The Misleading Directory Companies report (short presentation)
President
- The next item is a brief presentation of the report by Mr Busuttil, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the Misleading Directory Companies report (petitions 0045/2006, 1476/2006, 0079/2003, 0819/2003, 1010/2005, 0052/2007, 0306/2007, 0444/2007, 0562/2007 and others).
Simon Busuttil
rapporteur. - (MT) This report was drawn up because the European Parliament received over 400 petitions from its citizens, namely from small enterprises who have fallen prey to advertising scams by being inserted in a commercial directory without wanting to. The victims would receive a form such as this one and be asked to fill it in, whilst being tricked into thinking they were signing up for a free mention in the directory. However, they would subsequently receive a letter and realise that they had unknowingly entered into a contract that binds them to a payment of around 1 000 euros for three years. This is what is happening to victims of these directories that we consider to be fraudulent. I would like to add that the company that owns the European City Guide directory is the most commonly mentioned in these petitions. It is worth noting that this company has also put considerable pressure on the Members of this Parliament in an attempt to put a stop to or undermine the reports that we are presenting today. Fortunately however, it did not succeed, despite the fact that it did not always provide us with the correct information. What were the results of this report? We discovered that there exists a very real problem, that it is widespread, and that it can be traced all over the European Union. What has also emerged is that this affects numerous small businesses as well as professionals and other individuals that do not necessarily own a company. We found that this problem affects companies transnationally, and that it has not only a strong financial impact, but also a serious psychological one on the victims of this sham, who are conned into signing this form and then later hounded by the company to follow up payment. What are we proposing in this report? Firstly, we draw up a list of measures in order to increase the level of awareness and therefore reduce the number of victims who fall into the trap in the first place. Secondly, we need to ensure that existing European legislation is enforced as it should be. It should be noted here that every time this issue was brought up with the Commission, it replied by saying that it was up to the discretion of the Member States to implement European Union legislation on a national level. We are aware of this discretion, but I would like to remind the Commission that it is the duty of the European Commission to ensure that European Union laws be implemented effectively in the Member States. We are also proposing that European laws be amended in order to better address this particular problem. We found, for example, that the Austrian model is an exemplary one because Austria changed its national legislation so as to have it apply specifically to this issue of fraudulent commercial directories. My final point concerns the need to assist the victims by advising them not to make any payments to these commercial directory companies until they have sought out proper advice. Before concluding I would sincerely like to thank the Petitions Committee for lending this report its unanimous support and I would also like to thank all my staff. Moreover, heartfelt thanks go out the committee's secretary - Mr David Lowe. If the report is adopted it will send out two clear messages - first of all to the victims, in showing them that we understand their situation and are fully behind them, and, secondly, to these fraudulent commercial directory companies, where we would be warning them 'put an end to your swindling practices at once, because Parliament is trailing you closely'.
Vladimír Špidla
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, the Commission commends the efforts made by the European Parliament in drafting this report, and will actively examine its conclusions.
I should like to point out, as the report itself clearly indicates, that, insofar as the problem in question concerns business-to-business relationships, a large part of the Community legislation on consumer protection, including Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices and Regulation (EC) 2006/2004 on cooperation in the field of consumer protection, does not apply.
A certain form of protection is, however, provided by Directive 2006/114/EC on comparative and misleading advertising. In accordance with these directives, it is incumbent on the public authorities responsible for monitoring the application of legislation and/or on the competent courts of the Member State from which these businesses carry out their activities to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether a commercial communication is misleading and to take the appropriate coercive action.
I should also like to stress that several authorities and competent courts in Spain and in Belgium, for example, have already taken coercive measures against practices and obtained a number of positive results.
The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive does not cover business-to-business commercial practices since there is no argument in favour of fully harmonising national laws relating to unfair competition. A fully harmonised directive on unfair business-to-consumer practices was already a very ambitious proposal that would have failed had its scope been extended to unfair business-to-business competitive practices.
The consultation that resulted in the proposal and the work within the Council have shown that there was hardly any support for extending the scope of the directive to unfair business-to-business commercial practices. While certain Member States were in favour of extending the scope of the directive and to unfair competition, others voiced their support for consumer protection but opposed the introduction, at EU level, of an additional harmonised system of rules on unfair competition.
Although the Commission cannot take action against the businesses involved in such practices, it has endeavoured to make businesses aware of this problem by presenting it to various European professional organisations. The subject has specifically been raised within the Business Support Network and, at the same time, the Small Business Act calls on the Member States to protect their small and medium-sized enterprises from unfair practices. The Commission will continue to examine other methods of raising businesses' awareness, if it deems this appropriate.
Furthermore, the Commission has written to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned - Spain, Austria and Germany - to draw their attention to the fact that the situation is ongoing and to ask them for additional information. The responses received make it quite clear that the national authorities are aware of the problem and have legislation with which to tackle it; where necessary, they have already used the measures provided for.
President
- The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 16 December 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Richard Corbett
in writing. - Having campaigned against these scamming organisations for years, I am delighted to support this report.
This is a problem that crosses borders. Each year, thousands of businesses, charities and voluntary groups across Europe are tricked into signing what looks like a perfectly innocent entry for a directory. In reality they are tricked into a complex contract and then face aggressive demands for money, with no offer to cancel the contract.
It is vital to close the legal loopholes that allow these fraudulent businesses to operate.
In particular, I urge the Commission to follow the key recommendation of this report and to put before Parliament an extension of the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to specifically prohibit advertising entries in such directories unless prospective clients are clearly informed in the advert that they are being offered a contract against payment.
These recommendations are legally straightforward - Austria has already 'gold plated' its transposition of the UCPD to include this very provision - but they would greatly improve the protection of businesses and other organisations that fall victim to these scams and send a clear signal to directory scams that their days are numbered.


Equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Astrid Lulling, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Directive 86/631/EEC (17279/3/2009 - C7-0075/2010 -.
Astrid Lulling
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when circumstances dictate the need for exceptionally responsive policies, the subject on which I am going to speak to you shows that perseverance is also a virtue.
Since the early 1980s, I have been continually calling for a reform of the 1986 directive, because it did not achieve its main objective, which was to improve the status of assisting spouses in family businesses in the areas of social security and maternity protection.
By adopting my 1997 report, Parliament had already called for the amendment of that directive, the wording of which was too timid, even though the Council of Ministers had not even endorsed the more ambitious European Commission proposal of 1984. In spite of numerous reminders, the Commission needed a great deal of persuading up until October 2008, when it finally proposed repealing the watered-down 1986 directive in order to replace it with a text with a more solid legal basis.
Parliament adopted its amendments at first reading on 4 May 2009. In order to improve the Commission proposal, we felt, in particular, that it should be mandatory for spouses and recognised partners to become members of the social protection scheme of self-employed workers so as to ensure, among other things, that they are personally entitled to an old age pension.
Indeed, if membership is voluntary, too many spouses tend to turn down the opportunity to create rights for themselves and find themselves - for example, after a divorce - without social protection, even if they have worked for decades in the family business and contributed to its prosperity.
Unfortunately, this principle of mandatory membership did not obtain a majority in the Council of Ministers. What is more, the latter took nine months to come up with a common position. It was finally issued by the Spanish Presidency, which has demonstrated exceptional tact and perseverance. I should like to thank the Presidency and Mrs Reding's staff, with whom I have been negotiating since January. Thanks to their understanding and their diligence, we were able to reach an agreement with the Council that will enable the new directive to enter into force after our vote tomorrow.
Of course, we had to make concessions, but we have the satisfaction of having served the interests of self-employed workers well. Accounting as they do for 16% of the labour force, with a third of this percentage being women, they represent a considerable force in Europe. Their spouses - women mainly - who actually help to run the family business, whether in the agricultural, craft trade, commercial or professional sector, are still too often, in some Member States, invisible workers who, if affiliated, would increase the activity rate and would also help to achieve the objectives of the 2020 strategy more quickly.
Since I have recalled the long and difficult birth of this directive, I must mention the progress made as regards maternity protection for self-employed women and the spouses of self-employed workers. At their request, the new directive enables them to take 14 weeks' leave. As the German saying goes, Politik ist die Kunst des Erreichbaren, or politics is the art of the possible. I know that there are some Members in this House - fortunately they are in the minority - who believe that self-employed workers and their spouses should sort out their social security for themselves. I am very familiar with this argument, having heard it 20, 30 years ago in my own country, when it was made compulsory for farmers' spouses to join the agricultural pension fund.
