropriate, changes or improvements can be made to the quality of the data and the methods by which it is gathered.
In our view, all this represents a new and costly form of bureaucracy being imposed on Member States.
Sophie Auconie
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as I see it, politics is about finding the best possible solutions to the problems that exist. How can this be achieved, however, if the problems and the potential solutions are not fully understood? This is a fundamental issue, and it does not only concern environmental policy.
Political decision makers must therefore have at their disposal data that is both reliable and as exhaustive as possible on the modern world and the environmental situation. That was the conclusion reached by the European Council in June 2006, when it called on the European Union and its Member States to extend the national accounts to key aspects of sustainable development. I welcome this initiative and the European Commission's proposal, as it will help improve our knowledge of air emissions, environmental taxes and material flows in the economy.
However, this proposal will have to be amended during tomorrow's vote so as to ensure that the data collected are reliable and conducive to debate, and also, and above all, to ensure that all the Member States are involved in this approach. Indeed, how can we draft European policies if we do not have data on the situation in each Member State?
Lastly, I should like to voice my support for two powerful ideas upheld by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats): the power conferred on the European Commission to adopt delegated acts should be reviewed every five years, and a verification clause should be introduced - the verification clause being the second powerful idea in this regulation. We will need new data in a few years, but everything in its own time. This draft regulation is a real step forward: let us continue in this direction.
Karin Kadenbach
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to offer my sincere thanks to Mr Leinen for a long overdue regulation. Before we were elected to the European Parliament, many of us simply assumed that the decisions this Parliament took, these decisions that determine the future, were, in fact, based on these data, and we have discovered with a certain amount of dismay that, although these statistics and data exist in most Member States, in reality, they have not yet been brought together into a common framework, and this has therefore given rise to a certain lack of credibility in the eyes of the general public.
From the media, we always get the impression that the economy and the environment are diametrically opposed. These data would help us to consider whether something benefits the environment, whether something benefits the environment and, at the same time, benefits the economy, or whether something benefits the economy and, at the same time, benefits the environment, and hence also our social environment. That is the main task that we as politicians should set ourselves. We want to establish and improve quality of life, not only in the workplace, but also in our environment.
I can only agree with the desire expressed by Mr Leinen today when he said that, by the end of this decade, we should have moved away from gross domestic product and towards a green domestic product. By doing so, we will have taken the first crucial decision. I am very confident that we will succeed in strengthening the credibility of Europe and of matters relating to the environment and to the economy as a result of these environmental economic accounts.
Thank you very much. Please continue with this good work.
Christa Klaß
(DE) Mr President, Mr Rehn, ladies and gentlemen, sound statistics, efficient data collection and evaluation - that is the basis on which to shape the future. It is obvious that we need to harmonise the Member States' existing statistics in order to take the right decisions for the future for the whole of Europe on the basis of the same data. Equivalent, comparable data from all of the Member States is the goal.
The question arises as to what we can actually discover from this data. What additional conclusions can we draw in order for Europe to develop in a balanced way in terms of its social, economic and environment policy? The Commission wants to extend the economic accounts to key aspects of sustainable development. To this end, it proposes three modules in order to collect data on economic activities that result in air emissions, on environmental tax revenue and on material flows. Products of plant origin, for example, cereals, leguminous crops, vegetables, fruit and wood, are also included in this.
I wonder about the usefulness of such calculations - what will they actually tell us? I am not as optimistic as the rapporteur and my fellow Members. Wanting something is one thing; putting it into practice is quite another. I have doubts about the efficiency of the red tape and I question the objectivity of the intention to produce environmental economic accounts, to record material flows and to evaluate individual products, including plants, in terms of CO2 emissions. Both the production of oxygen as well as the emission of CO2 during production and transport must be included in such calculations with regard to plants, for example.
I welcome the fact that, in the compromise that has now been reached, it is clarified that additional data requirements may only be introduced following a flexibility assessment and that the competence of the Member States must not be encroached upon. Such programmes must also be developed without additional financial expenditure and bureaucracy.
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
(HU) Mr President, my colleague, Jo Leinen, has prepared an excellent report, which is important from the point of view of the national economy, environmental protection, society, agriculture and other aspects as well. As a member of the STOA panel, a project aimed at more efficient management of natural resources, I consider it very important to compile a reliable statistical database. How can we measure the use of water and energy efficiency in the Member States of the European Union if we do not have reliable statistical information? As a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I consider it very important to have a clear picture, at last, of the real social benefits of the environmental public goods produced by farmers, in relation to the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Without statistical data, we cannot determine how much farmers contribute with their agricultural activities to the protection of air, agricultural landscape, arable land and the environment, and how farmers produce environmental public goods that are not yet paid for by the market, nor by the CAP. Therefore, the current statistical report is very progressive and forward-looking from the point of view of environmental protection and agriculture.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, when it comes to statistics, there is always a lot of debate and disagreement. Above all, they must not be decoded, because data protection is also clearly justified. On the other hand, we need transparency and comparability. I think that is important. We therefore need to collect the data in a fully automated manner using random samples, so that they are then comparable. We are aware of imaging processes, for example, that will also play a major role in this regard in future. Accordingly, automation of the process will simplify our political decision making in future.
