4. Contact-point network against corruption (
- Before the vote:
Hubert Pirker
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, before all of you, as far as possible, vote in favour of this report, I would like to give you some brief information and voice an appeal to the Council which, yet again, is absent. The Member States and the European Union wish to, and must, take more ambitious and effective action against corruption. That is why the European Parliament has endorsed the establishment of a contact-point network against corruption. The lead committee, at least, has voted unanimously in favour of such a move.
The purpose of the network is, firstly, to foster cooperation among the authorities and agencies in the Member States and, secondly, to encourage the exchange of data on effective strategies. However, the Council proposal before us is quite simply too lacking in ambition and is toothless and thus redundant as it stands. Parliament has therefore tabled a number of very significant amendments, with unanimous support, as I said, being achieved in committee.
Firstly, OLAF, Europol and Eurojust should be integral parts of this network, which is why we are asking for their participation to be mandatory. Secondly, the network should submit an annual report to the European Parliament on its activities, with practical proposals on how to improve the prevention and combating of corruption. Thirdly, the costs of all of the network members should be borne from the Community budget, so as to ensure the independence of the network as a whole.
I therefore urge the Council to incorporate Parliament's proposals and establish the contact-point network swiftly, for this would give us a unique opportunity finally to achieve a joint strategy for the European Union and establish an appropriate mechanism to combat corruption.


Welfare of laying hens (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Paolo De Castro, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the welfare of laying hens - B7-0657/2010).
Paolo De Castro
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today represents an important opportunity to discuss the strategic issue of protecting animal welfare in agriculture. On 1 January 2012, the terms of Council Directive 1999/74/EC will enter into force, laying down minimum standards for the protection of hens, tantamount to the abolition of conventional battery cages as a system of rearing for the production of eggs. This method of animal housing will be banned in favour of systems of rearing that guarantee better animal welfare.
Mr President, the memory of the Council of the European Union on Agriculture, held on 19 July 1999, is fresh in my mind. It was an important day, on which, as the representative of my country (at the time I was the Italian Minister for Agriculture), I contributed to the approval of this important directive by voting for it.
Now, one year after the irrevocable entry into force of the new legislation, data show that European producers are proceeding to adapt their production system, but not without running into difficulties. What we need is a concrete commitment from the Commission to safeguard animal welfare, to protect producers who have adapted their system of rearing to Council Directive 1999/74/EC, and, at the same time, to effectively guarantee the passage of the new legislation, avoiding distortions in terms of market competition.
This is why my fellow Members and I felt it appropriate to add this important topic to the agenda of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which I have the honour of chairing. Hard work over recent months, involving all parliamentary groups, resulted in the oral question of 28 October 2010, which puts three important issues to the Commission:
Firstly, to report on the implementation of the new legislation within the Member States;
Secondly, the actions to be taken in the Member States to guarantee compliance with the terms of the directive, and compromising where necessary with those undertakings that show a genuine desire to adapt.
Lastly, measures and guarantees to be adopted to avoid crises in the egg market in the coming years and to prevent unfair competition from third countries that are not obliged to respect the European Union directive within the European internal market.
These are the queries to which we are awaiting concrete and definitive responses from the Commission. Lastly, we ask the Commissioner to guarantee a more transparent market, along the lines of the concept of so-called reciprocity of rules, in order to facilitate the prospect of greater international convergence on the animal welfare standards applied by the European Union.
Attending to this matter, which we have discussed a number of times in committee since the start of the legislature, is essential to prevent Europe's efforts on animal welfare - our efforts, Commissioner - from being rendered useless by a market that is incapable of recognising the social values that are bound up in foodstuffs. We need to reduce the distorting effects of the possibility that producers outside the European rules system could translate the lesser restrictions they are subject to into greater competitive advantages.
Mr President, adopting the motion for a resolution on the welfare of laying hens, which we will vote on this morning, could represent a first and important step in this direction.
Androulla Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all, I was asked by Commissioner Dalli to pass on his apologies for not being able to be here in person, but I was pleased to take this question as former Commissioner in charge of animal welfare and health.
On behalf of the Commission, I would like to underline that the ban on conventional cages which was adopted in 1999 represents an important improvement for animal welfare in the European Union. Furthermore, it has stimulated intense debate worldwide. I also wish to highlight that Member States are primarily responsible for implementing EU legislation on the protection of laying hens.
The Commission is making every effort to monitor enforcement in Member States, including through inspections carried out by the Commission's experts, and through the data provided annually by the Member States on the basis of a specific Commission decision related to animal welfare inspections on farms.
Last month, in November 2010, official data for 2009 on production sites for laying hens were submitted to the Commission by 24 Member States. As of today, only 18 Member States have submitted complete data. This data shows that 66% of the production sites in those 18 Member States were keeping laying hens with free range systems, 29% with barn systems, 3.5% with conventional cage systems and 1% with enriched cages.
However, the Commission is aware that important data gaps still exist and that three Member States did not reply at all while six Member States have only provided partial data. Therefore, the above picture is far from being complete. The Commission is continually asking Member States to complete the missing data on every possible occasion, including in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and the meetings of the chief veterinary officers.
Furthermore, the Commission asked Member States by a formal letter to submit their national action plans to implement the ban in order to better analyse the situation across the EU.
At this stage, the Commission is concentrating its efforts to ensure that Member States take the necessary measures to implement the ban on conventional cages by the legal deadline. Member States are responsible for ensuring that eggs not produced in compliance with the directive on the protection of laying hens are not legally marketable according to EU legislation.
A better picture of the situation will be available next year after the stakeholder meeting. The stakeholder meeting will take place in January 2011.
Today, the import of shell eggs is very limited due to the short shelf life of the product as well as EU food safety requirements. According to EU legislation, packs containing eggs imported from third countries where there are not sufficient guarantees as to the equivalency of production standards are to bear the indication of farming method as non-EU standard. This label allows imported eggs not produced according to EU welfare requirements to be clearly distinguished.
The Commission will further examine the situation with all relevant stakeholders, as I said, in a meeting to be held on 19 January 2011 in Brussels, where options to ensure the smooth enforcement of the directive will be discussed.
Esther de Lange
Mr President, we are hurtling at breakneck speed towards a situation where millions of eggs will fail to comply with European rules. After all, as has been said earlier today, it is expected that 30% of all eggs produced in 2012 will breach the battery cage ban which we agreed in 1999.
Commissioner, this is merely a matter of simple arithmetic. It costs the farmer 8 to 13% more to produce this kind of animal-friendly egg, from hens not confined in battery cages. On the other hand, whether we like it or not, the average consumer will still opt for cheap eggs and is prepared to pay only 3 to 4% more for this kind of animal-friendly egg. The competitive disadvantage that arises from this situation therefore appears to be very clear.