Today, these people are happy. I would also like to stress that the progress that I described upholds the principle of subsidiarity because it leaves the Member States free to decide how they arrange the social protection of spouses, in accordance with their national law, and whether they implement it on a mandatory or a voluntary basis.
As you can see, Madam President, I do not have the time to tell you here about everything else that I like in the directive, but you can see that we are still capable of producing European directives that serve the interests of Europeans, in the social sphere, and which even have the effect of reducing distortions of competition within the single market. I am grateful to everyone, including my colleagues from the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, who contributed to the directive.
(Applause)
President
Mrs Lulling, I did not want to interrupt you, but you are entitled to four minutes now and two minutes at the end. You therefore have one minute left for the end.
Günther Oettinger
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I am pleased to be here for Parliament's debate on the draft recommendation put forward by Ms Lulling on the Commission's proposal concerning application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women in self-employed activities.
Our proposal sends a strong signal that we cannot stand by while women fall into poverty through a lack of social protection. It also takes a big step forward in terms of promoting female entrepreneurship. I hardly need to stress the importance of both those points in the current situation.
I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of the rapporteur, Ms Lulling, to reach an agreement with the Spanish Presidency on this technically complex and politically sensitive matter. The Commission fully supports the text which the committee approved by an overwhelming majority on 3 May, and I urge Parliament to do so too. Adopting the text as it stands would send a clear message to the Council and pave the way for the final adoption of the proposal. More importantly, this would make a real difference on the ground at a time when it is very much needed.
Anna Záborská
I would like to begin by thanking our fellow member, Astrid Lulling, for the long and systematic effort she has put into the amendment of this directive. In connection with the submitted opinion, I would like to emphasise three points which I consider to be important.
In the European Union today, there is insufficient protection for self-employed women who are mothers, and there are insufficient improvements in the situation of spouses of self-employed people. I trust that the adopted text will apply to all sectors and not just to agriculture.
The creation of favourable conditions for the development of family firms involves supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. It involves creating a space for private initiative and new jobs. One component of such an environment is social protection for those deciding to assist in the business activities of their spouses. Their work is of just as much benefit to the economy as the work of an employee. They therefore have the same right to social protection as the state accords to employees.
However, in looking for suitable mechanisms for this protection, we must fully respect the principle of subsidiarity. The choice of instruments must remain in the hands of the Member States.
Finally, children need their mother more than anything else in the first months of life, regardless of whether they were born in France, Germany or Slovakia. I trust that the newly-drafted directive on maternity leave will soon extend maternity benefits to 18 weeks for all working mothers without exception.
Rovana Plumb
Thank you, Madam President. I wish to express my thanks to the Commissioner, the representatives of the Council and, last but not least, to Mrs Lulling, with whom I have enjoyed excellent cooperation, and also to all my colleagues in the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality.
In actual fact, we are at an important juncture in the European Union, which is going through a crisis, but this directive supports female entrepreneurship. The European Union must develop and support entrepreneurship among women in order to help create jobs and guarantee equal opportunities on the labour market, especially at the current time.
I wish to say that we have supported within this proposal for a directive the position that self-employed women, spouses and life partners of self-employed workers who decide to have children should enjoy social protection and paid leave. We support the need to ensure protection for workers' spouses in order to remove the obstacles preventing entrepreneurship among women. We also support the granting of clear powers to national bodies for promoting equal opportunities and treatment between men and women.
Breaks in their involvement in the labour market during maternity leave should not be a handicap to mothers. In fact, Member States must find suitable means of support to help them maintain their professional role in society, with a view to balancing their family and working life. At the same time, I welcome the importance of finding ways in which these mothers can become reintegrated into the business environment, thereby actively contributing to supporting their own family.
The enforcement and protection of economic, social and cultural rights and the improvement of both professional and family life are fundamental objectives which must be promoted by this new directive.
Antonyia Parvanova
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to thank Mrs Lulling for the endless hours she has spent achieving a good compromise and agreement with the Council. Regardless of the variety of opinions on the individual key issues in the directive and bearing in mind that it is still being considered at second reading, I wish to confidently state that the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe concurs with the compromise decision reached so that this legislation can be introduced as quickly as possible by Member States.
Updating this legislation enables us to guarantee equal treatment for men and women, with particular attention focused on the issue of social protection, especially protection for self-employed women. This new legislative framework will allow us to ensure the same degree of protection in both cases when women are self-employed and when they are only spouses and partners of self-employed workers.
As a result of this amendment to the directive, Member States will provide standard social security entitlements, including 14 weeks' paid maternity leave for self-employed women and for the spouses or life partners of self-employed workers.
The amendment to the directive is a sufficiently current and positive decision which will give self-employed women and the spouses or life partners of self-employed workers the opportunity to enjoy the same social security entitlements as employees do. The spouses and partners are not employees. However, it must be taken into consideration that they usually assist the self-employed worker - a practice which is widespread in my country in the agricultural sector, in small firms and in the liberal professions.
This update to the legislation will allow Member States to decide and give self-employed women and spouses assisting self-employed workers the opportunity to join a social security scheme on a voluntary or mandatory basis. This should guarantee equally well social protection and rights for women when they are employed in a family agricultural business. Along with dealing with market risks, production and the financial crisis, they must also provide for the best scheme for their own social and health insurance.
This is the only way to improve in real terms the situation of both self-employed women and their spouses and of female life partners, mainly with regard to their social and economic protection, independent of that of their spouse and partner.
I believe that this comprehensive legislative text marks a small step which is, all the same, exceptionally important in terms of equal treatment for men and women. This is the path towards achieving the strategic aim of equality of rights for men and women and towards the programme which we recently updated - Beijing +15 Platform for Action.
By making this small, but vital step, I believe that we will continue progressing towards better reproductive health programmes, a general market for European health care and insurance services and towards maternity protection and a good quality of life, regardless of geographical, social, cultural and ethnic differences. Moving in this direction provides us with the freedom to prioritise and with a helpful way of combining a career with family life, thereby establishing the sound, harmonious basis for sharing equality and responsibility between the sexes.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
Madam President, I too should, naturally, like to congratulate Mrs Lulling, as well as all those members of the Council and the Commission who have worked on this directive.
Nonetheless, I should like to make the same point as Mrs Lulling. I believe that it is a matter of concern that some Member States place so many obstacles in the way of the standardisation of non-discrimination and equal treatment at European level. This is not the only occasion when we have witnessed this: we are also witnessing it in the case of the directive on multiple discrimination and equality of treatment in other domains, and I believe it is something which should give us pause for thought.
We cannot appeal to subsidiarity when we have such an important and basic issue, that of the clear, fundamental rights of everyone living in the European Union. I believe that this can never be an excuse for allowing any person to suffer from discrimination inside the European Union.
I believe that the directive that is about to be adopted - and I hope it will be - will now resolve part of this problem. I think that that is a good thing, that it is important. It guarantees greater equality of treatment for those individuals who are currently seeking opportunities for self-employment and, logically, for their dependents too: the wives or husbands of these self-employed persons.
Nonetheless, there is another important issue, and this is something I think we need to stress. Some have called increasing maternity leave to 14 weeks progress, and indeed it is. However, let us not forget that there is another directive on the table which also highlights the need to extend this leave - and I insist that it is leave and not absence due to sickness - on the grounds of equality.
This also means necessarily that there cannot be discrimination, not just between Member States, but also between the types of activity that those who wish to apply for this leave wish to carry out. Consequently, this need to ensure equal rights, as much between Member States as in relation to the type of activity and the type of social security coverage we have today, is - and I insist on this - a priority which goes beyond the directive which we about to adopt today.
Marina Yannakoudakis
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, firstly, I would like to congratulate Ms Lulling on this report: she made a valiant effort.
When I first heard of this report, I wondered how it would work logistically. The aim of the report is admirable and supports the principle of equal treatment for self-employed women and men workers and their spouses.
But then I thought how this report would be greeted by, for example, a self-employed sole trader, such as a plumber or an electrician. For argument's sake, let us say his wife would be helping him in the evenings with the paperwork and answering the phone from home. How does the report fit in here?
Would he be expected to pay social contributions to cover his spouse, thus enabling her to qualify for maternity leave if needed? Could this sole trader, who in today's economic climate is struggling, afford to pay this indirect tax, and indeed would he and his wife want this extra burden? If they didn't see it as a benefit, would they just not pay the contributions - after all, no one really knows she is helping her husband - and is this not what married people do, help each other?