Angelika Werthmann
(DE) Mr President, European environmental economic accounts will provide us with important data to enable us to bring environmental aspects into all kinds of political decisions and, as a result, to have these aspects taken into consideration in a whole range of issues. The collected and analysed data will be crucial for providing effective countermeasures against the environmental effects of economic activities. The conscious need for sustainable policies in order to be able to deal with challenges such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, increasing environmental pollution and the impending exhaustion of our natural resources is strongly supported today. Reliable data and the resulting predictions with regard to the use of natural resources will not only enable us to clearly measure the success of a sustainable economic policy, but will also provide very important added value for the Member States.
Niki Tzavela
(EL) Mr President, I, too, should like to take my turn in congratulating Mr Leinen on his exceptional report. I believe that Europe has now reached a point at which we rarely encounter clashes between development and environmental protection. On the contrary, we have entered an interactive phase. Europeans now have an environmental conscience.
This report will help even more in ensuring that we have a better picture of what is happening to the environment in Europe. I should like to emphasise three elements: firstly, we need precise information on the state of the environment in the Member States; secondly, we need a procedure for renewing that information every five years; and, thirdly, we need to carry out a joint progress evaluation of all environmental actions undertaken in the European Union.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Madam President, if we want to preserve our environment for future generations, we must not consider economic and environmental aspects separately. It therefore makes sense to supplement economic accounts with environmental factors, and the basis of any sound balance sheet is adequate and reliable data.
However, when the EU calls for key data from the Member States, it should not baulk at sensitive issues. I am thinking here of nuclear policy, genetic engineering, adequate origin labelling of foodstuffs and, not least, an investigation with regard to the recent EHEC cucumber scandal.
Interactions between the economy and the environment are clearly evident here. Here, too, it is clear where - unfortunately - the weight lies in the EU, namely with big business and the lobbyists.
Olli Rehn
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, many thanks for a very substantive and responsible debate. I think we all agree on the importance of this proposal and of environmental economic accounts. We also agree that we need to take the next steps to define policies using the data, to keep us on the path to a more sustainable economy.
Let me make a few points in response to a number of remarks. This is the first regulation, with three modules. It is the beginning in terms of legislation. The second batch of modules is now in preparation for a second, amending regulation towards the end of 2012. We are also already planning the third batch, so the work is ongoing and will be continued.
Concerning the issue of red tape, this will not create a new burden for enterprises because we are using existing administrative and statistical data. In fact, the United Kingdom is a leader in environmental accounting, which is also worth noting. Moreover, concerning the statistics, and referring to what was said by Mr Leinen, Mr Martin and many others, we have made significant progress in improving the European statistical system over the past year and a half.
For instance, the present Commission made the very first legislative proposal on 10 February 2010 - the day after you had voted in favour of setting up the present Commission - when we adopted a regulation on audit powers for Eurostat, which gives Eurostat the possibility of checking and verifying the quality of statistics at the source, which is very important. We have already started to use this, for instance, in the case of Greece.
Secondly, the action plan for Greece is being implemented and within a year, it has brought a very profound overhaul of the statistical system in Greece. As a result, the quality of the statistics on the excessive deficit procedure has greatly improved already, and in the latest round, Eurostat could validate the data for Greece.
Finally, on resources, although we do not need resources for this particular subject of environmental economic accounts, I agree with Mr Martin that we need sufficient resources. In fact, I took advantage of this part-session week to stop by in Luxembourg to meet Walter Radermacher, the Director General of Eurostat, to discuss resources just a few hours ago. We are on the way to redeploying and improving our resources in Eurostat in order to focus on our key priorities.
But I would not take resources from enlargement, as Mr Martin suggested, and especially not from the Western Balkans. Stability, democracy and peace in that region continue to be a key priority for the European Union, for the Commission and, I trust, for Parliament as well. Please remember that without our soft power, and without EU enlargement policy, Ratko Mladić would not be in The Hague now. Please remember that as well.
Jo Leinen
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the debate. I see broad support for the creation of environmental balance sheets in the European Union. With a few exceptions, this has found favour here.
I also agree with Mrs Kadenbach's statement. Many of us thought that this was already in place, and we were surprised to find that a lot of data does not exist at all, and that in the statements we make with regard to the state of the environment in the European Union, we are therefore actually completely blind.
One Member, Mr Gerbrandy, said that measurement brings knowledge. We then know something, and knowledge is the basis for taking measures and for all of our programmes. We quite simply need a better basis for the decisions that we take. These environmental accounts can help us in this regard. Of course, we have the EU 2020 strategy, in which sustainability is a planning goal. I hope that in the next few years, we will also have this basis so that in 2020, we will be able to see whether we were successful or not. We know that gross domestic product provides no information on the state of the natural world and the environment, on resources that we have used, or on the whole sustainability problem. That is why this is now necessary.
We are also tackling this in stages. Mrs Klaß, we are not making excessive demands; rather, the modules are to be expanded gradually. After all, as the Commissioner said, the individual pieces of legislation - the water legislation, waste legislation and clean air legislation - already contain the requirement to collect this data.
Europe is also under a global obligation, Mr Nuttall. If we sign the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Climate Change or any other convention, we must be able to tell the rest of the world whether we have done well or badly.
