Revision of Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council (debate)
President
The next item is the Commission Statement on the revision of Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council.
Vladimír Špidla
Member of the Commission. - (CS) Thank you for the opportunity to discuss two closely connected issues, the European Works Council and responsible restructuring, which the Commission considers to be of paramount importance and on which we have made significant progress during the past year.
As far as the European Works Council is concerned, the Commission believes that in order to improve the legal framework of the European Works Council action at Community level is required. European Works Councils are not automatically consulted on instances of restructuring. In addition, there is legal uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the Directive, and it is necessary to ensure a better link between the information and consultation of workers at national and supranational levels and between the relevant Directives.
As you know, on 20 February the Commission launched a second consultation with the social partners regarding the revision of the Directive. In doing so, the Commission suggested several approaches the Directive could take with a view to solving the aforementioned issues. These relate primarily to changing the definitions, strengthening the rules to be applied where is no agreement, employee training, amendments to the agreements in the case of significant changes such as mergers, and implementation of an agreed system for mutual dialogue at national and supranational levels.
This consultation preceded the submission of the Commission's legislative proposal. It gave the social partners an opportunity to discuss the issue. The social partners are undoubtedly in the best position to ensure a positive impact of the revision of the Directive, which is fundamental. The Commission therefore invited them to the negotiations on the European Works Councils. The European Trade Union Confederation stated at the end that it was unable to open negotiations on the European Works Councils with the employer organisations. On behalf of the Commission, I invited the social partners once again to make every effort to improve the framework for these activities. The Commission is currently reviewing the options available for Community action, taking into account the responses and contributions of the social partners.
If the conclusions of this assessment confirm that the best way of solving the existing issues is to revise the Directive, and if the social partners do not respond to the latest invitation to them, in summer I will propose to the Members of the Commission that we adopt a balanced legislative proposal that takes into account the interests of all sides and the views they have expressed.
European Works Councils need a new impetus, they need to develop genuine supranational dialogue and they must be in a position to play a full part when it comes to anticipating and implementing changes. They must be stronger and more effective. This is one of the Commission's priorities for 2008 and in this regard it will strive for close collaboration with Parliament and the Council.
The second topic is restructuring. Restructuring is an inevitable response to the significant economic and social changes in Europe brought about by technological progress, globalisation and the ageing of the population, as well as to the necessary steps enabling us to tackle global warming and the threats to the natural environment. It is companies that are primarily responsible for adapting because they are familiar with the market conditions and technologies and they assume the risks that come with any decision to restructure.
The social, economic and regional impact of restructuring, especially when on a large scale, is such that subcontractors, businesses, employees and their representatives must have their say during the various adaptation phases. For the same reasons adaptations to economic changes also require public measures aimed not only at creating an overall framework to promote economic competitiveness, but also at targeted support to anticipate preparations for restructuring and socially responsible management of restructuring.
Along with the regions in question, businesses are on the front line of restructuring. On the one hand, they must be able to develop quickly and to maintain their competitiveness, whilst on the other hand they must fulfil their social and regional responsibilities by anticipating changes, ensuring that the parties involved are properly informed as early as possible and, in particular, introducing mechanisms to prepare employees and regions for the foreseeable restructuring.
In 2003 the social partners agreed on a general framework, which fulfils these requirements. Based on this framework, Directives were drawn up but they are seldom applied at present. For this reason the Commission will soon submit a report aimed at helping the social partners to take further steps in this area, for example through more effective implementation of the existing guidelines and by extending the scope of the principles and defining ways of dealing with the serious problems that exist.
I would like to emphasise that the Commission is ready to collaborate with Parliament as closely as possible on both priority issues, namely European Works Councils and restructuring, and indeed on the social agenda, taking us beyond the scope of today's debate.
Philip Bushill-Matthews
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I take the floor in various capacities, not just as a coordinator for the largest political group here in Parliament, but also as someone who played a leading role in discussing this dossier during the previous mandate and, above all, as somebody who, in a previous business career, actually introduced works councils into several different businesses: somebody who fundamentally believes in developing information and consultation and who does know something about what works and what does not work - certainly a true champion of the philosophy.
Commissioner, it is surely a supreme irony that such an issue - which is all about social dialogue and two sides of industry getting together - should actually fall at the first fence because the ETUC refuses to sit down and discuss it. I do commend you for having tried, and for still trying, to kick-start the dialogue. But if you say that if there is no dialogue then you will introduce legislation anyway, where is the incentive for both sides to sit down? Where is the penalty on one side for not having been prepared to sit down? I suggest to you - and I say this with a heavy heart - that the solution surely for you, Commissioner, is, when you are 'reviewing your options', for any proposal from you to reflect the fact that one party was prepared to talk and one party was not.
Finally, in a world of increasing globalisation and the need, of course, to restructure companies in order to keep pace, the issues of information and consultation of workers are of critical importance. Yet what do we see? A failure of social dialogue, a failure of the social partnership, and a failure by the very people who should be giving a lead. By refusing to negotiate, the European trade unions have not just failed themselves; they have failed the workers they claim to represent. When the issue finally does come before the Parliament, we as MEPs must make sure that we do not fail.
Harlem Désir
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on European Works Councils was pioneering at the time of its adoption in 1994. Although it only set minimum requirements, it opened the way for employees of Community-scale groups to have the right to be informed and consulted, and was one of the founding elements of European labour law. But today, it lags behind changes in corporate reality, and behind the financial focus of the governance of companies, and it even lags behind other directives on informing and consulting employees that have been adopted since. It is therefore absolutely necessary to revise it, to ensure that in Community-scale groups, receiving information in good time and ensuring a high standard of consultation mean that alternatives can be found where employees are facing decisions about restructuring, site closures and massive job cuts.
Too often over the last few years we have witnessed sudden decisions to make collective redundancies without the possibility of employees really being consulted or their representatives really being able to have their say. Sometimes employees hear on the radio that they are going to be made redundant. Their representatives are only informed a few minutes before the decision is made public, generally at the time the stock exchanges open.
All of this underlines the urgent need for a revision. Furthermore, this revision was provided for in the text of the original directive, and in 2000 the mechanisms of this directive should have been updated. Since then, BusinessEurope - or UNICE as it was at the time - has done everything it can to block this revision, to ensure that the consultation ended in nothing.