Then I took this scenario a step further: a few years down the line, they get divorced, as happens often enough, what happens then? This poor guy will be skinned in the courts by his wife for not paying the contributions. Interesting times, and an interesting side-effect to our report.
The number of self-employed workers in the United Kingdom has risen to 1.7 million. One reason for this rise is that employment opportunities are fewer these days, so people look towards starting their own work. Should the state not, in these circumstances, support their effort?
I have studied Ms Lulling's amendments and feel that she has made a valiant effort to improve what was originally a heavy-handed report on self-employment. However, I am still concerned about legislation in matters of employment being made in Brussels. I believe that this work is best left to national governments, who are best geared to evaluate the needs of their citizens - as, indeed, the report says.
I support Ms Lulling's recommendations that the national systems should recognise the importance of protecting self-employed workers, and we should stand against all forms of discrimination, but I am still not convinced that this House is best placed to work on employment matters.
Eva-Britt Svensson
Madam President, I would like to thank the Council and the Commission. I would also like to give my sincere thanks to Mrs Lulling, as it is thanks to her great commitment and excellent work on this matter we have now reached the second reading. We have an agreement on the right of those in self-employment and their life partners to equal treatment and the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left supports the proposal.
The workforce that we are talking about is mostly made up of women and they have previously been invisible. This necessary revision of the earlier directive removes the discrimination that had previously put the self-employed and their life partners at a disadvantage.
Women in self-employment and the partners of the self-employed clearly must be covered by the Member States' social insurance systems. Another important point in the directive that has been negotiated is that, in the event of a future directive on longer parental leave for employees, the Commission must inform Parliament and the Council in order to enable us to provide those in self-employment with equal rights to employees if appropriate.
I would also like to add that, in view of the EU 2020 strategy and the efforts to increase growth within the EU, discrimination against female entrepreneurs must cease. They must also be entitled to parental leave and the ability to combine working life and family life - something that we discuss so often.
Mara Bizzotto
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if any difference still exists between men and women in the employment market, we are only too well aware that this difference is even more marked among the self-employed. In fact, women are too often forced to sacrifice their own career ambitions for the sake of taking on a role and a workload arising out of the absurd presumption of dedication to their families.
To resolve this problem, I believe we must implement measures - such as those contained in the directive we are discussing - whilst keeping our eyes firmly fixed on the family as our guiding star, as this is the only way that these measures will be meaningful and have a hope of success!
Freeing women from the agonising dilemma of choosing between the role of mother, wife, entrepreneur, means lightening the family workload and going straight to the heart of the matter, through specific positive measures to support the family. Unless it puts the family at the centre, any package of measures will be a ragbag of strategies that will ultimately prove fruitless.
Christa Klaß
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after 24 years, it is time to update and adapt the directive on the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity.
Two years after the Commission presented its proposal, the Spanish Presidency has now negotiated a workable and acceptable compromise with our rapporteur, Mrs Lulling. Naturally, it is not everything we could have wished. More regulation and more insurance obligations were a matter of debate. We had to resolve the matter of how strict the constraints should be or can be as regards the necessary social protection for women in self-employment and, in particular, assisting spouses, most of whom are women. If women are assisting in small and medium-sized enterprises, then they must at least have their own protection. This must also come from the enterprises themselves, however.
As we know, self-employment represents an opportunity, but also a risk - particularly as regards the level of income, which often fluctuates. However, it is not only by private means that the risk of basic social protection can be covered. Each person in society should take responsibility for their own protection - to the best of their ability - in order not to become a burden on society and to be covered for all the situations that arise in life. I am pleased that the proposal covers all those in self-employment and is not limited in scope to those engaged in farming. The Member States can decide which path to take - whether they want to make this cover mandatory or voluntary. That is subsidiarity.
The 14 weeks' maternity leave for self-employed women is a good decision; it will place these women on an equal footing with those in employment, and provides sufficient time for the healthy recovery of mother and child. This new directive is a major step towards equality and represents an important reduction in risk for men and women who take on the challenge of self-employment. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to it.
Britta Thomsen
(DA) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this directive on the equal treatment of men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity is of crucial importance, as it secures social conditions comparable to those of employed women for millions of European women who are self-employed, entrepreneurs or who assist their spouses.
The most important and key element of the directive is the right to a minimum of 14 weeks' maternity leave. The need to secure better conditions for self-employed women becomes apparent when we look at how few women, relatively speaking, currently become self-employed. In the EU, only 8% of the female workforce is self-employed, whereas the figure is 16% for men. We must motivate more women to become self-employed and, in this respect, the directive marks a step in the right direction. Many women would like to become self-employed but lack the courage on account of the uncertain social conditions. In my opinion, this directive should be viewed in the light of the important work on a general maternity directive being carried out by the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. Securing the right for all European women to take maternity leave without this diminishing their position in the labour market is a cornerstone of equality in Europe.
If we in the EU are to achieve our goal of ensuring the welfare of our citizens, we need to give the women of the EU a proper opportunity to take maternity leave. If we in the EU are to achieve our goal of ensuring the welfare of our citizens we also need to increase the birth rate. I hope that this directive will merely be the first of two steps to achieving this. We are now ensuring that all European women have the right to maternity leave. The next step must be to provide paternity leave, too, so that we can ensure genuine equality.
Riikka Manner
(FI) Madam President, first of all, I want to thank the rapporteur for what is an excellent compromise. Recently, we in Europe have been speaking about competitiveness, especially within the framework of Europe 2020, and how we could establish this sort of competitiveness, in particular, by increasing the number of small and mediumsized enterprises.
If we want to encourage entrepreneurship, these issues now being considered regarding the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity are of key importance and are a part of this debate. We need to establish a genuine alternative with regard to entrepreneurship for people, both men and women. Furthermore, there should be support for academic entrepreneurship, making it a component of study programmes. In this respect, we are a long way behind the United States of America, among others.
When we speak of equality, we have to remember that one of the indicators that describe the situation with regard to equality is specifically the matter of entrepreneurship and the opportunities to be an entrepreneur, regardless of gender. If we compare the figures in Europe, we find that most entrepreneurs are still actually men. If we consider the matter of growth entrepreneurship and how we could support it, it grieves me to say that at the moment, the statistics show that the desire for growth among female entrepreneurs lags far behind that for men.
Of course, there are many reasons for these figures, but the fact remains that at present, the social security systems for entrepreneurs, for example, are so unsatisfactory that they pose challenges specifically for female entrepreneurs, as we have heard in this discussion. Moreover, if we are to bring together issues of maternity, parenthood and entrepreneurship, it is going to take special action, because the work of a selfemployed person is often erratic in nature, the working day is long and one's livelihood is uncertain. This legislative text is an excellent step forward towards a more motivating and equal approach to entrepreneurship.
Ilda Figueiredo
(PT) Madam President, it is important that this process is drawing to a close, despite its limitations. It is time to ensure that all women who work - including the millions of self-employed women, and the spouses and de facto partners of self-employed workers - have the same rights, notably in terms of maternity leave.
Although this directive is along the right lines, it does not go all the way in fighting discrimination and guaranteeing equal treatment. It is a positive step, which we support. However, we do not want to stop at 14 weeks of maternity leave, and we intend for the new directive on maternity and paternity leave to also apply to these situations in the future.
This, of course, will be an ongoing struggle, although we welcome the progress that has been made so far and congratulate the rapporteur on her dedication throughout the process as a whole.
Pascale Gruny
(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today, the European Parliament is sending out a strong message to women who assist their spouses in their self-employed work. From now on, their social rights will be considerably enhanced, and I would like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Lulling, on the work she has done.
Europe must protect. Under the new definition of 'assisting spouse', spouses and partners will be eligible for social protection in the event of sickness or retirement. Bakers' spouses will now be able to benefit from social rights.
It is regrettable, however, that the Council did not agree to compulsory membership, but simply adopted the system of voluntary membership.
Maternity leave is also provided for all women. The new text provides for a minimum period of maternity leave for self-employed women and wives of self-employed workers throughout the European Union. The duration of this leave is currently set at 14 weeks. I am the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) for the directive on the health and safety at work of pregnant workers. I sincerely hope that, with the adoption of this text, the duration of maternity leave will be increased; and why not subsequently increase it for self-employed women?
To conclude, Europe has proposed some creative and pragmatic solutions to help couples to reconcile professional and family life. It is now time to switch to taking action and to implement the proposals as quickly as possible. Europe's campaign to protect women is making headway with this text. However, we MEPs must continue to eliminate the inequalities between men and women.