Thus, all in all, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and also Eurostat, which will subsequently have to carry out the work. I hope that the necessary resources will be available in Luxembourg, because without funds, without resources, this balance sheet cannot, of course, be produced. Parliament should also help out in this regard. Thank you very much. This is an important political matter - as some people have rightly recognised - and it is a new chapter in the consideration of what we do in Europe year in year out.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Monika Flašíková Beňová
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, for the report he has submitted. I agree with its assessment of the Commission's proposal, and I would like to make a few observations on the importance of such activities.
Measuring quality of life through indicators such as gross domestic product does not tell the whole story. Although experts have been in agreement on this for quite some time, the message has only recently got through to the political sphere, after considerable time and effort.
In this respect, I very much applaud the Commission's proposal for European environmental economic accounts, because there is no need for the wholesale rejection of misleading indicators. Rather than assessing quality of life and the environment on the basis of impressions, we need to come up with better data and better methods of data collection and aggregation so that they deliver an improved service in gauging, for example, the environmental impact made by policies and economic activities.
I join the rapporteur in calling for a greater emphasis in the Commission's proposal on monitoring and evaluation issues. Finally, I would like to note how very important it is for the Commission's proposal to incorporate and rely even more fully on the strategy document 'GDP and beyond: measuring progress in a changing world'. A consistent, systematic approach will perhaps be more crucial than anything else in efforts to improve the way quality of life is measured.
Rovana Plumb
in writing. - Recycling and prevention of waste, air emissions and climatic change and sustainable consumption and production could be monitored much more effectively if high-quality data were available regarding the interaction between environmental and economic factors. The relevant data collection, which has been made on a voluntary basis until today at EU level, should therefore become mandatory. Moreover, environmental data currently available should be expanded in the medium term to facilitate the necessary policy assessment of European environmental policy.
The proposed regulation establishes in this respect a common framework for the collection, compilation, transmission and evaluation of European environmental economic accounts by providing common European-wide methodology, common standards, definitions, classifications and accounting rules for compiling these accounts. The regulation concerns the collection and compilation of data regarding air emissions, environmental taxes applicable to various economic sectors and macroeconomic material flow accounting. Accurate and adequate statistical data on energy and resource consumption are fundamental if we want to get indicators for progress and well-being beyond the GDP. Moreover, a sound assessment of the European environmental policy is only possible if reliable data is available.


Enforcement of intellectual property rights (criminal measures) (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Zingaretti, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights - C6-0233/2005 -
Günter Verheugen
Mr President, honourable Members, infringements of intellectual property rights are on a continuing upward curve and now constitute a really serious threat to the European economy and to European society.
The differences in sanctions applicable from one country to another not only interfere with the smooth functioning of the internal market but also make it more difficult to combat the counterfeiting and piracy of products. It is vital that the holders of rights should enjoy equal protection throughout the Community.
Problems of consumer protection also arise in connection with health and safety issues. The Internet helps counterfeiters, who can use it to market faked or imitation products around the world without any loss of time; it is evident that their schemes are increasingly tied in with organised crime, and I have to say that the number of products that have had to be taken off the internal market has recently increased to a disturbing degree, being, as a rule, faked versions of other products, so action to address the problem of counterfeit goods is of the utmost importance to the Community, and the vote here in your House is an important step in getting it underway.
The Commission is glad that your House accepts and endorses the general principle underlying this amended proposal for a directive, and I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Zingaretti.
As long ago as 2006, when - on 7 September that year - it adopted a resolution on the need for immediate action against counterfeit medical products, your House has been supportive of the Commission in its view that the sanctions available under criminal law need to be standardised as soon as possible. The Commission is also glad to note that the committee's report envisages the same level of penalties as are already applied to serious crimes.
The Commission is, however, unhappy about a number of points that have emerged from the debate, firstly about Parliament's desire to limit the scope of the directive solely to the ambit of the Community's powers, and I have to say that that will result in serious difficulties when it comes to transposing the directive. It also has to be said that the definition of the concept of 'right to intellectual property' does not appear to be adequate, since a whole array of aspects of it have been left unclear. The definitions of the terms 'infringement on a commercial scale' and 'deliberate infringement of a right to intellectual property' do not ultimately bring any additional benefit; they are capable of being misunderstood and of undermining legal certainty.
In the interests of consumer safety and of our economy's competitiveness, I urge you to vote in favour of the Commission's proposal.
Nicola Zingaretti
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner for his kind words about this report.
This important directive is at last coming to the end of its legislative process, and I should first of all like to thank all those who have devoted their energies in recent months to a passionate and, in my view, extremely useful debate, starting with the shadow rapporteurs and all the staff, without whom it would not have been possible to address such complex subjects.
Much has been said about this directive; some of the comments have been well founded while others have missed the point, not least because these are highly complex subjects. I believe, therefore, that it is important to make it clear what we are talking about. This is a directive against organised crime and in the end, I must emphasise, against organised crime in both its traditional form and the form that it has recently been adopting. It is, then, a directive against the damage that crime does to Europe through the counterfeiting of goods and the infringement of intellectual property rights.