The key question is: what are you, the European Commission, going to do to ensure that farmers who are complying properly with the rules and who have invested in alternatives are not penalised in favour of their colleagues who are lagging behind. Commissioner, please do not just fob us off with the same old line that Member States are responsible for implementation and checks. You are the guardian of the treaties, which is why all our eyes are on you. I also find it very unfortunate that we are still discussing data and relying on getting a better picture next year, because it will be too late then!
What are we going to do? The pressure must be increased! In our resolution, we are, of course, demanding maintenance of the cage ban, more inspections, that national action plans should ultimately have to be drawn up and an export ban on any eggs which are not produced according to the rules, amongst other things.
Commission, it is your move! If you do nothing, then not only will bona fide chicken farmers suffer, but so too, I fear, will your credibility and that of all European animal welfare regulations. Now, that is a situation that I believe we all want to avoid.
Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos
Mr President, like the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr De Castro, 12 years ago, I, too, had the opportunity, as Minister for Agriculture, to participate in the decision to adopt the legislation that we are discussing here today. It was a very long and difficult debate because we were confronted with two contradictory values: establishing conditions for animal welfare and ensuring the sector's competitiveness. The solution reached was to favour animal welfare and allow a sufficiently long period for the sector to adapt.
Although there is still one year until the new regulations come into force, the available data on farms that have not yet adapted are of concern to us, as the Commissioner indeed confirmed. We cannot allow companies that have invested and made a great effort to be in a position to comply with this legislation to be penalised or subject to unfair competition.
I am grateful to the Commissioner for the information that she has provided us with, but we would like to obtain more detailed information on what point each Member State has actually reached. We would also like to know what specific procedures the Commission is thinking of following to ensure that companies can, in general, comply with this legislation on 1 January 2012, other than those the Commissioner has mentioned, and if there is actually a framework of penalties with a modicum of uniformity between the various Member States. This is the intention of the resolution that we are discussing today, which will, I am sure, be widely supported in Parliament. However, my group will be voting against removing, in whole or in part, points F, 8, 9 and 14, which contain wordings and objectives that we doubt are compatible with EU law and that will reduce the resolution's credibility if they remain.
George Lyon
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for the information at the beginning of this debate.
Regardless of whether you have the complete picture or not, the hard fact is that, as of 1 January next year, 80 million eggs in the European Union are likely to be produced under illegal cage systems. That is going to be a fact. We have a 12-month laying cycle. There is no way that figure is going to change dramatically by that time.
I would like to know what I am going to say to the likes of John Campbell of Glenrath Farms and all the producers in the United Kingdom who have spent, on average, GBP 2 million each to comply with the legislation and now incur an extra cost that is between 8 and 10% higher than under a conventional cage system. What do I tell our consumers back home, to whom we promised that, by 1 January 2012, there would be no more eggs on the market produced under the old conventional battery cage systems?
I know what I want this Parliament and the Commission to say. I want to be able to go back and tell them that we are going to take tough action to make sure that the legislation is complied with. No derogations and no extensions. After all, producers have had ten years to comply. I want Member States who are compliant to be able to protect their consumers and their producers by being able to ban imports of illegally produced eggs from those producers and countries which are not compliant. I also believe that the Commission should draw up a list, once it has the information, and name and shame those who have failed to comply. It is no excuse to say that we were not aware it was coming. Ten years is a long time in any business cycle to be able to prepare and invest.
Commissioner, when you are winding up this debate, I hope you will give us a strong statement saying that you understand the concerns of producers and consumers and a promise of tough action that protects both of them.
Martin Häusling
Mr President, Commissioner, your answers have failed to convince me. The details provided by the Commission in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development were also far from convincing. As Mr Lyon has already stated, this is a problem facing us down the line. From 2012 onwards, 30% of the eggs on the market will be illegal. However, we have no idea how to deal with them. Apparently, we are to trust states to meet their reporting obligations - permit me to ask why we do not initiate infringement proceedings or at least threaten such action, so as to make it quite clear that, at the end of the day, European law must apply in all Member States and to all farmers? We have built up a very high level of credibility in respect of animal welfare, and this is something we must also defend. Citizens rightly expect these standards to be applied. The public is very sensitive to animal welfare issues. After all, we do provide funding and public support to the farming community because we have more stringent regulations in relation to environmental protection and animal welfare. It is not unreasonable to expect something in return from all Member States. For this reason, I should like to ask: What is the Commission going to do now? We have already made a demand at committee level. We actually need to place a catalogue of measures on the table immediately. We cannot accept the possibility of further discussions aimed at extending deadlines. It cannot be that we now penalise those who have implemented policy by allowing others to work with transitional deadlines for even longer. This will cause farmers to lose faith in the institutions of the European Union.
You raised a question in relation to labelling. What will happen with products that contain liquid egg instead of fresh eggs, for example? How can we label such products? This point must be regulated immediately at the very least.
It has already been said several times that 10 years is a long time. Everyone in the European Union must have known that these deadlines would have to be observed. There can be no excuse for Member States, including new Member States, saying: 'Sorry, but we ran out of time. Ten years really was not enough'.
The European Union is in pole position when it comes to animal welfare. We can use it to back up our arguments worldwide. We can use it in argumentation with consumers, which is why we must implement this consistently if Parliament and the Commission are not to lose credibility in relation to the implementation of European standards. For this reason, we are urgently calling on the Commission to take action, rather than wasting even more time risking a situation that will satisfy no one from 1 January 2012 onwards.
James Nicholson
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, first of all, can I also say I am not totally convinced by what the Commissioner told us today. There have been two occasions when officials from the Commission came to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and their performance and what they told us was not only unacceptable, it was abysmal and it was a disgrace.
Now I have listened to what the Commissioner said and I have listened with tremendous interest to some of the things she did say, but she has not given us anything other than the fact that they are going to meet the stakeholders in January.
So what are you going to say to the stakeholders in January, Commissioner? What is going to be the outcome of that? We want to know, because you have got to realise that, today, the last hens are already in the conventional cages that have got to meet that deadline. They are already there. There is normally a 13 to 14-month laying cycle for hens that go into conventional cages.
Now, you made a comment during your remarks and maybe you will reply or enlarge on it: you said that eggs from outside the EU not meeting equivalent standards would have a different mark. What do you mean by that? Will you take on board the point that eggs within the EU produced unlawfully after 1 January 2012 will either have the same stamp, will not be allowed to be exported outside the country in which they are produced or will not be allowed to go onto the market?
We have a terrible problem here because, as George Lyon said, there are 83 million eggs - we know that for a fact - which, on 1 January 2012 are going to be illegal. Now that is also a terrible plight for us in Europe, where people require eggs to eat. So what are we going to do here?