Edite Estrela
(PT) Madam President, this directive needs to be reviewed urgently. This report is important because it is going to resolve the unjust and discriminatory situation of self-employed workers and, at the same time, promote entrepreneurship amongst women.
From now on, self-employed women and the spouses and de facto partners of self-employed workers have the right to maternity pay, identical in duration and remuneration to that of salaried workers. There is, however, a prerequisite to contribute to social security. It is right and only fair that this should be the case, as salaried workers also make social security contributions.
It is also considered fundamentally fair that the right to maternity leave should not be reduced for the agricultural sector and that it should be extended to all self-employed workers who I recall represented 10.5% of all workers in the European Union in 2007. This, I would say, is why it should apply to all self-employed workers, irrespective of their field of activity; be it in the craft industry, in commerce, in the liberal professions or in small and medium-sized enterprises.
We have to promote equality, so I hope that the European Parliament will adopt the proposals that have already been adopted by the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality.
Lena Kolarska-Bobińska
(PL) Adoption of the current measures is very important from the economic and social point of view, but also because of the values represented by protection of the family and equal opportunities.
The current crisis and the rise in unemployment it has caused are affecting weaker groups in particular. One of these groups are women. Therefore, legal measures which provide for an equal position for the self-employed will make it easier for women to start up in business on their own. This is important, therefore, in view of the need to speed up economic development in Europe and reduce unemployment, but it is also important because increasing numbers of women are deciding to start up on their own. It is they who make the decisions, they who are in charge of their own firms, they who decide what to do and how to spend the money and they should not suffer discrimination.
Small businesses are, therefore, a place where women can fulfil their ambitions - women who want to be professionally active but who do not want to give up their family life. Indeed, these measures will also allow Member States which are thinking seriously about family policy to take the opportunity to improve their own legislation. I would also like to draw attention to a certain group which requires further protection and needs us to give consideration to its situation. I am talking about women who work in the home. Working in the home is not treated as work, although in fact, this involves the performance of around 200 tasks every day. Women working in the home are often not protected by retirement pension or health care arrangements and are not entitled to any holidays. In relation to this, I think regulations should be brought into force which will make it easier for these women to benefit from all forms of social protection.
Iratxe García Pérez
(ES) Madam President, I just wanted to reiterate my thanks both to Mrs Lulling and the Spanish Presidency. To Mrs Lulling for her persistence, tenacity and hard work in getting to the point we are at today, and to the Spanish Presidency for allowing different and opposing points of view to be expressed within the Council, which has allowed us to have this agreement on the table today.
In this debate, we are confronted with the amendment to Directive 86/613/EEC, which has clearly indicated that it does not comply with the objectives set for it. I think that it is essential to highlight the crucial importance of this agreement at a time of crisis and uncertainty in Europe, a time which has not hindered progress regarding the social protection of female, self-employed workers in the Union.
I should like to remind you that in 2007, more than 10% of workers in the European Union were self-employed. The agreement we have reached may not be the best solution, but it does provide the opportunity for further progress to be made in the future.
The main objective of this directive is for social protection to be extended to the partners of all self-employed workers, including unmarried couples, and for all self-employed workers or self-employed couples to be covered by social security, which is not offered today by all Member States.
At this time, we are actively engaged in the design of the EU 2020 strategy where we shall define the future of the European model. This future cannot neglect the principle of equality of treatment, and it is therefore essential to move forward with the type of measure that guarantees this principle. My hope is that the step we take today, with the adoption of this proposal, is the first of many future ones.
Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska
(PL) I am delighted at the near unanimous adoption of Mrs Lulling's report by the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. The report concerns the introduction of amendments to the directive on the application of the principle of equal treatment between women and men engaged in activity in a self-employed capacity.
It is very important that a compromise has been reached and an improvement made to the situation of self-employed people, who make up about 10% of all people in the labour market. Among the amendments introduced, the most important is the possibility for self-employed people and their spouses or life partners to receive social benefits, including, most importantly, the possibility to pay contributions towards their own retirement pension, and also to have paid maternity leave analogous to that which is given to women who work for an employer. These entitlements are to be provided for by legislation at EU level.
They are measures which will not only help to improve the situation of women, but will also reduce the significant inequalities that exist between the self-employed and people who work for an employer. Millions of people who work in family businesses will at last gain the ability to benefit from voluntary social protection based on affiliation to a system of social insurance, without which they have been in a worse situation. This is an important step forward, all the more so because the compromise reached this year had, for many years, been impossible to achieve.
I encourage all fellow Members to endorse this report. I would like, at this point, to thank Mrs Lulling very sincerely, because thanks to this report, many self-employed women will find life easier.
Marc Tarabella
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with this excellent report by Mrs Lulling, the European Parliament is trying to reduce still further the differences in treatment between men and women in the workplace, and I welcome this move. It is another step on what is still a very long road.
Indeed, I believe it is vital to stress the importance of social protection for the assisting spouses or recognised life partners of self-employed workers. Let us not forget that, in many European countries, assisting spouses still do not have a status in their own right, that their work is not recognised, and that they are not covered by social security for self-employed workers. We are in the year 2010, and women in some Member States are still suffering a lack of recognition of their rights and are entirely dependent on their spouse's insurance.
In these times of economic crisis, we cannot allow these assisting spouses to depend on a system that could plunge them into poverty, from one day to the next, in the event of divorce or separation, for example. That is why we cannot agree to the possibility of Member States maintaining national provisions limiting access to specific social protection schemes or to a certain level of funding. Assisting spouses must be covered as regards pensions, family allowance, health care, incapacity benefit and maternity benefits.
Lastly, at this stage in the negotiations, it is the Member States that will decide whether this social protection should be implemented on a mandatory or voluntary basis. That is why I strongly urge all the Member States to do their utmost to ensure that this protection is mandatory. We must all combat job insecurity and the failure to recognise rights, especially in times of economic crisis.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur, Astrid Lulling, for the work she has done. I also share her view - as do other Members - that the greater maternity protection for self-employed women and the improvements for spouses of self-employed people should not be limited by this directive just to people working in agriculture, but must, of course, also apply to other areas, including the liberal professions. Assisting spouses do not have their own legal statute everywhere, so their work is not always recognised and they do not have independent social security arrangements. It is absolutely necessary to recognise their professional status and to define their rights. I am pleased that the Council has recognised Parliament's opinion from the first reading that maternity payments should make it possible to take a break of at least three months, the minimum necessary for a normal course of pregnancy and for the physical recuperation of the mother after a normal birth, although for the healthy development of the child, it is optimal to have at least two years of individual care at home. I am sorry that the Council does not regard these three months as the absolute minimum standard that the Member States' social systems should provide automatically, and that only additional payments could be provided on a voluntary basis.
Antigoni Papadopoulou
(EL) Madam President, I, too, would like to endorse and welcome the present compromise, because it raises the question of democratic deficits which women in particular have had to face for years, when they help their self-employed husbands in trade, in handicrafts, in small and medium-sized enterprises and in the liberal professions, without any recognition over the years for their work.
Self-employed persons and their partners, the majority of whom are women, have rights. They are not invisible workers; they have rights to social security, to health care, to a pension, to maternity leave, to parental leave and to paternity leave. Women have sacrificed themselves for years for their husbands, for their professional development, for their children and their family, by providing cheap, unpaid labour. Often, after divorce or the death of their husband, they are left with no insurance, with no benefits or compensation.
The present compromise addresses some of the existing inequalities. However, the need is indisputably looming for further support for women, to promote the equality of female entrepreneurship, especially at a time of economic crisis and when the European Union is defining its policy for tomorrow, for the European Union in 2020.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Madam President, thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this subject. Around 30% of all those in self-employment in the EU are women. They are particularly highly represented in small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the service sector, and, in this capacity, make a significant economic contribution to our society.
These women should be given the same opportunities as their male colleagues without having to resort to quotas and the like. Self-employed women often have to grapple with the problem that becoming a mother could endanger their livelihood. In view of the increasingly ageing population, it is now more important than ever to ensure effective maternity provision and to give priority to families.
Family firms where the women assist in the business also play an important part - whether in the professions, in the trades, in retail or particularly in farming. In all these areas, it is necessary to ensure appropriate social and legal protection.
Nonetheless, the Member States should always retain competence in respect of social legislation and this should never be transferred to the EU. It is a matter of using compromises and options to take into account divergent social policy traditions, such as whether to make insurance for assisting spouses mandatory or voluntary.