During these months, many Members have asked me why we have to harmonise. My answer is that organised crime has long been a global activity that knows no borders and that can count on vast resources. The law, in contrast, is fragmented into many, sometimes contradictory legal systems, and is therefore the weaker for it. It has been calculated that over the last 10 years the volume of counterfeit goods has risen by 1 600%, and I believe that Europe needs to do something, because we are talking about a vast market and very real, material things, such as toys, clothes, shoes, food, cosmetics, chemicals, gastronomic products with false designations of origin, spectacles, compact discs, DVDs and other things, in other words all goods that European consumers buy every day.
As I have said, this activity causes enormous damage. It damages Europe's industries, because of course counterfeiting changes all the most basic rules of the market and competition, and it harms workers, because of course those who produce counterfeit goods do so with complete disregard for the laws that protect the rights of the people making them, and because the counterfeit markets resulting from these criminal activities cause recession and unemployment.
Counterfeiting is said to have put 125 000 people out of work in Europe over the last ten years. As a result, it damages the economy because of tax evasion, and it harms consumers, because here in Parliament we spend many hours writing regulations to protect European citizens but not fighting effectively against counterfeiting, and we have no means of enforcing these regulations.
One form that I regard as particularly serious is the counterfeiting of brands of generic medicines, which are often marketed in developing countries, and I am delighted that the executive secretary of the World Health Organization's anti-counterfeiting task force has spoken out in favour of the report, since it specifically refers to the health risks and rates the counterfeiting of medicines as being extremely serious.
I therefore believe that we have to go ahead with this. I think the text of the directive introduces some important new points even compared with the Commission's text, and that we have reached a positive compromise. I think it is important that the scope of the directive has been made clearer and also restricted, by excluding patents, for example, for which civil law remains the most suitable instrument for resolving disputes.
Although this is a highly controversial text, my view is that we must not stop and that we cannot escape from the reality of these arguments. By harmonising our criminal measures we are taking a leap forwards in really developing the European single market, which is certainly helped by rules, but also by provisions like these which prevent the rules from being disregarded all the time. Acting at this level therefore aids and strengthens Europe as a political entity, but most of all it strengthens the idea of a Europe that is useful to its citizens.
We are coming to this parliamentary vote in the comforting position of having received very substantial support for the directive at the vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs. That is why I hope that a large majority will support this compromise, because powerful interests and lobbies are now hoping that the European Parliament will not do anything. I believe, however, that it would harm our image and damage us politically if Parliament were to throw up its hands at such a devastating crime as counterfeiting and say that Europe could not do anything to fight it. In the past, Parliament has been in the forefront in developing the single market and political Europe, and I am convinced that it will be there again this time.
David Hammerstein Mintz
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (ES) The text on which we are going to vote, the Commission's text, bears no relation to the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and bears no relation to the legitimate fight against the fraud and piracy that affects the health and safety of persons. That is something on which we all agree.
However, this amended proposal on intellectual property rights is intended to criminalise the exchange of information and culture. By voting in favour of the amended proposal on intellectual property rights, Parliament would be treating mafias in the same way as ordinary citizens. Neither the issue of the intention to make profits nor the degree of criminality are clarified. The scope of this Directive is indiscriminate and it lumps everything in the criminal field, though the civil is generally working well.
Furthermore, great legal uncertainty is created, leading to a hysterical witch hunt which flies off in all directions, frightens the citizens and paralyses the innovation of thousands of small and large businesses which should not be living in fear of going to prison, and we have already seen a massive negative reaction to this Directive on the Internet.
We cannot act in that way, contrary to the flow of information and culture.
Rainer Wieland
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. - (DE) Mr President, the lead committee on this report is that on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, to which I in fact belong, and which concerns itself primarily with the rights to intellectual property, but I am now the draftsman of the opinion on this matter of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and propose to limit myself to considering it from that angle.
Commissioner Verheugen discussed our need for this piece of legislation, and it is indeed true that we do, but we should be doing more than merely constantly tinkering with the minimum penalty. At the end of the day, adding or subtracting a whole year or six months to or from the minimum or maximum penalty helps nobody. I am firmly persuaded - and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has come round to this view - that we have to make a start on working on the principle of precision. We have put the case for this directive ultimately to include - irrespective of whether patents are included, which is, in the first instance, irrelevant - a positive list of its scope, so that the public - for whom the legislation is intended - do not get to read of some vague concept, but can see a list showing where and in what ways they can expose themselves to penalties.
In so doing, we are - as the Commissioner said - entering the realm of definitions. If we now start, in civil law, to put together what is termed a toolbox, then we are also on the threshold of laying down similar definitions in the sphere of criminal law too. There is no use fiddling with the legal consequences unless we also work on the definitions; that is what we must do, that is why this directive is a first step, and that is why I do not quite see the point of the criticism. One starting point is the attempt at defining what is meant by 'commercial'. We are trying to define the term 'intention', but please can we do this not only with reference to this area of applicability, but ...
(The President cut off the speaker.)
Hans-Peter Mayer
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, speaking as a shadow rapporteur and on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, I would like to thank Mr Zingaretti for his successful report, and, above all, for his outstanding cooperation.
I should like to emphasise that our intention with this report should not be to make criminals of the EU's citizens when what we want to do is to punish the criminal gangs, organised criminals, and professional counterfeiters. I myself see it as being of the utmost importance that there should be a derogation for private users motivated by personal reasons rather than by the desire for profit.