I really think we need to know where we are going. Will you give us an assurance that you will come back to this House in March with a proper proposal as to what you intend to do - what measures you intend to bring in - to actually control this situation? As has been outlined by others, many producers have already spent millions of pounds in conforming to the standards. They cannot now be asked to take further pain by others who are not prepared to do the same.
John Stuart Agnew
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, the Commission has created a huge crisis in the egg industry. Like it or not, 100 million birds will still be in cages on D-day - or should I say E-day? There is neither the cash nor the logistics to prevent this.
Insisting on the ruthless enforcement of its rules in a year's time from the comfort of an armchair may give the speaker a great feeling of satisfaction, but it could seriously jeopardise the long-term health of the British egg sector.
Let us look at the practical implications. How do you remove and dispose of 100 million hens in 24 hours? Or, how do you safely smash and dispose of 83 million eggs every day? On the assumption that you somehow succeed in either of these, where will consumers turn for their 83 million daily eggs? To Ukraine, to India, to Argentina, to Brazil, where all the eggs will have been laid in battery cages. Do any of these countries have a reputation for high welfare standards?
Once this trade starts, it will expand very rapidly by virtue of its competitive advantage. It will be very difficult to stop. It will completely undermine the efforts of colony egg producers in the UK. In effect, we will export a large slice of our industry which has just made massive investments to stay compliant with EU rules.
I believe that an intra-Community trading ban is a complete non-starter. Not only will it be impossible to police across open borders, but it could be challenged by the WTO. So the least bad solution - and I say 'least bad' - is to allow temporary derogations to non-compliant producers with conditions attached.
There are some naked images I enjoy looking at, but I do not enjoy the visual image of lorry-loads of naked, unstamped eggs leaving foreign battery cage units en route to the UK in 2012. Unstamped eggs are a gift to a fraudulent trader. We have learnt this the hard way in the UK.
Our UK solution is to mechanically stamp eggs with the code numbers that represent their method of production at the laying farm itself. This operation is proceeding on my own farm at this very moment, and the machinery is reliable. The Commission say it is far too difficult for them to organise the stamping of a special code on non-compliant eggs, despite its obvious necessity. Yes, this is, of course, the same Commission that is forcing UK sheep farmers to unnecessarily identify sheep individually with unreliable electronic equipment. What a glaring inconsistency.
The 'least bad' solution - and I use that expression again - is for the EU to insist that non-compliant Member States spend their regional funds on stamping machines and also to pay for an inspectorate whose staff are nationals of compliant Member States. This inspectorate will also visit packing stations and build up a database of the processors who use these battery cage eggs in their products.
Most UK retailers are keen to avoid trading in battery caged eggs after the deadline, but they can only succeed in this if these eggs are properly identified.
Mike Nattrass
Mr President, this is not just a matter about hens in unsuitable cages, but it is about the ability of the EU to oversee the single market.
States were given 10 years to comply by 1 January 2012 or the product would be illegal. The Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, British and others have complied, but certain large producers have simply refused. This involves massive capital costs and to comply means borrowing money. The regulation has put about 15 pence on a dozen eggs. Those bandits who do not comply might be given more time and would be clearly rewarded because they would have been given a price advantage.
Eggs from illegal cages will undercut those who obeyed the EU. One producer borrowed GBP 10 million to comply with this directive. He did the right thing.
Is the Commission going to renege and make his eggs uncompetitive? If more time is given, then the moral of this story is that, if the EU makes a directive, it pays to ignore it.
Esther Herranz García
(ES) Mr President, in January 2012, 400 Spanish egg producers could disappear, which is around 30% of the total number in my country, with the loss of the production of 300 000 tonnes of eggs.
The European Union could stop producing the 80 million eggs, which amount to 2 million tonnes, and if we do not act very intelligently, the only thing that we would achieve would be that they would be covered by imports from third countries, whose animal welfare standards are much lower than those in the European Union.
This 1999 directive, which requires that the space in cages for laying hens be increased, demands that we act intelligently and positively, because otherwise, we will only weaken European production and give extra trade opportunities to third countries where the amount of space per bird is much smaller than what we currently have in the European Union.
This directive requires a great deal of effort from European producers, as in Spain alone, it is understood that the cost is around EUR 600 million. It should also not be forgotten that it has an economic impact that extends to the egg products industry and the food industry in general.
I therefore ask for your support for the amendment tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) to paragraph 2, which asks for a solution to be found at least for responsible farms and responsible businesses that are in the process of transforming their farms and will have completed that transformation by January 2012. We need to support them in transforming their facilities and give them time to complete that process, thus preventing farms from suffering irreparable damage and preventing an overnight shortage in the EU market, which will consequently increase prices for consumers.
We need to respect the directive, give the egg and egg products industries a chance and also respect the right to animal welfare and the right of consumers to a reasonable price.
Ulrike Rodust
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, at this point, I would like once again to point out that a decision has already been made to ban the practice of battery farming in cages. The Member States and the egg producers have had plenty of time to implement the directive for the abandonment of conventional battery practices. The time has not run out quite yet - there are still twelve months to go before the practice is to be completely banned.
I believe that we must ensure that battery farming is completely banned by 1 January 2012. It must be possible to threaten the Member States who have not succeeded in implementing the directive by then with legal action, such as financial penalties.
We also need to ensure that eggs which originate from farming practices that do not comply with European law are not sold in the internal European market.
Britta Reimers
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have known for twelve years that battery farming practices would be banned in the EU from 1 January 2012 onwards. How can it be that twelve years have not been enough for some Member States to implement this ban in good time and to prepare their poultry industry accordingly? This is just one of many examples of how poor implementation leads to frustration. Egg producers in Member States who have implemented the changes in good time are already experiencing competitive anomalies that run counter to the principles of the EU.
I am calling on the Commission to require that the relevant law should be upheld in all Member States and to do all it can to ensure that it is implemented. Eggs should no longer be produced in battery cages after January 2012 and the then illegal eggs should no longer be allowed to reach the shops, putting an end to their negative effect on competition. The farmers who have changed their practices to comply with EU requirements should not experience financial disadvantage while those who flout the changeover reap the economic benefits.
It is impossible to explain to people in Europe why EU law does not apply equally in all Member States and why some Member States are always seen to be dragging their feet. The recent crises show where this can lead us. We need a Europe that acts in a concerted way, rather than one in which every member can do as it pleases, regardless of the rest.
Vicky Ford
Mr President, like many mothers, I want decent animal welfare standards but I also want affordable eggs. I am not a poultry expert and my daughter's four attempts to keep pet chickens have all fallen prey to the local fox.