That is why, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Bushill-Matthews, as rapporteur for the European Parliament with others in 2001, and having helped to get the request for an ambitious revision of this directive adopted by a large majority in Parliament, as was the case again in 2007, I cannot accept this criticism of the European Trade Union Confederation. It is sincere and it is prepared to negotiate. If this consultation, this negotiation results in nothing, it is up to the Commission to use its right of initiative. The Commission has a monopoly on the right of initiative. We respect that. However, that also gives it a responsibility, that of defending the general interest of Europe, of not allowing it to be held hostage by private interests, of ensuring that employees on our continent can count on the European Commission to defend their right to consultation and information, in good time, so that a genuine European social dialogue can exist in the major Community-scale groups.
Siiri Oviir
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, it is a very positive thing that the Commission has raised awareness of problems concerning the European Works Council, concerning the need to consult and inform workers in a situation where global conditions make a degree of genuine economic restructuring inevitable.
I fully agree with the previous speaker to my left that consultation is very important. But consultation is not the only important thing: constructive and positive information-sharing is also very important. Great emphasis has been placed here on the need for social dialogue.
But today's European Union no longer comprises the 15 old democratic countries; there are 27 of us. And in my country for example, membership of trade unions, which are a natural party on one side of the social dialogue, covers some 5% of the work force. The workforce is not members of trade unions of its own free will. They have their own reasons for this, one of which is undoubtedly that they do not see trade unions as having the clout to protect their interests.
The Commission is now drafting a legal framework and legislation, and should be aware that there are many countries in this kind of situation. I would urge consideration to be given to this point, otherwise we will end up with legislation which does not work for many Member States and cannot be applied.
Ewa Tomaszewska
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) As a member of the Independent Self-Governing Trade Union 'Solidarity', I am also speaking now on behalf of my trade union colleagues. Employers are dragging their heels as regards opening a dialogue. A dialogue is in the interests of trade unionists and workplace environments.
Directive 94/45 has long since lost currency and it is not harmonised with other EU directives, especially Directive 2001/86 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees and Directive 2002/14 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community. There is also no proper definition of the role of trade unions in the setting up and functioning of European works councils. The procedure for their establishment is complicated, and this is why only one third of those that potentially could exist do.
The lack of a precise definition of information and consultation is causing serious difficulties for employees in gaining access to information, primarily during the privatisation or takeover of an establishment. We await a prompt amendment of this legal enactment.
Elisabeth Schroedter
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can only say how glad I am, Commissioner, that you are finally bringing European social policy out of its holding pattern. It is high time this happened. After all, it was clear that negotiations between the unions and the Federation of European Employers were doomed to failure when one side categorically refused any revision. The delaying of this key statutory project by the Commission leaves people with the impression that the Commission is pressing ahead with an exclusively liberal model of the internal market and is doing nothing for the social European model.
It is not enough just to talk about a social Europe; people want to see action on the ground. It has been clear for a long time that the minimum number of 1 000 employees is far too high to be able to represent employees sufficiently in the ever-changing company management situation throughout Europe.
It is also clear that European works councils cannot play their representative role properly if they are informed too late about mergers or the sale or partial sale of undertakings. If, on the one hand, the Commission is convinced that the Danish flexicurity model is so eminently suited to the European employment strategy, then, naturally, it must also ensure that the preconditions are created at European level to support the Danish employment market model, by which I mean effective employee representation.
Then the Commission must also strengthen the rights of the unions within the framework of the revised Works Council Directive. Moreover, the Commission should, as a result of the European Transparency Initiative and the Corporate Governance Codex, ensure that all companies covered by the Works Council Directive also form European works councils. I can speak only about my own country: of the companies with headquarters in Germany that are supposed to have established works councils, only 30% have done so. The evasion of European employment law in practice must bring consequences! This is a real challenge for the Commission.
Francis Wurtz
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, eight years ago the Commission published a report, provided for in the 1994 directive on European Works Councils, in which it recognised that the application of this text in some cases seems - I quote - 'to guarantee only a very low level of transnational consultation and information'. It concluded, and I quote again, that it would, 'at the given moment decide on the possible revision of the Directive'. That was eight years ago. Four years passed and nothing happened. In 2004 the Commission finally launched the first phase of consultation with the social partners. Then another four years were lost, even though the position of all sides was well known and had not changed.
According to employers' organisations, any revision of the directive is pointless, while the trade unions believe that it is vital. I should add that the Commission itself acknowledged that in 2006, only one third of companies had set up such a Council, that 20% of the European Works Councils that did exist were only consulted after the public announcement of management decisions and that 30% were not consulted at all. During this time, there was an explosion in the number of mergers, restructurings and relocations.
Finally today we are coming out of this unjustifiable hibernation. Some proposals are on the table. They are indeed so timid that BusinessEurope, which was against the revision, is delighted that they are, in its words, less prescriptive than inspirational, but at least the debate can begin. The ball is now in Parliament's court, and Parliament does not have to start from scratch. I should recall that in 2001, our PPE fellow Member at the time, Mr Menrad, had a report adopted on the subject. It mentioned, among other requirements for the enforcement of the directive, - I quote - 'adequate sanctions at national and European level for non-compliance with the Directive' - specific and heavy sanctions -, the right to suspend the management's decision at the request of employees' representatives, and a more prominent role for the trade unions.
Our Group will support taking up the proposals in the old PPE report, which gained a majority in 2001, and suggests being more specific about them, in particular on two points. Firstly, the European Works Councils must have access to strategic information about the group so that consultation is not merely a formality, and above all they must have the right to suspend any restructuring plan: not just to push back the deadline, but so they can carry out a counter-assessment, present counter-proposals and participate in real negotiations. We only have a little time. The end of this parliamentary term is approaching. I think the moment of truth has come.
Ria Oomen-Ruijten
(NL) I opt for a rather different approach from the one just taken by my colleague Mr Bushill-Matthews. I do agree with him on a number of points, for example that, as a result of mergers, relocations, restructuring - and all of this across national borders - in a world of increasing globalisation there is more and more need for better information and consultation.