The compromise achieved in the Committee on Legal Affairs on definitions is, quite simply, a practicable solution, and, like my colleague Mr Wieland, I welcome the definition of 'infringement on a commercial scale' and of 'deliberate infringement of a right to intellectual property', as well as the positive list from which patents are excluded.
It also proved possible to arrive at a satisfactory solution to Article 3's description of the characteristics of offences, so that, firstly, every deliberate infringement on a commercial scale, thirdly, any attempt at such infringement of the law, and thirdly, aiding and inciting the committal of the act are considered as offences. Since the oral amendment relating to incitement to the act originated from me, I should like once more to make it clear that the translations are problematic and that some of them are positively wrong.
It is intended that the fines should avoid causing disruption to national criminal law systems in their applicability to bodies with legal personality, and it is for the Member States themselves to decide whether they want to make such bodies liable to the sanctions of the criminal law or only to fines.
These are European rules, and every Member State may tighten them up, as some indeed already do, and we want to leave responsibility for that with the Member States.
Manuel Medina Ortega
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, the report by Mr Zingaretti on the amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights is a very balanced proposal that has obtained broad support in the Committee on Legal Affairs and also, to a certain extent, in the other committees that have dealt with the issue.
As Mr Zingaretti has pointed out, intellectual property deserves protection and I believe that what the Committee on Legal Affairs has done by means of the various amendments that it has presented is perhaps to tone down some of the terms favoured by Mr Mayer, who has just spoken on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats.
Specifically, for example, it makes no sense to extend criminal protection to patents - to intellectual property - which in reality is protected in the civil field, given the complications that that may cause.
Neither does it make sense to criminalise a series of activities - those of critics, journalists, intellectuals or teachers, who, as a result of simple meeting, may end up 'behind bars' - or that of an innocent user of the broadcast media that Internet technology provides us with these days, as a result of which, by pressing a key at a particular time, one may find oneself accused of a criminal infringement.
I believe that it is important that we strengthen the criminal protection of intellectual property but that it should be done in accordance with certain principles so that criminal protection is not taken any further than is strictly necessary. Criminal protection is always protection of an exceptional nature, since there are other legislative means for achieving that protection.
I believe that Mr Zingaretti's proposals - the proposal taken up in the report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the amendments that in the end have been presented jointly with Mr Mayer - enable us to restrict the scope of this criminal protection and that this plenary should therefore approve this report and support the appropriate amendments in the corresponding vote.
Toine Manders
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Zingaretti for his cooperation. We have spent many hours discussing this issue, which is, after all, a sensitive one.
According to the OECD, counterfeit goods account for an annual amount of approximately EUR 600 billion worldwide, and it is mainly criminal organisations, operating on a worldwide scale, who are responsible for this. Counterfeiting represents a major drain on tax revenue in government tax departments, because legitimate businesses do, after all, among other things, pay taxes and employ staff, and governments put those taxes to very good use. Levels of employment are good, and we seem to lack the courage to intervene sufficiently in imposing real criminal sanctions and tackling the problem head on. These criminal sanctions, however, should also, of course, be backed up by the raising of public awareness. Customs should be able, in future, to put better and more effective controls in place, thus preventing sea-going vessels, such as the one in Hamburg that was loaded with three million pairs of shoes - all counterfeits from China - from slipping through customs without anyone noticing. I think we should do something about this.
By the same token, the consumer must gain considerably more awareness, and this is why I have tabled an amendment to introduce the concept of the intentional handling of counterfeit products, which means that if a consumer deliberately buys products that are too cheap, they should know that they are buying counterfeit products and by doing so, prevent our society from working properly, and also hamper our economy.
It is unfortunate that we wish to spare consumers too much, because the funny thing is that in France and Italy, handling and buying counterfeit goods is a punishable offence and is counselled against on huge billboards. Regrettably, we did not dare go this far. It is also unfortunate, to my mind, that intellectual property in Europe is still being insufficiently protected, that there is insufficient awareness, because at this rate, we will never achieve the Lisbon objectives to become the world's most competitive, knowledge-based economy; I hope that we will carry on supporting customs and improving legislation. In this respect, I would argue in favour of identical definitions worldwide.
If this is achieved, I will be satisfied; if it is not, we in Europe will become isolated, to the detriment of our economy and employment.
Eva Lichtenberger
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that the mass importation of counterfeit products does a great deal of damage to the European economy, particularly to the production of quality goods, and I am indeed in favour of doing something to address this. What is needed most of all is that it should be made possible for the big criminal organisations to which reference was made earlier to be better punished or brought to justice by means of European law. On that much we all agree; it is on how this is to be accomplished that we have our differences.
I would like to extend warm thanks to Mr Zingaretti for having worked very hard to bring about agreement, but we all need to bring particular precision to bear on this question, not least because we are standing, legally speaking, on really thin ice. Further progress on this point was achieved by drawing on an environmental protection provision in criminal law, but that means that we bear a responsibility for approaching the matter with particular care and precision. The idea behind European law is that through it we should deal with matters that the Member States cannot accomplish on their own, particularly in relation to criminal law, which means in this case the handling of the big criminal organisations. For that we need a precise definition of what the scope of this regulation is.