Angelika Werthmann
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to join in congratulating Mrs Lulling. I welcome the fact that this report takes a further step towards realising the principle of equal treatment of men and women, including in the area of self-employment. One important cornerstone - and quite rightly so - is that it covers not just spouses, but also life partners. At long last, assisting partners can enjoy an equal level of social protection, and this also applies to maternity provision.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Madam President, I, too, should very much like to congratulate Mrs Lulling. It gives women in particular completely new opportunities in the area of self-employment in small and medium-sized enterprises. In a time of crisis such as this, we should bear in mind that self-employment is fit for the future, that new jobs can be created here, and that it also allows us to develop completely new sectors. We have developed Girls' Day, for example, to encourage young women to take up technical occupations, because it is in these technical occupations that brand new opportunities are arising and in our present society, people are not really aware of the full spectrum of occupations available to women. Finally, it is also women who, time and again, ensure stability in the area of finances. I believe that in times of crisis, it is particularly important to ensure that the equity and venture capital in enterprises can be exploited equally by women.
Günther Oettinger
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, today we have made progress in the fight against poverty and for the promotion of female self-employment. This is not the end of the process, but it is a huge step forward. Subject to the Council's endorsement, for the first time ever, self-employed women will have the right to maternity leave. The Member States will also have a clear obligation to grant social protection to assisting spouses, on request.
I want to thank the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, and Parliament as a whole, for all the work that has been done to achieve this success.
Lastly, I want to say a word on Ms Lulling who, for many years, has fought personally for this issue. That fight has now been won, and I am deeply grateful for her commitment, which has led to this remarkable achievement.
Astrid Lulling
Madam President, I would first like to thank Mr Oettinger for representing his colleague, Mrs Reding, in such excellent English.
(FR) Ladies and gentlemen, I am satisfied. I am grateful to all the Members who took the floor because they support the position held by the overwhelming majority of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, which will enable this text to be adopted tomorrow.
I should like to reassure Mr Romeva i Rueda. This text is not perfect. It still falls short of my requirements. We have not yet won the war, but we have won an important battle. This is a step in the right direction.
I should also like to say to Mr Romeva i Rueda and Mrs Figueiredo that they should not worry about maternity protection; what they want is provided for in Recital 17a. Read it; I do not have the time to read it out. There is just one amendment. Were we to vote for it, it would not be possible to adopt the directive under the Spanish Presidency, and we would risk losing months, if not years, and all for nothing, because - I should like to reassure the authors - what they are proposing in their amendment is proposed, in different terms, in Amendment 4, which was adopted at first reading and taken up in its entirety by the Council. I therefore believe that these Members could, in good conscience, vote for the other amendments.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 18 May 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Robert Dušek
The directive on equal treatment for self-employed men and women has the aim of unifying the applicable European legislation and replacing a number of directives which address this policy on a piecemeal basis. Social conditions for self-employed people and employed people vary widely in the Member States, and social security provision in the event of long-term or permanent exclusion from work is practically non-existent in some cases. Self-employed people often do not have sickness insurance. They work when they are sick, because it is financially more advantageous. Women return to work after giving birth, and do not take maternity leave. Assisting spouses do not have their own social security arrangements. Self-employed people are essential to the functioning of the economy and they have an irreplaceable role in society. These people provide for themselves and their families financially, pay taxes into state coffers and pay social and health insurance. The state does not have to contribute to their maintenance. Their role is particularly irreplaceable in regions where, for various reasons, there is a shortage of jobs with so-called 'large' employers, and also in agriculture. It is therefore necessary to unify minimum standards that will help ensure an equal status for self-employed people as compared with employed people, and equality between self-employed men and women. The aim should be greater protection during maternity, recognition of leave for the purposes of caring for family members and recognition of the contribution of an assisting spouse.
Zita Gurmai
in writing. - The proposal we are debating this week is not a technical one. It's a matter of justice and common sense - in two ways. It's not only morally, but also economically clear that we need to grant the social protection and the maternity benefits to pregnant self-employed women and self-employed men's pregnant spouses or life partners. We cannot discriminate against those women or the partners of those men who chose to dedicate themselves to this type of work, especially when we all agree that we do need to encourage more women to enter the world of business. While we are trying to find our way out of the crisis, we encourage creation of work, including that of independent workers. This is also why we need to make sure that there is an incentive for women to start such work opportunities. Secondly, we cannot discriminate against the new-born children in these families. It is unacceptable when a child has the right to have her mother or father around (without jeopardising the living of the family) for the first weeks of his or her life, because the parent is classically employed, while the other child hasn't got this right, because the parent is self-employed.


Statistics on plant protection products (debate)
President
Τhe next item is the report (Α6-0256/2009) by Mr Bart Staes, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, concerning statistics on plant protection products [11120/2/2008 - C6-0004/2009 -.
Bart Staes
rapporteur. - (NL) We have before us the final agreement which we have negotiated with the Council and the Commission, a final agreement after a first reading in which we in Parliament took a very strong position and introduced a number of elements that, with a large majority, in fact gave us a very strong starting position vis-à-vis the Council. I must say that the Council's common position a few months after our first reading was rather disappointing. There was not, in fact, much willingness to follow our approach, and therefore the negotiations with the Council were far from easy.
We did move a step forward, though, and there was a very constructive atmosphere. The parliamentary delegation, too, was a strong group. There was unity in diversity. I think that we can bring the result to a vote tomorrow with a degree of pride. In any case, we are making a contribution and ensuring that there is a basis, in addition to the two laws that have already been adopted on pesticides, that is, the directive on sustainable use and the regulation on the placing of plant protection products on the market, a set of instruments to be used in sound regulation regarding the provision of data via statistics. This is therefore, to my mind, the basis for the parliamentary legislative work we have carried out.
One of the most important achievements is the fact that we have succeeded in imposing on the Council, even against its will, the fact that we have taken as our basic definition of pesticides the one that Parliament, in the political agreement with the Council, previously included in the directive on sustainable use. This makes for a certain consistency, and that is important for later use as well.
We have also been able to include a very clear reference to the general legislative framework on statistics, to the way in which statistics should be used, the way in which they are handled and, above all, the way in which the data will have to be handled in future, from the perspective of confidentiality, among others. We have attained our goal in that Member States must provide considerable information on pesticides and in a form that is mutually comparable. Personally, I would have liked to go even further, but what has been achieved is a first step.
Another achievement is undoubtedly the fact that, because we took as our basic definition the word 'pesticides' and the definition of pesticides used in the directive on sustainable use, we have also, in a second instance, included the concept of 'biocidal products'. That was an important request by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. This is an achievement. It appears in the regulation, and in the current political agreement, although the latter does state that we undertake to expand the regulation on statistics and pesticides as it now stands with the concept of 'biocidal products' at the time when the legislation exists and also - and that was an urgent demand on the part of the Council - after an impact study on the matter.
We have obtained greater transparency. We have succeeded in requiring that the data must be published on the Internet. We have, as noted - it is always a question of negotiation, for that is democracy - also failed to achieve a certain number of things. I have already mentioned them, including the fact that there is a weaker formulation regarding the non-agricultural use of pesticides: on that point, the draft regulation does not entirely live up to what was achieved at first reading. It is a question of give and take, however.
I must say that I am very grateful to the shadow rapporteurs. It was a pleasant way of collaborating. This was, for now, my last legislative report in this legislative period, and I hope that I will be able to add a fair bit to it in the next legislative period.
László Kovács
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides approved by the European Parliament and the Council in January 2009 intends to complement the existing legislative framework by targeting the use phase of pesticides, with the objective of reducing the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment.
This proposal is the third legal pillar of the strategy, together with the framework directive and the Regulation for the placing on the market of plant protection products, and aims at providing reliable data to measure the progress of the Strategy.
The main objective of this proposal is thus to ensure that comparable and reliable data are collected in all Member States and transmitted to the Commission, making it possible to calculate harmonised risk indicators and to measure the progress of the Thematic Strategy.
An agreement at first reading on this proposal could not be reached between Council and Parliament for reasons mainly linked to the scope of the Regulation and to the publication of results.
Thanks to the intense and fruitful trialogue in second reading and in particular to the sense of compromise of the rapporteur and his shadows, solutions could be found for all the issues.
The Commission believes that the compromise found is very reasonable and meets the concerns of the Parliament without creating disproportionate burdens for the national administrations and businesses and it can therefore support it.
The Commission would like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur, Bart Staes, for doing a great job on such a complex proposal, for his patience and for the very constructive exchanges he has had with the Commission. On the basis of the current compromise, the Commission is confident that an agreement in second reading can be reached between the European Parliament and the Council on this important proposal to ensure the success of the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.