There are currently a good 800 to 820 European works councils representing approximately 145 million workers. The way I see it, in a socially oriented market economy, the worker interests that can also ensure calm and stability on that labour market must be capable of functioning as well as possible.
Mr President, this is why European works councils mean so much to me. Employers and workers have yet to reach agreement, and I would call on workers to continue their attempts to reach such agreement. If they are to return to the negotiating table, however, there must also be an offer from employers on which to base the negotiations.
I fully endorse what we voted for in 2001 within the framework of the report by my colleague Mr Menrad. What was it we said at that time? We said that new legislation had to be introduced to ensure earlier, more timely provision of information and improve consultation, to reduce the limit on the number of workers to a European works council, to bring in more, different and better-functioning sanctions for the eventuality of the legislation not functioning properly, and to improve the circumstances under which European works councils must function.
Mr President, I would call on everyone to go the negotiating table. If this does not happen, it is up to you, Commissioner Špidla, to ensure that this new text is brought in this year. Thank you very much.
President
We have a problem with time, since the Council is due to speak in the next debate and the Council representative will have to leave at a particular time, so I am sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but I shall therefore have to be fairly strict about keeping to the speaking time.
Jan Andersson
- (SV) Mr President, everyone appears to agree that this is an important directive. It is important, not least in times of increased restructuring, that information and consultation work properly. I also share the Commission's view and Commissioner Špidla's view that the directive as it operates today is not good enough. Improvements are needed. We know that major restructuring has taken place without information and consultation having taken place at all.
I also share the view that it was quite right to leave this issue to the social partners. However, as things now stand, the chances must be against producing a directive at all during this parliamentary term. If it is the case that one party in a negotiation uses the negotiation solely to draw out the process and there is no agreement after nine months, then we will get no directive, and then we will get no change. There is a clear risk that that will happen in this case. That is the reason why one party has withdrawn. There is, you see, a clear risk that this is just procrastination.
That is the situation we are in today. That being so, the Commission has a duty to act. We find ourselves in this situation because the negotiations have not succeeded. That being so, the Commission must present a proposal based on the principles Mr Špidla mentioned and the analysis he has made. That being so, we in Parliament promise, as we have already discussed at the coordinators' meeting on the Labour Market Committee, that we will do our best to bring about a directive which can be ready during this parliamentary term. That is what is important at the moment. The Commission must act.
José Albino Silva Peneda
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first I should like to congratulate the Commission on the work it has carried out with the social partners for the revision of the European Works Council Directive. I think, however, that the gulf between European rhetoric and the practical realities of peoples' daily lives has been instrumental in undermining trust between management and workers.
It has become crucial to boost the level of trust between the two sides of industry in order to increase competitiveness and solidarity in the European Union. The levels of trust will increase as social dialogue is stepped up and the more social dialogue is stepped up, the more transparency there will be in decisions made over adjustment or restructuring processes.
By improving information flows between employers and workers we shall be contributing towards a better understanding of the impact of international phenomena as well as helping both sides to agree to seek solutions for restructuring processes. That is why we need to review and modernise the legal mechanisms relating to worker consultation and participation in order to obtain a legal framework which promotes the articulation of social dialogue.
I therefore call upon the European Trade Union Confederation to reconsider their position and sit down at the negotiating table in order to examine this draft directive, along with employers' representatives. If that turns out not to be possible, I shall be sorry, but I must say also that the Commission must assume its responsibilities and it would be a good thing if the process of revision of this directive were completed during the term of office of this Parliament and this Commission.
Harald Ettl
(DE) Mr President, when the Commission tells Europe's social partners that they should 'try again' to get along with each other, it reveals a certain ignorance with regard to the political reality. The industry is not willing to participate and the Commission cannot think why the social partners' mechanism functions so poorly.
In a rapidly changing industrial landscape, in which swift adaptation is required, decision-making bases that depend on reaching unanimity, as is the case for BUSINESSEUROPE, are impractical. After all, the ITUC votes by qualified majority, which makes flexibility and change possible. It was because of this decision-making mechanism of the social partners that, in 1994, politicians like Helmut Kohl and the European Parliament negotiated and pushed through the European Works Council Directive, but even then, provision was made for revision and further adaptation five years down the track. Now it is 2008, and the Commission again wants to initiate a negotiation procedure that will inevitably last beyond this legislative term, even though industry is not willing, or is unable, to negotiate owing to its internal decision-making mechanism.
To recap, for your information, this is the same situation as in 1994. Do we want to improve an instrument as vital as the European works council, as Mr Barroso has explained here in plenary, or do we just want to pretend that we wanted a revision anyway and that in the end it failed because of the circumstances, as has so often been the case with other social issues?
If the latter, then we are not bringing enough energy to the matter to achieve a better solution and the result of all our efforts on social and employee-related issues during this legislative term will look even worse. This must not be!
Alejandro Cercas
(ES) Mr President, thank you, Commissioner. If I have understood you correctly - and I hope that I have understood you correctly and have not confused my wishes with reality - I think that you want to fight this battle, that you are not going to give up your capacity for initiative, that you are going to try to ensure that, before this Parliament finishes its work and this Commission finishes its work, we will finally have a recast Works Council Directive, after an eight-year wait. It is clear that in its day the Directive was very positive, but it has now been largely overtaken by events.
If that proves to be the case, Commissioner, then you have our full support, my full support, as I think that you have the right and the duty to maintain this Commission initiative when one of the parties does not want this Directive to be revised, despite the fact that it is obvious that it needs to be done. It is necessary because the general interest is at stake. Europe's workers are very angry, and with reason.
Commissioner: this morning I received a delegation of workers from a factory in Valladolid - Smurfit Kappa -, which is to be closed next month; they found out in the newspapers and do not know why it is being closed on them, because it is a profitable business. They do not even know who their bosses are, because the business is part of a conglomerate of companies and nobody knows any longer who shareholders are.
Commissioner, the workers are asking for security and Europe must give it to them; it must give them clarity, it must give them the right to be informed and consulted. There cannot be restructuring without social dialogue. Social dialogue is definitely important, and the difficulties definitely need to be overcome.
I know that it is not easy for you. It will not be easy in the College of Commissioners or in the Council. However, Commissioner, if you go along this path you will have our full support; sometimes not all battles are won, but all the important ones need to be fought, and this one needs to be fought.