If we leave it open - which is what some of us want - or if we include the consumers in it, we will end up taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut without being able to have any real impact on the big organisations that are doing European businesses so much serious damage, for the fact is that, in the absence of any precise definition, small-time entrepreneurs - who often do not know whose goods they are selling or from whence those goods come - can end up being clobbered by criminal sanctions.
It will be young people who are most affected by this. Most young people in Europe cannot tell the difference between what may be downloaded from the Internet and what may not, and we certainly do not want to criminalise the end users. We want to concentrate on those things that European law is meant to address, with everything else being left to national law.
To Mr Manders, who wants to raise consumers' awareness, I should like to say that, if you get your hands on a Gucci bag for ten euros, any consumer might realise what is going on, but that does not apply in the case of many other products. I do not want European law to be over-zealously applied where it does not make sense to apply it at all; particularly in the commercial sphere, the areas of application must ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Umberto Guidoni
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Zingaretti, for his cooperation and for somehow having tried to mediate on this directive, which applies criminal law to counterfeiting. What it lacks, however, is a frame of reference consisting of the rules defining what counterfeiting is, and so it actually lumps together trademark, patent and copyright infringements.
Confusing counterfeiting and piracy with infringements of intellectual property is likely to make the fight against criminal falsification less effective. Instead, it would have been more useful to limit the scope of the directive just to copyright infringements concerning the commercial production of counterfeit multimedia products, an area in which organised crime operates.
Extending it unduly to all copyright issues, however, may have a serious impact on the privacy of consumers of multimedia products. Moreover, on copyright matters the directive abandons the concept of commercial scale and is liable to criminalise private, not-for-profit use by people who use the Internet for peer-to-peer file sharing, video streaming and so forth.
The directive forces Member States to start criminal proceedings even without a complaint by the injured party and actually gives private individuals a direct role in the investigations, which goes beyond providing the authorities with technical support and ends up becoming a driving, guiding role. Lastly, the directive lacks any economic or social analysis. Imposing tougher penalties in Italy has not had any effect. That is why our group proposes that this directive be rejected.
Jim Allister
Mr President, I speak to record my opposition to the EU's meddling in the criminal law of Member States to the monstrous extent of demanding new offences and dictating the level of penalties to be enforced in the United Kingdom and other states. The nefarious Court of Justice decision of September 2005 gives rise to this intolerable infringement of national sovereignty. Now we are seeing a programme of rampant expansionism of power by the Commission.
This directive is even more objectionable from the UK perspective because, for the first time, it would make breach of patent a criminal offence punishable by four years' imprisonment or more; not because the elected House of Commons thinks that it is necessary or wise but because the unelected EU Commission dictates it. I object, I reject this intolerable EU interference and I therefore reject this directive.
Jacques Toubon
(FR) Mr President, we all want to make progress and successfully clamp down on counterfeiting, which is economically, socially and culturally unacceptable, and Mr Zingaretti has worked hard to come up with this compromise proposal.
However, I am struck, in this debate, by the great confusion among those who, in defending consumers, scorn the rights of creators and performers and those who, at the same time, defend Community competence and want the national judiciaries to remain sovereign entities. I believe that there are some real problems there that deserve to be looked at in more depth.
I have clear ideas about one point, anyway, and that is the cultural impact of this text. I am referring to the amendments to Articles 2 and 3 that were adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs. They propose definitions of intellectual property rights. That is not the aim of the directive. They propose a restrictive wording of intentional infringement and commercial scale. This goes against the discretion of the national courts and, above all, in fact, it falls short of making peer-to-peer file sharing a criminal act.
The result is that the provisions, on the one hand, go against the acquis communautaire, particularly the 2001 Directive on copyright, and, on the other hand, present a considerable risk for creation and cultural diversity, by undermining the national laws that curb such behaviour, prejudicing as it does the rights of authors and performers.
That is why, in this instance, I support the wording of the original proposal by the Commission and, in any case, in our debate, Amendment 30 tabled by Mrs Bowles. We are on very serious ground as far as cultural diversity is concerned.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
(PL) Mr President, the directive on criminal measures to be applied in order to protect intellectual property represents a change to the Commission's stance to date on criminal law.
The proposed document reflects the interpretation of the European Court of Justice's ruling of 12 September 2005 adopted by the European Commission, and allowing the use of criminal measures at Community level, if they are necessary for the successful implementation of Union provisions. In view of the increasing problem of infringement of intellectual property rights the world over, the Commission's proposed approach seems not only appropriate but also necessary. Every year, the European Union's GDP loses approximately EUR 8 billion because of counterfeit goods. Individual companies lose approximately EUR 45 to 65 billion each year for the same reason. The scale of the problem is so great that it is estimated that about 40% of computer software in the world originates from illegal sources, along with 36% of the music on compact discs and cassettes.
Accordingly, we should welcome the fact that the maximum penalty for serious crimes committed as part of criminal organisations may be as high as EUR 300 000 and/or a 4-year custodial sentence. It should be noted, however, that pursuant to Parliament's proposal criminal measures will only be applied to individuals and entities who knowingly infringe the law for commercial purposes. The exclusion whereby the directive does not apply to infringement of the aforementioned intellectual property rights by private users who are not motivated by commercial gain is very important. In addition, it seems justified to exclude patent rights from the scope of the proposed directive, as this will make it possible to avoid determining the content of future provisions in this regard and will restrict the scope of the directive in question to intellectual property only.