Therefore, I would rather listen to the professionals - like the farmer, the keeper of 30 000 happy EU-compliant hens, that I visited in my constituency last month. In the UK, the pig-farming industry learnt - to its great cost - the mistake of introducing higher animal welfare standards unilaterally. The UK's egg farmers put their confidence in the Commission, and have invested hundreds of millions of pounds getting ready for this legislation.
Public confidence in the EU is at an all-time low. You must protect those who have complied, in good faith, with this legislation. It is not time to play chicken with the egg farmers.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission for the answer, incomplete as it is. There are very specific questions raised by the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and they have not been answered fully.
I would particularly question the figures, and perhaps you might clarify them? Did you say that 66% of production is now free-range? That is not the information I have. I dare say that the information you have is therefore selective, and you do need to have a very thorough stakeholders meeting because those are, let me say, very enriched figures. They do not at all give the true story of egg production in the European Union.
Let me also say that if it was easy to comply with this legislation and if our consumers really - and I mean this - really, really wanted welfare-friendly framing systems, they would pay the price for them. They want them. They do not value them, and they do not want to pay the price for these. I have not received one query from a consumer in my time here in the European Parliament since 2004 begging me to have this legislation implemented.
Remember that, folks. That is the fact of the situation. Having said that, it is important that this legislation passed by this House is fully implemented and that those who have invested huge amounts of money to be compliant are protected by the European Union. I think the Commission knows it will have a legal problem on its hands.
Let me address the market situation. There will be a very visible pile-up of eggs: 83 million of them on 1 January 2012 that are illegal! Morally and ethically, we cannot dump those eggs. It would be horrendous if we did, and also the market would suffer and prices to consumers would rise, and there would be protests and revolt.
The Commission needs to tell us what is going to happen on that day, because it is inevitable these eggs will be on the market and there will be a black market in eggs of some description, so we do need clarity on this.
Those who are in the transition phase also need to know that there will be no roll-back, because they are confused about the messages they are getting.
Of all of the issues we debated this week, this is a crucial one for our consumers, but also our producers. We need some answers from the Commission.
Iratxe García Pérez
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, as you will see, in this House we monitor compliance with legislation, including legislation that has not entered into force. If we extended that exercise to other sectors with deadlines still pending, we would have to have 15-day plenary sittings.
Today, we are discussing a sector that does not receive aid from the common agricultural policy and is suffering due to increased feed prices. It is not easy for the sector to cope with additional costs, but it must do so in order to comply with the high production standards that we set in the EU.
Everything appears to point to the fact that by 1 January 2012, producers in many Member States will not have been able to comply 100% with the deadline set. It is calculated that there will be a shortfall of 30% of production in order to cover the needs of the EU market.
The result is that fresh eggs will be produced here, and they will indeed be more expensive for consumers. We will buy eggs for processing elsewhere, and we will close the proportion of EU production that went to that market. By then, I hope that we will have had more success in requiring mutuality in our relationships with third countries.
I will conclude: the legislation will be compulsory from 2012. In the meantime, the Commission can enforce other legislation that is in force, such as electronic identification of sheep and goats, which adds value in terms of traceability and good veterinary conditions and also has a direct impact on animal welfare.
Jarosław Kalinowski
(PL) Mr President, it is quite clear what the resolution under debate is saying - there are to be no exceptions and no derogations. The European Commission is to prepare instruments for enforcement and for penalising production that is not adapted to the requirements. Unfortunately, nothing follows, either, from the statement in the preamble to the resolution that some producers will have had 12 years to adapt, while others will have had eight and yet others only five. I would add that the producers who have been given the shortest length of time to adapt supported the adaptation efforts of their counterparts in the old EU Member States by buying their non-adapted cages, unaware of the problems they were causing for themselves. Experts have found evidence to show that demand for table eggs in the European Union will exceed supply after the Laying Hens Directive has been implemented, which, in practice, will mean imports from third countries of eggs produced in cages which are certainly not adapted. I therefore call on the Commission to assess the feasibility of maintaining the ban on the use of conventional cages from 1 January 2012 while also finding solutions and clearly defined criteria for those producers who will not complete the modernisation process by 1 January 2012, as referred to in two amendments supported by my group.
According to its authors, the key argument in favour of adopting this resolution, aside from animal welfare and competitiveness, is the fact that the transitional period for making adaptations was well-known and enshrined in the directive, and that this deadline cannot be changed. I hope that the Members who accept this line of reasoning and vote in favour of the resolution will all be just as determined and unanimous when it comes to voting in favour of there being no further transitional period after 2013 for the differentiation of direct payments in the European Union, since a deadline of 2013 was enshrined in the Treaty for this transitional period. It is enshrined as such, and I do not think we should change it.
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
(HU) Mr President, the debate so far has made it clear that there is a serious conflict of interests between those who have completed the transition to the new system and those who have not yet done so. However, there is also a serious conflict between the old and the new Member States. I completely agree with Mr Kalinowski in that the old Member States had far more time for the transition, and in fact, they passed on their old, obsolete structures to the new Member States prior to the accession of the latter. Even so, it is evident that the rules must be followed, and it is also evident that once again, the European Union is putting its own producers at a competitive disadvantage by specifying stricter rules for them than those it applies to external suppliers for imports. Not only does it require these rules to be observed, but also quite often fails to control them effectively. Therefore, I believe that the European Commission is about to take another decision which will put EU producers at a disadvantage in relation to external markets.
Georgios Papastamkos
(EL) Mr President, I fully acknowledge the need to safeguard equal terms of competition within the Union, for the benefit of producers who have complied with the enhanced requirements imposed by the directive. At the same time, however, we must support producers who undertake to comply, but who are unable to afford the high cost of adapting by the deadline set. Provision has been made so that products not produced in accordance with the legislation cannot be legally marketed and traded within the Community from 1 January 2012.
At the same time, however, products produced to lower animal welfare standards will continue to be imported from third countries. In other words, when numerous farms in the Union are in danger of going out of business, due to enhanced animal welfare standards, products will be imported from third countries that do not even meet the specifications which apply in the Union today. Yes, we must protect animal welfare, we must safeguard the proper treatment of animals, but we must also protect the European social and productive fabric.
Spyros Danellis
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, although all European producers should respect Community legislation and make the necessary adjustments in time, it is estimated that 30% of egg producers will not have made them by 1 January 2012. Unfortunately, this state of affairs shows us that the European Commission has failed to convince producers that it is to their advantage and a policy that has failed to persuade the directly interested parties to defend it will have difficulty succeeding, whatever the policing measures imposed. We believe that an integrated approach, which links the cost of the investment with the benefit to both the producer and the consumer from the use of enriched cages, would do more to convince producers to adopt the measure and, of course, such an approach would safeguard the distinct difference of European products, based on quality, safety and animal welfare standards, and protect them against unfair competition on unequal terms from third countries, which is exactly what we fear will happen.