Karin Jöns
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, it seems that, once again, the Commission is merely paying lip service to the idea of a social Europe. You are responsible for the fact that we still do not have a proposal to reform the works councils, because it is the Commission, and nobody else, that is disregarding the ETUC's statement that it does not want to enter into negotiations with BUSINESSEUROPE unless they are genuine. You are establishing completely new rules of play, as Article 138 of the Treaty does not provide for a third phase in the consultation process. There has never been such a phase. The Commission's tactics are obvious - it is stalling for time.
Is the Commission really siding with the employers again? Basically, nobody wants substantial reform of the works councils, certainly not before the next European elections. May I remind you that Jacques Delors already presented us with a proposal, just two weeks after the employers had refused to negotiate. You could have done the same. The end of June is far too late, not to mention the fact that a 'balanced proposal' means something else.
Proinsias De Rossa
Mr President, I want to thank Mr Špidla for his declaration and the fact that he intends to reform the European Works Council Directive. But we need deadlines and we need action urgently if we are going to be successful in reassuring the people of Europe, the working people of Europe, that Europe is more than a single market.
I have to say that it lacks logic on the part of those in the EPP who blame the ETUC for walking away from negotiations. The ETUC, the trade unions and workers are the ones who would benefit from a serious revision of the European Works Council Directive. It is a lot of nonsense. If they believed there was the possibility of achieving progress in negotiations, they would be in there negotiating. But they are not prepared to go through a charade of nine months' negotiations only for the employers then to walk away.
So I think it is absolutely essential that the Commission bring forward a proposal here without delay.
Pier Antonio Panzeri
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that even you understand, Commissioner, that there is an objective contradiction between saying that the revision of the directive is one of the Commission's priorities, and then failing to go down this path: you need more courage and determination, without being influenced by negotiations that do not deliver results, due not to the ETUC, but people who, pretending to want to talk, are only doing it to waste time!
There are two reasons why you should take more responsibility: the first is method. We cannot stop here and the Commission must defend its decision-making powers. The second is political: you know that current legislation prevents CA from being effective. A revision of the directive is necessary not only to respond to the initial objectives, but to ensure that we are better equipped to take on today's challenges.
For this reason I urge you, Commissioner, to send out a clear signal and show that you have the courage to decide!
Genowefa Grabowska
(PL) Mr President, the European Works Council Directive originates from 1994. Since that time new challenges have appeared in a globalised economy, and new Member States have entered the EU, including mine, Poland. This is why this Directive urgently needs amending. A change is also imposed by the Treaty of Lisbon, which rates social dialogue very highly. This Directive must be amended because this is also demanded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which clearly states in Article 27: 'Workers or their representatives must (...) be guaranteed information and consultation (...).'
The new directive should therefore improve existing mechanisms and introduce essential new ones - mechanisms that will make it easier to defuse the stresses linked to organisational changes, such as the splitting or merging of businesses, group redundancies, and above all the delocalisation of businesses and establishments within the EU.
I am sure that earlier information on such unpopular measures will enable labour market stresses to be defused and will unify the European union movement.
Ilda Figueiredo
(PT) Mr President, these processes of restructuring, mergers and partial or total relocations by multinationals are happening in various EU countries, including my country, Portugal, with no respect for workers' rights and with absolutely no talks with the unions - as has already been mentioned many times - and even without any direct information.
Revision of this directive is long overdue and is essential for improving the protection of workers' rights. The revision needs to incorporate not merely guarantees in respect of information, but also guarantees concerning the participation of workers, workers' representatives and the unions throughout the process as well as guarantees ensuring that workers also have the right to demonstrate and oppose where appropriate, including the right to veto restructurings or relocations that do not respect workers' rights, regional rights and countries' rights. This should have been done long ago and therefore, Commissioner, the challenge is not to delay it any longer.
Vladimír Špidla
Member of the Commission. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, regrettably there is not sufficient time for me to respond in detail. I will, however, touch upon some of the most important issues. The first issue is the position of the social partners. I firmly believe that the social partners are in the best possible position to partake directly in such a change. On the other hand, the Commission has its own enshrined right of initiative, and naturally the proposal for a directive was not submitted lightly; rather, it was based on an evaluation of the current situation and the experience to date. The Commission will therefore not be held back by the conduct of the social partners. In spite of this, I am of the opinion that it is, and was, appropriate to call on the social partners to participate one last time.
It was mentioned during the debate that the proposal seemingly reprimands some of the social partners. I would like to say that we live under the rule of law and as such anyone who asserts their rights cannot be punished for doing so. This means that if one social partner avails of its right to refrain from negotiating, this should not affect the progress of those negotiations. I should point out that in the past it was the employers who interrupted negotiations and did not negotiate. From this point of view, the social partners have their rights and can assert those rights, and obviously this has implications which must be taken into consideration. It is necessary to take the consequences into account but no value judgment can be attributed in this regard for the purposes of the negotiations on this text.
The Commission's objective is to improve the Works Council Directive and to do so within this parliamentary term, and all the deadlines naturally depend on this. Our objective is to make the Directive more effective. Despite the criticism of the term 'balance', it is my belief that a balanced approach is a fundamental condition for such a complex text.
I have observed the enthusiasm of all the political groups here in Parliament, thereby highlighting, even in this limited format, the complexity of the Directive and its ramifications. I therefore look forward to further collaboration with Parliament, the European Council and the social partners on the preparations aimed at improving this Directive.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Mary Lou McDonald
in writing. - In revising the European Works Council Directive, the Commission needs to fully address the protection of workers' rights.
Employees should have full access to information on restructuring processes and the opportunity to intervene decisively throughout such a process. Too often the workforce learns about restructuring plans involving significant cuts in jobs or deteriorating pay and conditions after the decisions have been taken. Workers deserve the right to be involved at all stages in restructuring processes and have the opportunity to influence them in a way which protects jobs and employment conditions.
Luís Queiró
in writing. - (PT) The debate on the European Works Council has brought to the negotiating table various proposals which take the best line: strengthening the idea of participation, cooperation and partnership between the various parties involved. However, there is also a constant insistence in this debate on an uneconomic vision that, with generous intent, often results in a set of proposals which do not promote economic success or safeguard jobs. That is the case with measures that attempt to save jobs even when the undertakings or the industrial sector in question are not viable. No one would think, of course, of banning the use of digital cameras or of placing a social surcharge on the price of those cameras. Nevertheless the widespread use of digital cameras has been the direct cause of thousands of job losses in the industry producing films for 'old-fashioned' cameras.