As I conclude, I should like to thank Mr Zingaretti, the rapporteur, for a very well-prepared document.
Sharon Bowles
Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified.
Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP.
There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria - counterfeiting and piracy - or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there.
To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with 'there or thereabouts' compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned.
Carl Schlyter
(SV) Mr President, there is a parallel proposal concerning serious environmental crimes - clearly defined crimes that do serious harm to people and cause death. In spite of the clear objective, the proposal is controversial because the EU is entering the area of criminal law. What we have here is a legislative proposal aimed at protecting commercial interests without risk to consumers and the environment. In spite of that, this definition is much broader and creates legal uncertainty. In its present form, the proposal is not about combating organised crime. On the contrary, this law is in itself organised crime. It is a crime against human freedoms and human rights and an attack on ordinary communication between consumers and companies.
Take the example of Betamax. MP3 players can now be used for copying. Is it, then, necessary to prove, before they go on sale, that MP3 players cannot be used to break the law? Once the players are sold, will consumers be hit by technical restrictions and technical obstacles when they want to use the products, music and films they have bought? The proposal is an absurd attack on consumers' rights and should be rejected in its entirety.
Daniel Strož
- (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am among those MEPs who fundamentally disagree with the report on the proposed directive concerning the use of criminal measures to enforce intellectual property rights.
I have three fundamental objections. The first is the fact that the legal basis of this directive has not been clearly defined. As everybody knows, we are still missing the long-awaited opinion of the Court of Justice, which should clarify the judgment of 13 September 2005.
The second serious problem concerns the fact that in its definition of intellectual property for the purposes of the directive, the report does not include patents and types, which are an essential component of intellectual property law, and without which the directive would not incorporate the systematic approach that is required for this issue.
The third reason is closely linked to the previous one. The criminal justice aspects of the directive ought to complement existing Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, which deals with civil liability and administrative matters, and which applies to the entire body of intellectual property law, including patents and types. There is room for wide-ranging discussion on the factors that led to the proposal to exclude technical solutions from criminal protection. I fear, however, that pressure from influential interest groups unfortunately played a part in this. Thank you for your attention.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
(PL) Mr President, despite what has been said by other Members in this House, the proposed directive came about as a response to the increasingly widespread theft of intellectual property. We know full well that current Union legislation does not provide for a Community policy on penalties to combat piracy and counterfeiting of goods. In addition, there are considerable differences between the systems applied by the various Member States, as the Commission has rightly pointed out. This obviously hinders effective protection of intellectual property, which in turn has a direct negative effect on the value of investment in innovation.
I firmly believe that it is essential to counter these practices at the Community level. If we also take into account that the counterfeiting of completely new products such as medicines or toys can be dangerous to life and health, the problem becomes even graver. Clearly, counterfeiting products of all kinds also involves producing packaging and employing a range of individuals such as graphic artists and distributors. There is too much for a single person to handle. Well-organised criminal gangs are involved, and it is precisely their activity that the directive aims to hit hard.
The measures proposed in the proposed directive should be deemed beneficial. Infringement of intellectual property rights is a crime that must be punished. There is, however, scope for argument about the limits of responsibility, and especially about who is to be held responsible. Those who produce counterfeit goods and place them on the market must certainly be punished. On the other hand, it would be unacceptable to punish those who purchased or used goods or services unaware of their illegal origin. The Commission's proposal does not define deliberate action in the context of infringement of intellectual property rights sufficiently clearly, and that should be remedied.
To summarise, adoption of the text of this directive is essential, and we must only regret that we are not in a position today to take the next vital step forward. After all, it is possible to identify groups of crimes that it is particularly difficult to combat in today's globalised world, on the basis of dozens of different legal systems. I believe that greater harmonisation of criminal law in the European Union would go a long way towards improving effectiveness, as today's debate confirms.
Edith Mastenbroek
Mr President, it is 2007, so you can address me as 'Miss'!
I would also like to congratulate my colleague Mr Zingaretti, although he knows that we agree to disagree on this issue. The legal base of the proposal derives from the Court of Justice. The Commission interprets this ruling to be applicable beyond the case, and sees this ruling as a legal base for the harmonisation of certain criminal sanctions in measures aimed at protecting the internal market.
The reason I consider rejection of this directive as a whole is not because I do not believe in expanding the powers of the EU to include criminal sanctions. I do believe in that. However, I have serious doubts about the process leading to this increase of power, because a legal base is not the same as a political mandate. Fundamental steps like this demand a thorough political debate and a clear choice on the matter in question. Instead, we are about to take a great leap forward as a by-product of a single policy measure in a highly specialised and limited field. I do not think this is the best way of pushing integration forward. It also enforces the popular opinion held by many who see the European Union as an organisation which caters mainly for the interests of big businesses, which is not the case.
Ignasi Guardans Cambó
(ES) Commissioner, we should not play around with criminal law. The Union can now exercise - and it is right that it should exercise - a new power that has been recognised by the Court of Justice: to take on the criminal dimension of competences that it has the right to exercise. I believe that that makes complete sense and we should all support it.