Giovanni La Via
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of animal welfare is one that this House has tackled many times and I believe that Parliament, together with the Commission and the Council, has made a considered and balanced decision. I do not think we can backtrack on this.
We therefore have the duty to look for the best ways to apply this measure and, in this case, we must structure it with a view to responsibility and enforce it in a responsible way with regard to all those operators who are adapting their production process. It is clear that we shall not be able to postpone this date and allow an additional period of time for the transition to a responsible system of animal welfare. It is incumbent upon us to think about all those people who have begun the transformation process and are carrying it out during a time of crisis and investment difficulties.
Therefore, I should like to emphasise the issue of the transition phase to you, which takes into consideration all those farmers who have begun the adjustment process in order to take account of animal welfare, but who have not yet completed it. At such a difficult time of crisis therefore, I believe that particular attention should also be paid to these producers.
Rareş-Lucian Niculescu
(RO) Mr President, I do not think either that it is fair for us to talk in general about a 10-year period which Member States would have had available. Romania and Bulgaria, for example, joined the European Union only three years ago, but rules are rules and they must be observed by everyone.
However, I want to urge fellow Members to vote for Amendment 2, tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). There is a large number of producers who have already started making investments to modernise their rearing systems or who are about to initiate such investments. However, these investments cannot be made overnight and it would be unfair for the producers in question to be penalised. I want to emphasise once again that it only concerns those producers who have started modifying their rearing systems, and the amendment refers to compliance with certain clearly defined conditions.
Andrew Henry William Brons
Mr President, United Kingdom producers have been investing substantial sums of money - pushing up their production costs - in preparing for the implementation of this directive because they know that Britain will implement the law. Why should they have to face unfair competition from countries that fail to implement the law or possibly are granted exemption or delayed enforcement?
The measure has been drafted with the barest minimum of enforcement, left to the precious care of greatly varying standards in 27 Member States. The language is hardly suggestive of uniformly severe enforcement. Words like 'proportionate' and 'dissuasive' have been used.
I am not in favour of the EU passing laws on behalf of Member States at all. However, if such laws are passed, it is not acceptable for some countries to be forced to comply and others granted effective exemption. Will the Commission ensure that countries that fail to comply will be prevented from exporting eggs to countries that do comply, or at least that eggs from non-complying units will not be exported? Our producers are demanding protection from unfair competition.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, with regard to the subject being debated here today, allow me to start by reiterating that I believe, firstly, that directives should actually be complied with and that this is equally true for Directive 1999/74/EC, and, secondly, that concerns over animal welfare is a flagship issue that the European Union should uphold. That said, it is important to stress that adapting to the directive is quite burdensome for the sector's companies: 30% per hen in Portugal. Moreover, there is no specific support from the Rural Development programme for this purpose.
As a result of the lack of capital in this sector, limited bank credit and the crisis in general, it is imperative and urgent to acknowledge that the adaptation of many companies has been delayed. It is therefore important to allow extra time for those companies - and only those companies - that have already started to adapt as required.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, none of us wishes to cast doubt on the need to implement a directive that dates back to 1999, as the credibility of this institution is at stake, and none of us wishes to cast doubt on the need to protect the wellbeing and health of animals.
However, directives also need to be based on good sense, so today in this House, I should like to make a few good-sense observations. Firstly, between 1999 and today, there has been a deep economic crisis that has hobbled businesses, industry and consumption, so many businesses have not been able to make the adjustments. Should we not take that into account?
Secondly, rigorous application of the directive from 1 January 2012 would remove many businesses from the market, paving the way for the import of eggs produced using methods that are much less protective of the animals than those required and practised in the European Union, or to the relocation of European production facilities to outside the European Union.
If this is what we want at a time of crisis - to favour a drop in employment and an increase in imports of eggs produced outside Europe, under different criteria than those imposed on our producers - then I think that we shall commit an injustice.
We worked a great deal on the idea of a substantial transition phase and I feel that I support it. Commissioner, I am asking you to guarantee it as well.
Diane Dodds
Mr President, as many colleagues across this Chamber have said, protecting producers who have complied with this legislation and spent vast amounts of money is absolutely right and is the duty of the Commission at this stage.
However, I do feel that there is something the Commission needs to realise. I have spoken to many of my own farmers who find it difficult to find the money to invest in difficult financial and economic circumstances. I am interested in the reference to the marking or stamping of eggs. I have a recent letter from the Commission which actually indicates that an additional mark would have little or no benefit because the Commission did not believe that consumers would actually differentiate.
Therefore, I would ask the Commission to indicate to us whether it has changed its mind on this issue or whether it simply does not know? Again, I would ask the Commission to indicate if it intends to go down the route of an intra-EU trade ban. I have companies in my constituency which rely on the import of eggs from other European countries. Are they simply going to force these companies to rely on third-country imports? Most certainly, the eggs there will have been produced under much less stringent welfare systems.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, there can be no debate about the fact that farmers must adapt to the 1999 directive. We understand those farmers who have already invested money in modernising cages. We are not talking about giving more time to some farmers than others, as one of the previous speakers said, but about giving the same amount of time to everyone to meet the requirements made of them and to ensure that the standards are met.
The terms 'illegal production' and 'consumer care' have a very nice ring to them, but I would like to know why we do not show the same determination in protecting consumers against the consumption of imported eggs produced in conditions which do not meet the requirements introduced in the EU. I always try to understand the situation of different groups of farmers in the individual countries, and I am in favour of solutions that help them, since I know that as a group, they are in an exceptionally difficult situation in terms of revenue. It is a shame that others in this House do not share the same view.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, it must be clear to us all that the health of our animals and, by association, human health must be our prime concern. In the Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) scientific committee, where we carry out technology options assessments, we also have the 'Better Life' project, which looks at ways of improving future conditions in the area of nutrition and feedstuffs. For this reason, particularly in the context of the Eighth Framework Research Programme, I would ask the Commissioner to work to ensure that the research programmes in the areas of foodstuffs/feedstuffs are strengthened, so that there is an improvement in research into the safety of foodstuffs and the health of animals and humans in this area and so that we can prepare the appropriate documents here for the citizens of Europe in the future.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, thank you for your indulgence. I wanted to mention two other points in my contribution. The issue of eggs in shell is quite visible and clear. There is, however, a massive market for processed eggs for the confectionery sector and we need to know what sort of labelling requirements there will be for that product.
I think this is where we have the greatest concerns because more and more eggs are going into the processing sector, and my fear is that we will export our cages from the European Union and then import liquid-egg and dried-egg products from those very systems in third countries.
I see you nodding in agreement. This is a very real problem for the European Union.
My other concern relates to parallel production systems and a huge problem in the marketplace if we have enriched cages coming into production while the current systems remain in production. That could cause major problems for producers and, ultimately, for consumers. So the Commission has a huge balancing act to get this right.