Broad worker participation must be based on a concept of employability, the protection of the individual and overcoming economic crises, not on a vision in which economic reality is a mere detail. Technological developments and the opening of the market must be seen as an opportunity and business dialogue should be directed towards that end.


Commission communication on Action against Cancer: European Partnership (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Peterle, on behalf of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Commission communication on 'Action against Cancer: European Partnership' -.
Alojz Peterle
rapporteur. - (SL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with this report we are taking a stance on one of the most difficult problems of the European Union. The epidemic spread of cancer is making it the number one disease in the Union and one in three citizens of the Union will encounter it.
I am pleased that, at the beginning of this term of office, it is not necessary to call on the Commission and the Council to take basic steps in order to combat cancer because we have the Council's clear conclusions of June 2008 and an ambitious project, the European Partnership for Action against Cancer, which the Commission presented in September 2009 and which forms the subject of this report. It is important to note that action is already underway. With this report we are supporting one of the most ambitious goals of the Commission, that we reduce the burden of cancer by 15% over a period of ten years.
I am also pleased that the partnership was developed in accordance with our health strategy resolution 'Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-2013'. In that resolution, we upheld the importance of health for all and of health in all policies and placed major emphasis on cancer prevention.
It is an astonishing and worrying fact that, on average, Member States invest a mere 3% of their health budgets in cancer prevention. While it might appear to be a statistical error, this figure means that the health policies of Member States do not take prevention very seriously. What we really need is a paradigm shift towards more prevention in our strategic, technical, organisational and financial approaches. We know this and also we know, and it has been proven, that early detection of cancer can significantly reduce cancer mortality.
The second key word in the report is inequality, and several types of inequality at that. The most significant type is known as 'the Iron Curtain between the East and the West' in terms of major differences between the survival prospects of cancer patients, but we are also aware of significant differences within Member States themselves. Besides the differences in the success rates of treatments, we also have significant differences in the frequency, or scope, of early cancer detection, differences in palliative care and differences in the effectiveness of rehabilitation of cancer patients.
The Citizens of the European Union find it difficult to accept that there are such differences in the level of organisation of the fight against cancer given that some Member States have national programmes, while others do not. Differences exist in the acquisition of cancer data, too. Although even the Treaty of Lisbon only allows the European Union to take support measures, a coordinated and well-organised approach at this level is extremely important if we are to combat cancer effectively. The exchange of good practice would be unimaginable without encouragement from Community institutions.
The third key word in the report is partnership. We will be able to get closer to the Commission's ambitious goal only if we join forces both vertically and horizontally. The prerequisite for that is ensuring that the fight against cancer remains firmly on the political agenda of European and national institutions. A close relationship between doctor and patient is not enough. It is our task to contribute to a strong political partnership, to a political will, which will provide impetus for a faster momentum throughout the European Union.
On this occasion, I would like to place particular emphasis on the issue of rehabilitation of cancer patients. We ought to pay a great deal more attention to people who have beaten cancer. They must not be stigmatised or written-off, but given the opportunity to reintegrate fully into social life and to continue their professional careers. A key element in the fight against cancer in Europe today is proximity to the citizens.
I would just like to thank the shadow rapporteurs who have helped in the drafting of this report for their considerable assistance.
John Dalli
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am very pleased to see that Parliament continues to be enthusiastic and supportive of the Commission's work in the field of cancer prevention and control. I am grateful for the efforts that have been made in preparing this report, in particular by the rapporteur, Mr Peterle.
Strong action at European level can have an important knock-on effect at national, regional and local level. This underlines the potential of the European Partnership for Action against Cancer. The success of the Partnership largely depends on the active participation of its numerous and diverse partners. So far, Member States, health professionals, cancer institutions, NGOs, patient organisations and industry representatives have taken part in the preparation of concrete proposals for action to be carried out by the end of 2013. It remains to be seen, however, whether this new means of cooperation will result in more sustainable action to tackle cancer. I sincerely hope that it will.
The broad aim is to achieve more long-term goals and to make better use of available resources. This depends on the commitment of all partners and of course on adequate financial input. Parliament's support for the necessary resources to be secured in the future Community budget for health will be crucial. The report refers to a range of actions for a comprehensive approach towards cancer prevention and control, many of which have already been taken into account in the development of the Partnership, based on the Commission's communication.
The Partnership has five main pillars: health promotion and prevention, including promotion of the European Code against Cancer; screening and early diagnosis aiming at improved implementation of the Council recommendation on cancer screening; exchange of best practices in cancer care; cooperation and coordination in cancer research; and making available comparative information and data on cancer. A key task of the Partnership will be to help Member States improve the development and implementation of their cancer plans.
By the end of the Partnership, the objective is for all Member States to have integrated cancer plans. Some actions will build on the result of the good work done so far. Other actions will require additional help. The Commission stands ready to provide all the necessary support. In addition, the Commission will continue its close collaboration with the International Agency for Research on Cancer as regards its contribution to the Partnership. I should also mention the overarching objective of seeking to ensure better integration of health concerns into all our policy initiatives, which I shall take forward with relevant colleagues within the Commission. Of course we will continue our strong focus on prevention through our policies on health determinants as part of the fight against cancer. We will try to achieve the maximum possible with the limited resources available and I welcome vey much the strong support of the European Parliament for these efforts.
Gilles Pargneaux
Mr President, Mr Dalli, this draft report, which was presented just now by Mr Peterle, restates very firmly the guidelines from the European Commission communication and is also inspired by the European Parliament resolution of 10 April 2008 on combating cancer in our European Union.
I would like to take this opportunity to endorse the aims of the European partnership envisaged by the European Commission in order to combat cancer more effectively, whether it be in terms of the importance of prevention and early detection, the creation of a new cancer prevention model or, above all, a reduction in the inequalities within the Member States.
I share the concerns and anxieties expressed in the European Commission communication and in the draft report. I should like to commend the work done by the rapporteur, Mr Peterle, in drafting this report, and the compromise proposals tabled for the purposes of including the various amendments.
As shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I wished, among other things, to highlight the following issues: firstly, the increase in annual cancer-related deaths caused by exposure to carcinogens in the workplace, but also the importance of better access to information on medication for cancer patients; the implementation of the REACH Regulation and the regular updating of the list of substances of very high concern, which covers carcinogens; the support for initiatives seeking to prevent imports of goods containing cancer-producing chemicals and to intensify checks to detect such chemicals within the European Union; and, lastly, the drafting of guidelines for a common definition of disability covering persons suffering from chronic diseases or from cancer.
Those are the issues that we wished to raise, while at the same time lending our support to this draft report.
Antonyia Parvanova
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all let me give my congratulations to Mr Peterle for his great work on this report, making sure that the fight against cancer remains a top priority on our public health agenda. There is no need to repeat the figures; we all know what the public-health, social and economic costs for the Union will be if we do not address this issue consistently and make the appropriate resources available, especially in order to overcome the disparities between the Member States.
The burden of cancer is a threat for the sustainability of our public health systems, and the EU should definitely take the lead in responding to it adequately. Whether we speak about prevention, diagnosis, treatment, research or information, of course we speak about partnership, but we will manage to combat effectively the burden of cancer in Europe only if we make sure that all stakeholders - and particularly patients' groups - are involved in the long run, if we ensure an efficient exchange of good practices between Member States and if we guarantee that the functioning of such a partnership will be closely monitored and supported.
I hope that the Commission will play its role and make sure the partnership delivers its objectives. I would like to stress one particular point: the call on the Commission to use the existing ECDC and to add non-communicable diseases to its mandate. I believe this could definitely strengthen the expertise and recommendations.
Finally, the issue of timely and equal access to prevention, diagnosis and care should be closely looked at if we want to ensure that the fight against cancer also contributes to the objective that we should all keep in mind the reduction of health inequalities in Europe.
Commissioner, I look forward to seeing you tomorrow at Patients' Rights Day, because this is extremely important for all patients' groups, and your commitment matters to all of us.
Kartika Tamara Liotard
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Thank you, Mr President, Commissioner and rapporteur. Cancer is a horrific disease, a disease about which, at its worst, nothing can be done. Fortunately, however, we can do something. We are living longer and, unfortunately, the longer we live, the greater the risk that we will develop cancer. The older the population, the more cases of cancer can be expected. That is why all Member States have to do their utmost to pursue an effective and socially-focused health policy. Targeted, preventive action through preventive screening programmes and affordable anti-cancer drugs - that should be the focus of our attention.
Another point about which we can do something is the large number of carcinogenic substances in the environment. We have toxins everywhere in our homes: just think of asbestos, kitchen utensils and even toxins in our food. The EU needs to protect its citizens from such toxins, whether or not that is to the detriment of industrial interests. The interests of citizens and the health of citizens is paramount!
Anna Rosbach
on behalf of the EFD Group. - (DA) Mr President, cancer is a widespread disease that, thanks to some intensive research, we are starting to know a great deal about. We now know that a person can be genetically disposed to developing cancer and that at least one enzyme is involved in triggering the disease. Stress, lifestyle, chemicals and viruses can also cause cancer. This year, almost two million European citizens are expected to die of this disease. Thus, cancer does not stop at national borders. I am therefore pleased that the Commission has taken the initiative to draw up an ambitious plan for action against cancer at European level. I have two questions. Where does the Commission stand with regard to research? Can the financial resources that have been allocated ensure effective research and what level of priority is it being given? The Commission points out that the screening volume is low in relation to the Council's recommendation. Therefore my second question is how will the ambitious target be converted into real patients in our countries? Can we realistically double the effectiveness of our screening throughout Europe?
Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu
(RO) I wish to begin by expressing my thanks to Mr Peterle for the effort he has put into this report.
According to the medical data, cancer is the second biggest cause of mortality in Europe, affecting men and women equally. The European Commission's involvement in the partnership created to promote action against cancer offers a new chance of life to those affected by this terrible disease and to their families. It is vital for us to continue to combine all our efforts to establish permanent cooperation in terms of both increasing specialist knowledge and devising solutions to the new challenges arising in such cases.
The European partnership for action against cancer must therefore ensure the proper use of the resources, skills, not to mention funds which are available to all Member States. It must ensure that the results from the progress made in the battle against cancer in the European Union's various countries are made available to the whole of Europe.
Edite Estrela
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, the fight against cancer must be a priority. Almost 30% of cancers can be avoided and their consequences alleviated through early detection and treatment. Some types of cancer affect women and men differently. Every year in the European Union there are more than 275 000 women with breast cancer and it has been shown to be increasing, even among younger women. Every year, 50 000 European women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and 25 000 die from this disease.
Nevertheless, cervical cancer can be practically eliminated by making vaccination and scanning programmes widely available. That is why it is urgent that all Member States extend their vaccination and scanning programmes to all women who are in the right age group to benefit from them. It is also necessary that they promote health-education campaigns, make the public aware of the importance of early diagnosis and inform people about the available programmes and services. I therefore welcome this initiative by the Commission.
Elena Oana Antonescu
(RO) I too would like to thank the rapporteur for the fine job he has done. According to the Commission Communication to Parliament, the number of cancer screening tests carried out in the European Union is less than half the minimum annual number of investigations which could have been carried out. I think that we must ensure that cancer screening is accessible to as many people as possible so that achieving the target number becomes feasible.
Research in this field has made progress in terms of reducing the costs for tests and of increasing the accuracy of cancer screening through the use of biomarkers. A recent invention, awarded a prize at the International Exhibition of Inventions of Geneva, makes it possible to screen for certain types of cancer in less than six minutes at a cost of less than one euro. It is a sensor invented by Romanian researcher Raluca-Ioana van Stade, which can screen for types of cancer before the symptoms appear, providing the most accurate method available on the market, thereby facilitating a higher rate of treatment success.
I hope that the Commission, through the Joint Research Centre, shows an interest in this invention and that it will be eligible to be recommended for introduction in diagnostic programmes.