Anne Laperrouze
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the plenary session of January 2009, we adopted two legislative texts on the sustainable use of pesticides and on the procedures for marketing plant protection products. The negotiation of these texts has been passionate and has allowed real advances in the protection of human health and the environment.
Those two texts would be nothing without this one, however. This regulation is, in fact, the enforcer for the other two. You will recall, Commissioner, that these statistics are needed to reveal how many new products are coming on to the market, and also how their use is growing, and above all to calculate the risk indicators defined in the report on the sustainable use of pesticides.
I would also stress that, in my view, we have not only struck a balance between the necessary transmission of data and the confidentiality of the latter, but also established proportionate administrative requirements, since this is a concern for the users.
As regards biocides, it is important to stress that this text should, in time, cover them in accordance with the results of an impact study.
We have studied the non-agricultural commercial uses of pesticides. For the moment, any assessment of their volume can only be intuitive. For this reason, the pilot studies due to be carried out by the European Commission will be very enlightening.
I wish finally to thank our rapporteur, who supported us throughout the negotiations and made a major contribution to our reaching an agreement.
Bart Staes
rapporteur. - (NL) I think that everything has been said. This is a good agreement, and I hope that it will be adopted tomorrow morning.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Friday, 24 April 2009, at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
As indicated by the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, the European Union has recognised the need for a more consistent reduction in the impact which pesticides have on both the environment and people's health. This regulation concerning statistics on plant protection products will plug existing gaps relating to the use of pesticides in Member States.
It has emerged from the data supplied by the Commission on the use and sales of pesticides that we need to have at Community level a harmonised method for collecting statistics both from the stage of placing the products on the market and from manufacturers.
We are all aware that a more consistent legislative framework needs to be established at European Union level governing the use of pesticides. This is why I want to emphasise that I welcome the creation of a common framework for systematically generating Community statistics relating to the placing of pesticides on the market and their use, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.


Type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Schwab, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles - C6-0210/2008 -.
Andreas Schwab
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start - and not for the sake of formalities but out of genuine feeling on my part - by offering my heartfelt thanks to Commissioner Verheugen, the Commission, its staff, the Czech Presidency, which is unfortunately unable to be with us today, and those on the committee for their positive and constructive cooperation on this dossier.
If you look into how environmentally-friendly measures for cars can be achieved, you are sometimes surprised that so much time is spent looking into other measures. I think that we, as Parliament, as a European body, have together taken an important step forwards that has not, so far, really managed to demonstrate its importance to the general public or in the political debate.
The regulation that we are passing today is environmentally friendly since, as part of the CO2 package, it represents an important contribution, on the part of European policy, to the reduction in CO2 emissions from motor vehicles. At the same time, however - and I would call this clever environmental policy - it also helps consumers - drivers - to pay less while, at the same time, acting in an environmentally-friendly manner, as it leads to considerable savings, not only in terms of CO2, but also in terms of the consumption of petrol and diesel. In addition, it also - and this, too, is an important point that was particularly important to Parliament and its Members - leads to improvements in the safety of European roads, and not only in relation to goods vehicles, but in relation to cars as well.
I have no intention of going through the individual points of the regulation headline by headline, but I do think that there are a few important political signals that we should go into at this point.
The first point is that, by introducing a mandatory tyre pressure monitoring system for motor vehicles, we will be bringing about a situation whereby better tyre pressure, through an improved driving performance of tyres that the tyre industry is capable of realising, will see drivers in Europe consume up to 5% less fuel without seeing the costs rocket. A tyre pressure monitoring system that is already on the market costs around EUR 100, sometimes significantly less, and the resultant cost savings for consumers will be significantly above that.
The second point that I think merits special attention is the fact that we have succeeded in obtaining the mandatory fitting of a stability system - known as the ESP system - into vehicles as early as 2011 and that we did this not against the will of the European motor industry but with its express participation and support, as this will lead to a considerable improvement in safety on European roads. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the relevant technical specifications were not yet sufficiently ready, we did not manage to also secure the mandatory fitting of the emergency braking systems and the lane departure warning systems - I apologise for these somewhat technical terms, which do not generally come up in the public debate on this issue - by the year 2018 in goods vehicles, in particular. This measure will lead to a significant improvement in the safety of European roads, especially of our motorways. All I can say is that this could reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries by around 35 000.
Finally - and there are still a few differences of opinion on this issue - we have also brought about a situation through this regulation whereby tyres will produce considerably less noise. This does involve some costs, it is true, and for that reason, we thought it was particularly important to include text in the regulation stating that the reduction in noise emissions by road traffic cannot be solely down to tyre manufacturers and, indirectly, consumers, but that it is also a responsibility of the Member States in terms of the road surfaces they provide, and I am extremely grateful that the Council did, in the end, adopt this stipulation.
I thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to an interesting debate.
Günter Verheugen
Madam President, honourable Members, I, too would like to begin by expressing thanks, in this case to the rapporteur, Mr Schwab, and to those Members of this House who participated in the preparatory work, for their truly constructive and engaged cooperation, which makes agreement right at the first reading possible.
What we are actually dealing with here is what appears to be a very technical regulation, yet it is a regulation with a large and far-reaching political significance. What we are aiming to adopt today represents a milestone when it comes to improving road safety. This regulation will make European cars safer. It is a milestone in terms of the environmental compatibility of European vehicles, as environmental compatibility, of course, is something that will not only be achieved through producing more fuel-efficient engines - cars also offer other entirely different options for saving fuel and reducing pollution. At the end of the day, it will also form an important part of our policy of better lawmaking, as it will lead to a truly drastic simplification of the entire regulatory environment.
Allow me to begin with the aspect of safety, which was the most important element in this project. Road safety in Europe is still an issue that demands our earnest attention and that causes us great concern. The rules that we are laying down here, and that will apply as standard to European cars from 2011, will lead to 35 000 fewer deaths and serious injuries a year on Europe's roads. The introduction of the electronic stability programme for passenger cars and for commercial vehicles, in particular, can save almost 3 000 lives a year and prevent serious injuries for 25 000 people. This is, ultimately, a piece of safety equipment which, especially when it comes to goods vehicles, which are often involved in serious accidents, has only rarely been used up to now. The costs to manufacturers will be far outweighed by the overall economic benefit.
This package of measures will play a considerable part in implementing the European Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. It makes low rolling resistance tyres mandatory and requires the installation of tyre pressure monitoring systems and gear shift indicators. These measures will reduce average CO2 emissions by 6 to 7 grams of CO2 per kilometre. That is, therefore, a really very noteworthy contribution. What is more, I do not wish to miss the opportunity to point out that this proposal will lead to a significant reduction in noise pollution from roads since reducing tyre noise levels will bring about a significant improvement in this situation.
Allow me, at this point, to stress once again that we can only achieve sustainable mobility in Europe if, as part of an integrated approach, we include the potential of all the factors that are involved here, which means the vehicle itself - which is what we are discussing today - but we also have to discuss the transport infrastructure and the driving behaviour of the people involved. I am very pleased that that is exactly how the European Parliament sees it.
As for simplifying the legislation, this regulation will bring about an impressive simplification of the regulatory environment. This single regulation will rescind 50 existing directives and, wherever possible, replace them by international rules. Lower administration costs, better transparency and greater international harmonisation will mean noteworthy savings for the industry, and that will help reinforce its competitiveness. At the same time, the Member States will benefit from reduced spending on administration.
When it comes to cars, it is scarcely possible not to mention the fact that the European motor industry currently finds itself in a very serious crisis, the most serious for decades. It is natural, therefore, to wonder whether this is the right time to be implementing technical regulations. Let me be quite clear in my response to that, when I say that what we are aiming to adopt here today is one of the results of the CARS 21 process, in which we worked intensively with manufacturers, the Member States and civil society on how the framework for the European motor industry will look in future and how we envisage the European car of the future. I would like to emphasise strongly that, even in this crisis - and specifically in this crisis, in fact - European manufacturers must not slacken off when it comes to developing and bringing onto the market cars that meet the requirements of the early 21st century, and those requirements are quite clear. Consumers want vehicles that use less fuel, are better for the environment and are safer.
The vision for the European car of the future that resulted from CARS 21, and the common line of all the participants when it came to the future of this industry, is exactly that - what we want is for Europe to send out to face the international competition not only qualitatively the best cars, but also those that consume the least, are the most environmentally friendly and the safest, and I am absolutely convinced that, with products like that, the European industry will retain its leading position in the international vehicles market. Thank you very much.