Androulla Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, it is obvious that there is no consensus on this issue. I have heard Members here pleading for no exemptions and no derogations and, on the other hand, I have heard Members pleading for an extension. It depends on which country they come from and on the stage of development in each particular Member State.
Let me underline the Commission position. I want to repeat that, as of January 2012, conventional cages must be replaced by enriched cages or alternative systems. Therefore, eggs from conventional cages will not be legally marketable after January 2012. This is our position.
The Commission is making every effort, and we are concentrating on our efforts, to support Member States in complying with this directive. What are we doing? First of all, we are encouraging Member States to develop and complete national plans, in collaboration with the industry and major stakeholders, and we are receiving national plans which also incorporate sanctions for those industries, or those farmers, who are not in compliance with the directive.
Secondly, we are exchanging information with Member States on good monitoring practices for reporting on progress with enforcement. We are organising visits by Commission experts to see that the directive is being implemented, and we are organising appropriate meetings with stakeholders. As I said, on 19 January 2011, we have a big stakeholders' meeting at which representatives of the Member States will discuss the current state of play, and we will see how best we can support Member States who are not in compliance, so that they can complete their compliance by the end of 2011.
This is our position. After January 2012, if there are still eggs which are not legally produced, those eggs cannot be marketed, and if non-compliance is demonstrated, the Commission could, of course, undertake all the measures available under the current legal framework - initiating infringement procedures in order to ensure proper enforcement of EU legislation. Alternatives to infringement procedures are also being studied, with a view to preventing the possible illegal circulation of eggs produced in conventional cages after January 2012.
Honourable Members made many other comments and I will make sure I convey all your concerns to Commissioner Dalli who, I am sure, will take serious account of your comments.
Esther de Lange
Mr President, I know it is quite unorthodox to take the floor after the Commissioner has spoken. I am very happy with what the Commissioner has said. However, the conclusion that we are divided in this House on this issue is not justified. I would respectfully ask the Commissioner to look at the result of the final vote before judging whether this House is divided on this issue or not.
President
I have received four motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
James Nicholson
Mr President, can I first of all support what Esther has just said. Can I also ask the Commissioner that if she cannot speak today, she would maybe let us have a statement in writing, because I do not believe this House is divided for one moment.
Could she elaborate more on what she said on eggs from outside the European Union that do not meet equivalent standards to EU standards not being allowed in and having a separate mark. What mark does she propose for those eggs in the EU that are not allowed to carry a legal mark after 1 January 2012?
President
Mr Nicholson, I am sorry, it was not a point of order. As I said, the debate is closed. You had the opportunity to raise your concerns before we closed the debate.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, I simply wanted to thank the House services because we have finished in an exemplary fashion today fifteen minutes before the vote, so that chaos will be avoided in the plenary sitting. This orderly procedure sends out the right signals to the public. I should like to express my particular gratitude to the House services.
President
If only things were always like this. Thank you very much.
(The sitting was suspended at 11:40 and resumed at 12:00)
Written statements (Rule 149)
Paolo Bartolozzi
Council Directive 1999/74/EC lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens under various systems of rearing with the added objective of protecting against unfair competition among producers in the different Member States. Although I support the principles of this directive, it must not be taken lightly that, as things stand, a great many European producers - having begun the process of converting their facilities - have run into real problems in completing the transformation and risk not being ready before 1 January 2012, the final deadline for complying with the directive.
If we also bear in mind the real difficulties faced by many producers in obtaining financing to support conversion processes and the serious economic difficulties that they are still having to deal with today - with serious repercussions on the stability of their businesses and employment levels - I am convinced that something has to be done. Member States should intervene to promote measures that can help European producers in the poultry farming sector who, aiming to adapt to the new European legislation, have embarked on the process of converting their facilities but are very unlikely to complete it before the start of 2012.


Question Time (Council)
President
The next item is questions to the Council (B6-0013/2008).
The following questions have been put to the Council.
As they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together:
Subject: Lisbon Treaty
Are there any issues that still need to be clarified in the current text of the Lisbon Treaty, and have all the concerns of the Slovenian Presidency regarding substance, procedure and time-frame for implementation of the Treaty been met? If this is not the case, could the Council outline what the outstanding issues are?
Subject: Council President
Have there been any preliminary discussions in the Council on who is going to be the President of the EU Council once the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified?
Gay Mitchell
Mr President, on a point of order, it most certainly is not the same. Could we please have some respect for the rights of Members of Parliament? To be adding questions together in this way is a disgrace. One Question Time is getting worse than the next! There is no relationship whatsoever between the two questions. I protest strongly at the way Members of this House are treated.
President
I understand, Mr Mitchell, but the more time we spend on these matters, the less time we will have to get answers to other questions also legitimately put by Members. It was a Council decision to answer these questions together. The honourable Member will not suffer as he will of course have the opportunity to speak on his particular question. I therefore feel that he will not suffer any loss.
We will therefore continue with our work; otherwise we will waste more time that we cannot afford to lose. It is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve a minimum level of productivity in these Question Times, which are so important for our parliamentary work. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have the floor.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) I should stress that, as far as the Council is concerned, it makes no difference whether we answer these questions together or separately. It is not up to us to decide. In this matter we comply with the wishes of this Parliament.
I will first answer Mrs Harkin's question. Let me stress that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon depends on ratification by all 27 Member States. However, it is clear that, as with all significant amendments to the Treaty, a few preparatory acts are necessary for the Lisbon Treaty to enter into force. In accordance with the authority given by the European Council decisions of December 2007, the Slovenian Presidency has started those preparations. I emphasise that the work relating to implementation has reached that level and it is only of a technical and precursory nature.
While the ratification process is still underway and has not been finalised, this work will still be only of a temporary and preliminary nature. It will only be possible to debate many aspects of the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty after it has entered into force. There are also many examples where some aspects of implementation will only be debatable if proposed by the Commission.
The Council intends to keep Parliament informed of progress, and it will cooperate closely with Parliament on all those aspects of the preparations for implementation of the Lisbon Treaty which are of interest to both institutions.
Secondly, I will answer Mr Mitchell's question. The answer is 'no', the Council has not yet debated who should become President of the European Union Council, that is to say more precisely, who should become President of the European Council. The Council has not debated that. I will add the Presidency's opinion that it has not been debated because it is not yet time to do so.
Marian Harkin
I would like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for the answer. I think what you said to me is that this is an ongoing process and there may be areas of clarification that need to be sorted out.