Petru Constantin Luhan
(RO) The partnership established by the European Commission last year is a vitally important instrument, given that cancer is the most common cause of death after circulatory disease. Unfortunately, there are large discrepancies between Member States in terms of quality of medical care and access to treatment. Some recent statistics highlighted that men living in the countries of south-eastern Europe are two times more likely to die of cancer than men in the Nordic countries, for instance.
I think that intervention is needed at European level for the benefit of Europe's citizens in order to prevent great differences in terms of diagnostics and treatment in EU Member States. The European Commission must allocate funds for research in this area. Successes like the invention by the Romanian Raluca-Ioana van Stade, which is a sensor that can determine the presence of cancer in the human body at molecular level, directly from a person's blood, using a simple procedure lasting less than six minutes, must be supported and capitalised on to the full.
Olga Sehnalová
- (CS) As many previous speakers have already said, an effective fight against cancer must include the full spectrum of measures, from prevention to screening, including diagnostics, special treatments and palliative care. I would like, however, to mention one other very important aspect of this disease: the families of patients who are losing the fight against cancer. The family should be a place of relief, support and encouragement for its members. However, it is enormously difficult to be faced with a progressive disease, and families must not be left alone in this predicament. Therefore, when we talk about the struggle against cancer, we must also think about the conditions for a dignified end. This should take the form both of systematic care and advice for families facing arduous long-term care in the home, as well as a system of accessible specialised facilities providing expert and above all humane care for patients in the final stages of this disease.
Pat the Cope Gallagher
Mr President, it is estimated that 3.2 million European citizens are diagnosed with cancer each year, and, as the European population ages, current trends would indicate that the number of citizens diagnosed each year is likely to double - unfortunately - over the next 20 years.
We must, of course, address the plague of cancer. Cancer is caused by many factors. I want to outline what I believe: that smoking, being overweight, low fruit and vegetable intake, physical inactivity and excessive alcohol consumption are contributory factors. It is essential that health promotion strategies at European level and, indeed, at national level are strengthened and properly resourced. Early detection is vital, and we have seen when we have early detection that it is so important that many people are still alive who would not have been if not for early detection.
Through cancer research, the European Union can play a leading role: importantly, over EUR 750 million has been devoted to cancer research under the seventh Framework Programme, and I would hope that more funding could be made available over the coming years. In conclusion I want to pay tribute to all of those, particularly to those in my own country, who provide such exceptional care to cancer patients.
Angelika Werthmann
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, health is a precious thing that it is important to preserve. Cancer is a global problem that continues to persist, despite medical advances. According to estimates by the World Health Organisation, in 2004 13% of all deaths were caused by cancer. In the EU, around 3.2 million people develop cancer each year. The main types of cancer are lung, bowel and breast cancer. Screening, particularly as we get older, also plays an important part in maintaining health. The principle that prevention is better than cure has proven to be true here. The most cost-effective strategy with the best prospects of success is screening.
Seán Kelly
(GA) Mr President, without a doubt cancer is a terrible disease, and as they say in my own country, it is killing the country, as both young and old people are dying from the disease every day. The statistic which shows that one in every three people may get cancer would terrify anyone. At the same time, professors, nurses and doctors who deal with this disease have made great progress. In the future, however, it will be important to spend more money, particularly on research.
The European Union has an important role in relation to this: first of all, in providing money for research, and secondly in organising this research, and in particular, in encouraging cooperation between institutes who are carrying out this research. If we do that, we will have made better progress in the future, and fewer people will contract cancer and will die as a result of it.
Krisztina Morvai
(HU) Please forgive me for the unusually personal note, but while we have been discussing the programme against cancer and many people emphasised what a terrible illness this really is and how many people die of it, I could not help remembering that four years ago I too was suffering from this illness, and at this very time of year I think I managed to set some sort of record, according to the oncology department. From head to foot I had 14 tubes dangling out from me, and spent weeks in intensive care; however, I am now here, I am a Member of the European Parliament, I am raising my three children and I am able to live a full life. I would like to use my story to encourage women, in particular, as well as all European citizens to go for screenings. Based on my experience, I would like to send a message to all those who are suffering from the illness, to their friends and families and their physicians to never to give up hope. I wish them all the best, and my thoughts are with them.
John Dalli
Member of the Commission - (MT) Mr President, I am very satisfied with the enthusiasm exhibited in Parliament today towards coming together in this concerted struggle against cancer. I would like to thank Mr Peterle for the report he has drawn up, and I would also like to thank Mrs Morvai, who has just delivered her speech, for having shared with us the aspect of hope, and the positive aspects; all is not lost when one contracts this disease. Many points have been raised; many of the thoughts you expressed in Parliament were given consideration in the Commission's communication, and I assure you that the suggestions you are putting forward today, and those you mentioned in the report, will be given very careful consideration in our programme of activities.
With regard to the environmental aspect, I can state that the environment is a truly important factor - indeed a determining one - in the struggle against cancer. However, one must also state that the high standards we currently enjoy in Europe are of great help in lowering the incidence of this disease. Therefore, we should increase our efforts to ensure that these high environmental standards are maintained. We must also keep stressing the importance of research. Now that the pharmaceutical industry is part of my portfolio and of my responsibilities as Commissioner, there is a much greater opportunity for working with the industry and possibly coordinating research in a better way, thus ensuring its efficacy.
One of the pillars which I would like to build my work upon in the coming five years is the widest possible accessibility to medicines available on the market; one of the biggest problems we have in Europe - it was mentioned here today as well - is the inequality in the health sector. This is something we must especially ensure: accessibility to medicines that come onto the market. I would like to thank you once again. By way of conclusion, may I reiterate that we must all work as hard as possible to convince people of the importance of prevention, for example, of the importance of screening for breast cancer which was repeatedly mentioned today. It is important that, since this facility exists in many, if not all, parts of Europe, we must strongly encourage all women to undergo this procedure.
Alojz Peterle
rapporteur. - (SL) I must say that I really enjoyed the debate this evening and I offer you my sincere thanks for your support and thoughtful words. I am pleased that we have been speaking the same language to such a great extent and that we share the same objectives. We share an awareness of the wider context and of the causes of this disease, just as we share an awareness of the need for a united fight against cancer in partnership with each other.