But it must be done prudently, wisely and with legal skill. And the text that we are discussing here has none of those three qualities. It lacks prudence, it lacks wisdom and it lacks legal quality. I say that with the greatest of respect for all of those who have been directly involved in drawing it up.
There is very little of it in this report. The scope is excessive. In an area as crucial as criminal law, the scope is entirely confused. Notions of scopes are used that are not harmonised in the European Union.
Combating piracy, yes, of course, and under criminal law. In that regard, we can support it. Combating piracy in the criminal field. To extend that to issues that have never been outside of the civil field in the Member States, however, makes no sense, especially when concepts are not harmonised and words do not mean the same thing, not even in the field of piracy. It makes no sense to send out the message that the citizen is the criminal even when they are not acting for commercial purposes and their activities are not of any scale.
We must press forward, otherwise we will be guilty of fine words but no actions, Commissioner.
Maria Badia i Cutchet
(ES) Following a long process, the European Parliament will finally approve its position on the adoption of criminal measures intended to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights, measures that I believe to be entirely necessary.
I would like to make a few comments from a cultural perspective.
With a view to promoting the development of knowledge in general and of culture in particular, we must recognise the dual economic and cultural value of creativity as a motor for the development of the arts, of science, of cultural diversity and of research.
Furthermore, in this era of increasing digitalisation and commercial liberalisation - of cultural goods and services as well - it is important to achieve an appropriate and fair balance between the rights of authors and the rights of users or consumers with a view to ensuring effective access to this progress in the field of culture and knowledge, at the same time combating piracy and counterfeiting within a context of greater Community harmonisation.
In this regard, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work, particularly on the compromise reached on excluding violations for personal and non-profit-making reasons, since they do not deserve to be treated in the same way as a deliberate infringement of an intellectual property right committed on a commercial scale, which I do believe should be punishable in the appropriate manner.
Günter Verheugen
Mr President, honourable Members, I am grateful to you for the many valuable and important comments and suggestions made in this debate, and I would like to say something about a few of them.
The Commission's view on the limitation of the directive's scope solely to matters over which the Community has power is that this is essential if cases are to be covered both by Community law and by the laws of the Member States, for, if that were not to happen, the transposition of the directive could well meet with considerable difficulties in this area in which Community and domestic law are closely enmeshed, and the danger might arise of the public not knowing which law actually applied, thus compromising the rule of law.
The Commission takes the view that all types of intellectual property rights merit the protection of the criminal law, and so it is in favour of patents being included, without, however, any intention that this should present any political obstacle to the transposition of the directive. While the Commission can accept the removal of patents from the scope of the directive, it does reject any amendment along the lines of Amendment 1 that might revive the debate about Community power over criminal law measures relating to patents.
With the exception of that of legal personality, the Commission has dispensed with definitions on the grounds of their superfluity or of their potential for legal uncertainty, and therefore prefers to give the Member States a free hand, allowing them to take decisions in accordance with their own laws and in the light of the measures they have already taken.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Tokia Saïfi
(FR) Faced with the increase in piracy and counterfeiting, it is essential that we work effectively to ensure that intellectual property rights are complied with. Such protection must be accompanied by sanctions, because counterfeiting is unacceptable as much from an economic as from a social or cultural point of view.
Thus, by introducing criminal sanctions for all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right committed on a commercial scale, the European Commission proposal is in line with the recommendations voted for in 2005 on the future of the textile and clothing sector after 2005.
We can only pay tribute to the desire shown to fight to enforce intellectual property rights, which safeguard the competitiveness of our economies and the growth of industry and which drive the creative world.
Nevertheless, by proposing definitions of intellectual property rights, and by introducing a restrictive definition of 'commercial scale' and 'intentional infringement', the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs is undermining the principle of subsidiarity in criminal matters and is challenging the acquis communautaire on this matter. The act of strengthening intellectual property rights within the European Union must preserve the national courts' freedom to interpret the two aforementioned elements.
We should therefore support the wording proposed by the European Commission.
Katalin Lévai
(HU) The protection of intellectual property rights is a pre-eminent goal, especially since this sector contributes 5-7% of Europe's GDP.
Counterfeiting, piracy and infringements of intellectual property in general are part of an increasing phenomenon today, one that has taken on an international dimension and represents a serious threat to states and to national economies. Differences between the various penal systems of different countries render the struggle against counterfeiting and piracy more difficult. Beyond the latter's economic and social consequences, counterfeiting and piracy also cause problems with regard to consumer protection, especially where health and safety are concerned.
The growth in the use of the Internet makes it possible to see the immediate and global spread of pirated products. Finally, this phenomenon is increasingly linked to organised crime.
The struggle against these violations is therefore of key importance for the Community. There does indeed seem, therefore, to be grounds for a joint response at European level in the area of criminal law, so that perpetrators should not be able to take advantage of differences among the different national legal systems.
Generally and fundamentally I agree that the fight against the ever increasing and ever more serious acts in violation of intellectual property should make use of the instruments of criminal law.
I also agree that a possible harmonisation of these criminal law instruments, which are to be used as a last resort, is an especially important application of the principle of subsidiarity.
I consider it absolutely essential, however, that harmonisation at Community level of the criminal measures which may be used as a very last resort should be underpinned by thorough impact studies carried out by the Commission.