In the context of clarification, I would like to know what your view is on the production of an official consolidated text from the Council because I have written to a number of Heads of State and quite a number have replied to me - the Spanish Prime Minister, the Ministers for Europe in Germany and Bulgaria - with regard to the need for a consolidated text. In fact Parliament voted for it just three weeks ago and Commissioner Margot Wallström, in this very House, said that we need a consolidated text as soon as possible. I just wonder what your views on that are.
Gay Mitchell
First of all can I say that, if the Council has difficulty in getting the consolidated text, the Institute of European Affairs in Dublin will gladly give them a copy in English.
Secondly, from the reply given by the President-in-Office to my question, I would like to ask him whether it is clear that there are no candidates, that there is no short list and no long list for the job of President of the European Council, that this is something that will be decided some time after the Lisbon Treaty is approved - if it is approved - and that this is in the distant future. Is that the situation?
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) Firstly, the supplementary question from Mrs Harkin.
In any case, in the opinion of the Council, that is to say the Presidency, a consolidated text is needed for the Treaty of Lisbon. At another point in today's debate I said that we were expecting it in the middle of April and that it should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the second half of May. Some may find that late. However, we have to be aware that it is very demanding, legal editing work. It is a complex text and, in addition, the official consolidated text has to be prepared in all 23 official languages of the European Union. If one takes all that into account, it will not be too long before we have an official, consolidated version of the text.
There are unofficial versions and I am grateful to Mr Mitchell for pointing this out. The unofficial versions remain unofficial and cannot be regarded as the official text. There are many of them, including one from the Dublin Institute. It is useful reading matter, but it cannot replace the official version, which will take a certain time to prepare.
In response to the second part of Mr Mitchell's supplementary question, I can assert on behalf of the Presidency and the Council that at the moment there is no short or long list of possible or actual candidates. It does not exist. The Council has not debated it. We will probably have to debate it closer to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The first possible date would be 1 January 2009. I expect the debate on this question to start later in 2008. It will have to start at some point because it was foreseen that when the Lisbon Treaty was implemented, the European Union would also acquire a President of the European Council.
I repeat that, in the opinion of the Presidency at the moment, the time for such debates has not yet come, but we have to appreciate the fact that, out of a possible 27 ratifications, only five have so far been secured.
Richard Corbett
It concerns the future President of the European Council. Does the Presidency agree that this is not, in fact, a presidency of the Union, it is a chairmanship of one of the institutions, each institution having its own president?
And, has the presidency had any discussions as to the nature of the job in detail, to make sure that the role does indeed not expand to be some sort of 'President of the Union' but remains confined to chairing and running the European Council meetings?
Reinhard Rack
(DE) Mr President, my question relates to the compiled text, in other words, the consolidated version. I am grateful to the President-in-Office of the Council for elucidating the important difference between private and official texts. I would also welcome it if, in parallel to the publication in the Official Journal, a concerted campaign could perhaps be initiated via the Member States in order to give interested citizens access to the full text. We do not have to turn out vast quantities, but if citizens wish to see a copy of the text, they should be able to request it from the national governments.
Esko Seppänen
(FI) Mr President, Mr Minister, last week in Ljubljana it came to my attention that the Slovenian parliament had ratified the Treaty without a consolidated version, which astonished me. The Members of Parliament could not have access to the text in the form in which it has now been distributed to them.
I would like to ask if, as far as you know, it was agreed by the Council of Ministers or at the summit that the consolidated text would be delayed for as long as possible. Was it by chance agreed there that no referendums would be held on the Constitution - the Treaty of Lisbon?
Mairead McGuinness
President-in-Office, I might suggest that there could be a wish list among potential candidates - an unofficial one which we have not yet seen.
However, on the substantive issue, I am glad you are preparing; you are not predicting the outcome, but you are hoping, as I am, that it will be positive and that the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified.
There is a notion among the 'no' campaign in Ireland that this is a self-amending Treaty, which it is not, and I would like you to perhaps state very clearly to those of us in Ireland who are out there on the campaign trail that this Treaty and future changes to it will respect the ratification process of all Member States.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) I understood the first three questions, but the translation of the fourth was lost. I would like to ask Mrs McGuinness to repeat the question and I will listen to it in her language.
Mairead McGuinness
Perhaps I was too speedy. In Ireland, the 'no' campaign are propagating the mistruth that if we support this Treaty there will be no future referendums in Ireland on further treaties, should we need them. And, in the next 50 years, who knows what we will need to vote on?
I am very clearly of the view - as many in this House are - that voting 'yes' to Lisbon will do no such thing and that there will always be respect for the ratification process of Member States. I would like you, perhaps in your position, to confirm that.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) Thank you very much for kindly repeating your question, Mrs McGuinness. I understand it fully now, but first a response to Mr Corbett. When we say the President of the European Council, absolutely nothing else is meant but the President of the European Council. As a lawyer, I cannot agree that the President of the European Council could be a President of something else at the same time.
The European Council is becoming an institution. With the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, it will become a new institution for the first time. It will have a President who will preside over this institution and no other institution mentioned in the Lisbon Treaty.
I agree with Mr Rack's opinion that the consolidated text is in any case a useful aid in parliamentary decision-making and for informing citizens. However, as I said before, it does not change the fact that the only relevant text is the one prepared by a competent service of the general secretariat of the Council as an official consolidated text.
That brings me to Mr Seppänen's question. It is true that the Slovenian Parliament has ratified the Lisbon Treaty without the official consolidated text, because it is not yet available. Those who were interested in the matter had access to an unofficial consolidated text in several languages.
I must say that the Government was very active in explaining the innovations brought by the Lisbon Treaty and, as shown by the result in the Slovenian Parliament, it was quite successful. However, this is our national problem and does not concern the Presidency so much; nevertheless, I felt I owed you an explanation.
Back to referendums. First let me ask you, Mr Seppänen, whether you asked how the Council, that is to say we, could prevent referendums?
Esko Seppänen
(FI) I asked if a decision had been taken by the Council or at the summit that no referendums should be held - that it should be recommended to Member States that they do not hold a referendum. That was my question.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) Thank you for this additional explanation. There is no such decision and it is not possible to make one. The Council respects the rights of each Member State to make an independent and sovereign decision on the ratification process in accordance with its internal regulations, and neither the Council nor the Presidency interferes in the matter.
In response to Mrs McGuinness, as I have just said, the choice of the method of ratification of the new treaty is a sovereign right of each Member State, which should independently decide, in accordance with its legislation, whether it will have a referendum or ratify the new treaty in parliament. This fact will not be changed in any way by the new treaty.
Implementation of the Lisbon Treaty will leave this question in the exclusive sovereign competency of each Member State, including Ireland, and this will also apply to future treaties.
President

Subject: Youth Pact
The Council has taken decisions in the context of the Youth Pact to enhance the employability of young Europeans and the scope for combining work and family life. Does the new Presidency intend to assess the results achieved so far and promote these objectives further?