Jorgo Chatzimarkakis
Madam President, Commissioner, I would like, first of all, to congratulate Mr Schwab on the compromise that he has produced in collaboration with the Council. Not every issue was covered, but that is the way with compromises.
The introduction of mandatory safety systems for vehicles is something I particularly welcome. The mandatory introduction of new safety technology such as ESP will mean that, in future, it will not only be those who buy premium cars who will benefit from a higher standard of safety on the road, but also the drivers of goods vehicles. In doing this, we are making a crucial contribution to the safety of Europe. This must also unconditionally apply to tyre safety.
It is right to clearly class the wet grip, and thus the safety, of tyres as more important than rolling resistance, which helps reduce CO2 emissions. Tyres' rolling resistance, depending on the driving conditions and speed, accounts for 20 to 30% of fuel consumption. It is therefore clear that, given the current environmental debate and in order to reduce petrol costs, a reduction must be achieved. However, it is necessary to realise that, without rolling resistance, which occurs through the deformation of tyres and their elastic properties, safe and comfortable driving would be impossible. We therefore have to see safety in another light here, too. The new developments by the tyre manufacturers show that it is possible to have both safety and lower rolling resistance. In this way, we will also enable the European motor industry to take, and retain, a world lead.
The compromise motions that we will be voting on tomorrow send a clear signal away from the CO2 hysteria and towards greater road safety.
Malcolm Harbour
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, on behalf of my group, I would like to thank my colleague, Andreas Schwab, for handling a very complex dossier very skilfully. We should also perhaps say in the absence of Council that the negotiations there have been tough but fair, and we have a very good outcome.
I would like to pick up on a number of points built on what the Commissioner said. I am privileged to have been part of the Cars 21 initiative from the very beginning, and we are now seeing the impact of that integrated approach. This is important terminology and a classic example of how a number of different provisions have been brought together in a rolling update of the regulatory framework affecting motor vehicles, but one which the industry is expecting.
We set down a road map in Cars 21 about the environmental and safety challenges that we expected the industry to meet, and the crucial thing there is to give them stability and knowledge so that they can plan and design their new products in a sensible and sequenced way, albeit with demanding deadlines and targets. We do not want to resile from those challenging targets, but to give them that stability. As Günter Verheugen pointed out, with the industry in such a dire position at the moment because of a lack of demand, that regulatory stability is crucially important.
I would like to highlight two points. Firstly, the agreement to bring in electronic stability control systems at the earliest possible date is a very major contribution to safety and I very much welcome that. Those of us who have had the opportunity to test those systems will understand their efficiency. Secondly, I want to highlight issues around the international framework, the repeal of the EU directives and their incorporation into national legislation. I welcome that, but I think it is now more important than ever, Commissioner, that that process becomes much more transparent about the line the Commission is taking on negotiating those directives which are being done in another body, a UN body, and not within this House.
Gary Titley
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, let me begin by congratulating Mr Schwab on his report and thanking him for his extremely cooperative approach to this whole matter.
Last Thursday night, a colleague of ours, Linda McAvan, was involved in a very serious car accident. Her car was destroyed, but she walked away relatively unhurt. This was because the car she was driving had the most modern safety features and this enabled her not to be seriously injured. That is the context in which we are discussing this report. Road safety saves lives, as Commissioner Verheugen commented, and is so important to the well-being of many families in the European Union. We should not lose sight of that, even in these very difficult times.
That is why I was determined to oppose those people in this Parliament and in the Council who wanted to weaken this Commission proposal. I believe the original Commission proposal is a very good one, and we were determined to resist changes to it.
There was one main weakness, however, in that proposal, which is that there was no provision for the selling off of tyres that did not meet the new requirements after the implementation date. I believe that to be a major flaw. That is why I proposed to the committee - and the committee accepted - an amendment stating that tyres that did not meet the standards after the implementation date should be sold off after 12 months.
However, in the current circumstances of the car industry, given that cars are not being sold, it was quite clear in the discussions we had with the Council that, in fact, 12 months was probably unrealistic, and we had to consider the serious environmental consequences of getting rid of tyres that are perfectly good and sound. Therefore, we were prepared to accept, in the trialogue, 30 months after the implementation date as being the period before which tyres not meeting the requirements should be sold off. However, thanks to the intervention of Mr Schwab, if the Commission believes that there could be an earlier date, that is provided for in the comitology procedure. This was an important area of strengthening.
I would also draw attention to the important environmental measures - particularly tyre pressure monitoring systems - which will not only save on CO2 but also make cars safer, because under-inflated tyres are a cause of many accidents. We have reduced rolling resistance and included gear shift indicators in this proposal, which was not in the original proposal. This will not only benefit the environment but also save motorists money - it is cash in people's pockets, which is very important at this time.
The point about safety has been well made. As I say, tyre pressure monitoring systems are very important, because under-inflated tyres - much to my shame, the United Kingdom is one of the worst culprits for having under-inflated tyres - are a cause of accidents. Lane departure warning systems and electronic stability control are also important. I congratulate Mr Schwab on bringing the implementation of these forward by a year, because they will be of major advantage in terms of safety.
As Mr Harbour and the Commissioner have pointed out, simplification is part of this proposal and that is very important.
Finally, I would draw attention to what we have done in terms of demanding greater emphasis, in road services, on reducing noise. This is because road traffic noise is a cause of stress, and stress is a cause of ill health and, indeed, of fatalities, and it is therefore important to address that issue.
Olle Schmidt
Madam President, Commissioner, this is a constructive report with clear environmental and safety objectives. The committee was clear with regard to noise and health. As many as 210 million Europeans are currently exposed to traffic noise which, according to the World Health Organisation, presents a direct danger to health. Tackling tyre noise is not the only way to reduce traffic noise, but the best results are achieved by a combination of measures, of which dealing with noise emitted by tyres constitutes an important part.
Some people, perhaps even some in this House, say that there is conflict between noise emissions and the safety properties of tyres. There is no evidence for this in any of the detailed and independent studies carried out. I am therefore disappointed that the compromise does not reflect what we voted through in the committee. As regards lorries, 90% of tyres already meet the noise levels contained in the compromise. This is not what we would call a high level of ambition, unfortunately.
Seán Ó Neachtain
Madam President, I would like to welcome this report and congratulate Mr Schwab on its development.
We must welcome anything which makes roads safer. Certainly, the vehicle itself is the most important aspect of this, as well as ensuring that vehicles are of a safer standard.
As the Commissioner said, this is the consolidation or combination of more than 50 other rules. I welcome this simplification because all over Europe, vehicles that are manufactured need to be of the highest standard and vehicle manufacturers need to be responsible for achieving this standard - not only in relation to car tyres, but also in relation to the other aspects mentioned here this morning, such as electronic control and other modern features which ensure that the cars and the vehicles we put on the road are of the best possible standard.
Heide Rühle
Madam President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur, and in particular Mr Titley and the Commission, for this sound proposal.
My thanks to the Czech Presidency, on the other hand, are somewhat more ambivalent. I have to say that we were put under heavy pressure by the Council in this trialogue and that the Council showed little ambition. Quite the opposite, in fact, in that the Council warned us in advance against setting our demands too high so as not to jeopardise the manufacturers in these times of economic crisis. I see this completely differently, and I think that the majority in this Chamber does too - particularly in times of economic crisis, what we need is clear standards and for the European industry to be motivated and given incentives to set its standards high and develop models for the future, and not for the current situation. Energy efficiency and CO2 emissions clearly play a very important role in this.
The issue of safety is clearly also important, while the issue of minimising noise, which was given short shrift in this debate, must also not be overlooked, as more and more people are falling ill as a result of noise, with the attendant high costs for society. For that reason, it is also important that this regulation should be in line with relevant standards.
Overall, we have achieved a good compromise. We did not sign the first reading agreement as we were critical of the procedure and also of the pressure from the Czech Presidency, but we can live with this compromise, and we, as a group, will be voting for it.
Jim Allister
Madam President, overnight we have had another terrorist murder in my constituency of Northern Ireland. Before turning to the subject in hand, let me take a moment to express condolences to the family of my policeman constituent who has been so brutally murdered by the IRA and to condemn this further act of gross terrorism.
With regard to the matter before the House, I would have to say that I am rarely lobbied in my constituency in favour of an EU regulation and I suppose I would have to say that on even fewer occasions am I persuaded. On this occasion, however, I was pleased to be persuaded, because this proposal contains provisions which both improve road safety and happily assist a company in Northern Ireland which is at the cutting edge of technology and production of tyre pressure monitoring systems. Thus a proposal which makes the fitting of such systems mandatory is not just good for road safety; it is also good for jobs in my constituency.