Due to the time constraint, I had no time earlier on to say a few words about a healthy lifestyle. I firmly believe that we politicians could play a major role here in leading by example and we need to promote a healthy lifestyle. As I myself have been diagnosed with a condition similar to that of Mrs Morvai, I would like to congratulate her even more warmly on her victory. I believe that in this way we are showing that cancer does not necessarily have to be synonymous with a death sentence.
I would like to thank Commissioner Dalli, in particular, for his attention and for announcing more rapid action, because cancer has its own dynamic and so we, too, need to act dynamically. I offer my services to the Commissioner for close cooperation in the future, too. I think that our cooperation so far has been exemplary and that together we can achieve a lot more.
I would also like to say that we will shortly be re-establishing the members' group for the fight against cancer which was known under the acronym MAC (Members Against Cancer) during the previous term. I think that this time, perhaps with an even stronger group, we will be placing particular emphasis on prevention and on the dynamism of our fight. Thank you and I wish you all a good night.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Cristian Silviu Buşoi
in writing. - I cannot but welcome the Commission proposal for a partnership on the fight against cancer, which is a serious public health concern in the EU. I fully support the approach of the rapporteur who places a special emphasis on the preventive action. In this perspective I strongly believe that comprehensive national cancer plans are more than welcome. I would also favour the cooperation on this topic in the field of research. We need to clearly identify the main causes generating this disease so that we can also identify the main elements on which we need to focus within our prevention efforts. This is absolutely necessary for an effective preventive action. I also believe that it would be reasonable to build our future action upon existing initiatives such as the European Code against Cancer or the Council Recommendations on screening for breast, cervical and colon cancer, which are already a good basis for action. Of course, prevention can't be done without a proper level of financial resources. I therefore call on the Member states to allocate the necessary funds to the prevention plans so that the 15% target for the reduction of the number of new cases remains realistic.
Nessa Childers
in writing. - I warmly welcome this initiative and the possibilities it affords to the many millions of Europeans predicted to be affected by cancer in the years to come. One of the most significant targets contained in the report is to dramatically reduce the burden of cancer by achieving 100% coverage in terms of screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer by 2015, by providing 125 million examinations to EU citizens per year. The onus must also pass to us as MEPs to use our access to the media and to our constituents to implore Europeans to avail themselves of these crucial checks. There continues to be an alarming lack of knowledge both of the risks of cancer and of the opportunity for cancer screenings, and only through continuous education of these facts will this initiative enjoy the success that it and European citizens badly need.
Elisabetta Gardini
The effort is global. However, despite the continued improvement in knowledge and the progress in terms of treatment, the fight against cancer is still, today, an ongoing challenge. It is a challenge to which we must continue to rise by putting our best resources forward, because the effects of this disease are devastating in terms of mortality but so too are the psychological, social and economic aspects associated with it.
It is clear that the approach must be global not only in terms of research and treatment, but also in terms of prevention. We need to achieve a critical mass, creating the conditions to ensure that the result of one person becomes the legacy of us all. That is why it is important to create a European partnership for action against cancer that will facilitate the exchange of information and coordination among the individual Member States. The work carried out within networks should concern not only research and health, but also education, diet, communication and the environment. It should seek the participation and contribution of civil society, including in an effort to introduce people to healthy habits and healthy lifestyles. The Commission's ambitious target of reducing the burden of neoplastic diseases by 15% between now and 2020 can be considered realistic only if this methodology is applied and bolstered by adequate funding.
Anneli Jäätteenmäki
in writing. - (FI) The report on the Commission's communication entitled 'Action Against Cancer: European Partnership' is very important and relevant to the times. At present cancer is the second biggest cause of death and illness in Europe. More cooperation and resources for the study of cancer and preventive treatment are very important. Member States need to take carcinogenic chemicals off the market and replace them with harmless ones. Preventive screening is necessary and effective, and adequate sums of money must be set aside for this. Information campaigns should also be focused on educational institutions. The fight against cancer needs clear goals, which the Commission and the Member States need to work towards together. The Commission and the Member States need to have the courage to commit to investment in the future, research into cancer and its prevention, because both money and human life will be saved in the long term.
Siiri Oviir
in writing. - (ET) Cancer is a very costly disease for society, a disease which is becoming considerably more expensive to diagnose and treat, and which often causes long-term disability, invalidity and premature death. Despite the many achievements of medicine, the spread of cancer in the world today is nevertheless very much on an epidemic scale. Every third European will be diagnosed with cancer in his or her lifetime, and every fourth European will die as a result of this disease. The Member States, and in particular their national strategy for preventing cancer, have an important role in stopping the spread of the disease. Since, in the fight against cancer, it will only be possible to achieve the results laid out in the strategy through long-term and consistent action, I call on all Member States in the present economic crisis not to cut financial resources for the fight against cancer and for the needs of both primary and secondary prevention. Parsimony today may lead to all kinds of expenses tomorrow. Preventative methods play a large role in the fight against cancer, as a third of cancer cases can be avoided with the help of preventative action. Another important matter concerning preventative action, in my opinion, is the raising of awareness in the area of gender-specific forms of cancer; we need to raise standards of prevention as well as to advance screening studies of these diseases. To finish my speech, I would like to welcome the Commission's proposals to relaunch the European partnership initiative for adopting anti-cancer measures in the period 2009-2013, in order to support the anti-cancer action taken by the Member States. Only through collective effort can we achieve success in fighting an enemy like cancer.


4. Lebanon (vote)
- Before the vote
Jana Hybášková
Mr President, I ask for linguistic correction because the resolution was negotiated in the French language. In French where it reads 'notamment du Hezbollah' in the first sentence of paragraph 5, it should read in English 'especially Hizbollah' and in Czech 'a zejména Hizballáhu'. I cannot be responsible for other language versions.
- After the vote on paragraph 1:
Pasqualina Napoletano
on behalf of the PSE Group - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the amendment replaces paragraph 1 of the original text, as follows:
'Welcomes the Doha Agreement reached by the parties on the election of General Suleiman as President of the Republic in the coming days, the creation of a new national unity government and the adoption of the election law; calls on the parties to fully implement this agreement; stresses the importance of the positive reaction given by the international community; congratulates the Lebanese parties on the agreement and Qatar and the Arab League on their successful mediation.'
(The oral amendment was adopted)