With devastating levels of road deaths across the EU, measures which make our cars - and thus our roads - safer have to be welcome. It is one area above all where regulation has a definite role to play. It should be sensible, rational and necessary regulation, not regulation for regulation's sake. On this occasion, however, I think that this report has got the balance right, and I congratulate the rapporteur on his report.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the high degree of professionalism shown by Mr Schwab in amending the draft regulation of the Commission to include measures which will increase the competitiveness of the European car industry while, at the same time, enabling Member States to monitor effectively market adherence to motor vehicle type approval requirements. For example, by checking tyre pressures, we can reduce fuel consumption and thus also emissions, and by introducing modern electronic drive control systems in 2011, a reduction in the number of accidents on European roads will be achieved one year earlier. Noise reduction is another benefit and one which relates both to tyres and road building. This regulation will reduce the administrative burden and will simplify legal regulations in accordance with the UN agreement on unifying vehicle requirements. This regulation is an excellent example of integrated legislation and I am delighted that the Czech Presidency was well prepared for it and that an agreement between Parliament, Mr Schwab and the Council will therefore be reached at first reading.
Wolfgang Bulfon
(DE) Madam President, a difficult compromise has been reached and I am of the opinion that Mr Schwab has produced a masterpiece here, so from now on, I will be referring to him as Grand Master Schwab.
In order to increase the safety of car drivers on Europe's roads, the early introduction of the ESP anti-lock braking system is particularly welcome. In addition, the fact that the wet grip values for tyres will, in future, be improved again is something that is to be viewed as a positive development, as is the fact that tyre pressure monitoring systems, lane departure warning systems and advanced emergency braking systems are to be considered for other categories of vehicle.
I would, however, like to criticise the fact that the manufacturers have gone ahead with higher tyre noise levels for goods vehicles and I likewise do not welcome the failure to introduce safety measures other than the ESP earlier than is proposed.
I would, furthermore, like to point out that no precise specification of the performance requirements with regard to winter tyres' ability to initiate or maintain vehicle motion was included in the compromise with the Council. I personally find it incomprehensible that no specification of the required driving properties on black ice or mud, for example, was made.
Class C1, C2 and C3 tyres that do not meet the provisions of this regulation as set out in Annex 1 will now be permitted, under the compromise on transitional periods, to be sold for a further 30 months. Parliament had envisaged a 12-month transitional period for this, which would have been what was necessary here.
In closing, I would like to remind you all, once again, of the 180 km/h maximum design speed, as I believe this to be a very sensible measure.
Toine Manders
(NL) Madam President, I should like to thank Mr Schwab for his commitment, as he was simply left with his back to the wall at the trialogue. When I studied European law, codecision powers were evidently quite different from today.
The first-reading deal that we now have before us, which was negotiated by four MEPs - including myself as shadow rapporteur - differs markedly from the text adopted by Parliament. This differs from the Commission proposal - the economic crisis was misused to submit an atrocious proposal. Indeed, everyone complains that it lacks substance, and yet it is evidently being accepted.
In the opinion of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, democracy and the role of Parliament are being undermined. After all, if the text adopted by Parliament at first reading is not included in the trialogue negotiations, a second reading is needed, as that is the way it works. We also think that it sends out a bad signal when four Members agree to a text in trialogue and the whole House simply follows suit.
The ALDE Group will be voting against this proposal for reasons of principle. This is mainly for procedural reasons and not because we consider the contents poor, although there is much room for improvement there.
Avril Doyle
Madam President, I want to raise a related matter. The Commission will know that three 'F' gases are among the six major greenhouse gases. I was rapporteur on the Mobile Air Conditioning (MAC) Directive relating to their use in mobile air conditioning.
It would appear that loopholes are being exploited between that legislation and type approval legislation, which was the tool chosen to implement the directive. I have been alerted over the last few weeks to plans by car manufacturers to avoid any refrigerant change at all, in 2011 and beyond, by applying type approval of certain components. This would mean that the deadline for prohibition of the use of R134a would now be 2017 rather than 2011. Hence, the avoidance of tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions will no longer happen.
National type approval authorities are ultimately responsible for the implementation of the MAC Directive. For example the VCA, which is the type approval authority in the UK, has recently stated that it will approve, after January 2011, new types of vehicles fitted with existing - already approved to Regulation (EC) No 706/2007 standards - MACs containing 'F' gases with a GWP greater than 150. As a consequence, we have evidence of car manufacturers delaying - if not stopping altogether - development and investment in innovative sustainable technology. Can the Commissioner please comment?
Günter Verheugen
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at this point, I can but offer my sincere thanks for the broad support for this proposal from all sides of the House. What we have, of course, is a compromise, and there is always scope to want a little bit more in such cases. I can also say that I, personally, and the Commission would have been prepared to go a step further. What we have now is what we were able to achieve, however, and it represents a major step forward.
In particular, I would like to emphasise once again what Mrs Rühle said. Politically speaking, the crucial thing, especially in this situation, is to improve European vehicles in areas that will be crucial in future. One thing is quite clear, and that is that the crisis in demand is not just the result of the general economic conditions and the economic uncertainty but also has something to do with the fact that the vehicles that European manufacturers are offering have perhaps failed to meet the requirements of the European market in recent years where fuel consumption, environmental friendliness and safety are concerned. That is why it is so important that this is now quickly rectified.
Please allow me to say something about the issue that Mrs Doyle mentioned. I am aware that there is an erroneous interpretation of the requirements pertaining to type-approval in a number of Member States - as you have just quite correctly pointed out - but it is an erroneous interpretation, one which is not in line with the legal framework that is in place. The Commission will ensure that the necessary clarifications are issued and that the negative consequences that you have highlighted, Mrs Doyle, will not occur.
Andreas Schwab
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am, of course, pleased by the congratulations, but I must say that, in the trialogue, you are only ever as strong or as quick as those you are working with. I am therefore happy to share the credit for Mr Bulfon's compliment with all of you.
I must say, however, and I think this is extremely important, that I did not feel pressurised by anyone, nor did I feel under political pressure. The only difficulty that there was in this legislative proposal - and I do not want to hide this, it was also discussed a little - was, of course, that of framing this ambitious legislation so that we would not be losing jobs in the European Union, but safeguarding them. This balance was not always easy to achieve on individual points, but I believe that, in the end, we did find a very sound middle ground solution that satisfies all the interests.
All the same, I have to say that, for all the processes that we have settled in trialogue over recent weeks or months, there was repeated criticism that things were moving too quickly. That is something that we could certainly discuss at the beginning of a parliamentary term and then stick to for that entire term, but there should be no criticism that processes are democratically unsound at the end of a term - the time when particular issues are being resolved - after three years of participation in such a process here in Parliament. I accept the criticism, but I think that this issue is something that would need to be resolved immediately after the elections for the entire parliamentary term.
It is also important for this proposal to be put back in the context of Mr Sacconi's proposal, which has been successfully passed. His proposal was about reducing the CO2 emissions from motor vehicles to 130 grams, with 10 grams to be envisaged for additional measures. One part of these additional measures has now been regulated. I cannot wait to see how we will take up the rest of these grams that have yet to be decided and what proposals the Commission will put forward for Parliament to decide upon.
I might add that, when it came to the issue of the transitional period, we had to find a middle path, from an economic point of view. We have not laid down the 30-month period conclusively, but instead, the Commission is to carry out another impact assessment for each individual type of tyre, on the basis of which we can then decide until when the deadline can run for each type. It is my belief that it makes the most sense economically to remove tyres lawfully produced in the European Union as quickly as possible from circulation, but only when the market really offers the proper potential to do that. I would like to close, therefore, by offering my sincere thanks, once again, to all those who were involved.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Ioan Lucian Hămbăşan
First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Schwab for the balanced report he has compiled. This report meets the needs of the industry by creating simplified, transparent legislation through replacing no fewer than 50 basic directives, thereby reducing the administrative burden. We are therefore helping a competitive car industry.
It is important for all of us to make Europe's roads safer and reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries by introducing standard equipment. The ESP system must become accessible to everyone and no longer be an optional extra. Obviously, we must not forget either the impact on the environment which the new tyre pressure monitoring system will have, with its reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. This will also be accompanied by a reduction in noise and sound pollution in general. New technologies will enable us to have safer, greener cars.