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) I would like to draw Mrs Panayotopoulos' attention to the Council's latest initiative relating to her question. On 14 February this year, the Council adopted a series of key reports on further implementation of the European Youth Pact and forwarded them to the spring session of the European Council, which will start tomorrow. The key reports are based on the Commission's latest analysis of the national reform programmes and contain a progress assessment of the implementation of the European Youth Pact for 2007.
On the basis of this analysis, the Council established that, since the adoption of the European Youth Pact in 2005, unemployment has fallen in some Member States. At European Union level, however, unemployment is still high, at over 17%. That is why the following recommendations were formulated for further implementation of the pact, and the Council will receive them in the form of key reports this week.
Youth employment, cooperation in education and training and social integration of young people should continue to be the central tasks of economic and social strategies. Special attention should continue to be paid to young people with fewer opportunities, especially by means of more decisive guidance, multidisciplinary support and adapted measures.
In the future implementation of the Lisbon Strategy we should endeavour to develop the youth dimension. It is based on an intersectoral approach and a strengthened role for young people. The first recommendation calls on Member States to focus particularly on youth employment tasks. In that connection, the Commission is emphasising issues such as: transition from the education system to employment, uncertain labour relations, flexicurity and youth employability.
The Slovenian Presidency has devoted special attention to the problems and challenges of youth employment. I would like to mention the international conference entitled 'Jobs for Youth - Prosperity for All', which will take place next month in Slovenia during this Presidency.
Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou
(EL) Mr President, the text of the European Youth Pact also provides for measures for combining professional and family life. The Council has also decided on the establishment of the European Alliance for Families. Young people must have the opportunity to start a family. What measures does the Presidency intend to take in order to provide this opportunity?
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) The practical realisation will rest with each Member State. We are anticipating that the European Council will adopt certain decisions on this matter at political level this week, including the European Alliance for Families. In short, we are expecting an additional impetus to the efforts in this area. How they will be applied is primarily a matter for each individual Member State.
President

Subject: Cooperation on homelessness at EU level
The Council may be aware of the Written Declaration 0111/2007 on ending street homelessness recently launched in the European Parliament. One aim of the Declaration will be to develop a European approach to end street homelessness, and for that purpose gather and share reliable statistical data which will be necessary to facilitate action.
What is the Council's position with regard to Europe-wide cooperation concerning homelessness? In particular, would it consider the sharing of statistics at European level to be a positive move?
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) The Council is aware of the European Parliament initiative calling for a pan-European alliance for the elimination of homelessness by 2015. The Council welcomes the initiative and is eagerly awaiting to see its achievements.
I would like to remind you that the issues of homelessness as part of a social security and social inclusion policy are dealt with under the Open Method of Coordination. The Social Protection Committee is responsible for this area. The Open Method of Coordination has reinforced awareness of the fact that homelessness presents a problem in all Member States. In preparing national action plans for social inclusion for 2006-2008, Member States designated homelessness as one of the primary strategic priority areas.
The 2007 joint report on social security and social inclusion dealt with the challenge posed by homelessness in relation to measures for active inclusion. To these measures we should add a number of other services including housing, health care and social services. The report also established that some Member States are developing a more structural approach to exclusion in housing and homelessness.
As regards the question on statistical data for homelessness in Europe, I should say that, despite all efforts by the European Observatory on Homelessness, the indicators in this area are still underdeveloped. Many Member States have not defined homelessness at all. Also, most Member States have no reliable data on the number of homeless people. Even where data exist, it is difficult to compare them because the methodology of counting and trend monitoring differs among individual Member States.
Due to a lack of comparable data on homelessness, the Social Protection Committee's Indicators Sub-Group included in its working programme for 2008, among other plans, an analysis of the proportion of material poverty represented by housing, an analysis of the cost of housing as shown in the European study of income and living conditions, and further measures based on the study of the extent of homelessness in the European Union, which the Commission's services published in January 2007.
In addition to that, the Social Protection Committee concluded that homelessness in 2009 will be one of the possible priority tasks within the framework of the targeted efforts to achieve social inclusion.
Glenis Willmott
I was happy to see recently released UK Government figures that show that in my constituency, the East Midlands, new cases of homelessness recorded by local authorities have fallen by 25% over the past year. This is thanks to the Labour Government's top priority of eliminating homelessness and a strong focus on equipping people with the skills and training needed to move away from the streets permanently. This is in stark contrast with the results achieved by the previous Conservative Government, under which the numbers of those homeless and sleeping rough actually increased.
Therefore, does the Council agree that this is an example of best practice, that it should be shared and consequently that it is necessary that a suitable EU-level platform is put in place to do this?
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) Thank you for this information, but please understand that as a representative of the Council I am not at liberty to comment on the data or the situation for an individual Member State. What you said could be an example of good practice, but I cannot state that here as a representative of the Council.
President

Subject: Action to combat international crime and the EU Court of Justice
Will the Council report on the progress achieved and announce the immediate proposals for the establishment of a common asylum policy in the EU?
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) In June 2007 the Commission published a green paper on a future common European asylum system. The Council is now awaiting the Commission's proposals for the second phase of instruments, laws and measures aimed at establishing a common European asylum system. These instruments and laws will be adopted by Parliament and the Council under the codecision procedure.
For the timing of these proposals we should consult the Commission, which also has the exclusive legislative initiative in this area.
Manuel Medina Ortega
(ES) Mr President, Mr Mehdi Kazemi, aged 19, has just lost the possibility of obtaining asylum in the Netherlands after his application was rejected in the United Kingdom. Mr Kazemi could be sent to Iran and executed for the crime of being a homosexual.
At present in the EU we do not have any rules on this and my question is whether the Council believes that it can speed up the processes or that we can wait, for example, until the European Court of Justice forces the Member States to recognise asylum as a fundamental human right in accordance with existing human rights case-law.
Hubert Pirker
(DE) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in relation to the development of a common asylum procedure, one objective is to expedite the decision-making process that determines whether people are granted refugee status or not. One thing that I have been calling for repeatedly is the compilation of a list of safe third countries in order to speed up decisions. Could you tell us what progress you have made in your discussions on compiling such a list?
My second point is this: we have often asked for information campaigns so that people know how asylum procedures work, what legal immigration means and what the consequences are of a rejected asylum application or illegal immigration.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) The answer to the supplementary question raised by Mr Medina Ortega is very clear. The Council is incapable of doing anything to force a Member State to behave in a particular way when deciding on the granting of asylum.
These are the obligations of the Member States under international law. However, there are going to be additional obligations when we take a new step towards a common European Union asylum policy, which I described earlier, that is to say towards establishing a common asylum system.
Mr Pirker, I cannot add to what I said earlier in the introduction. The intended schedule will have to be presented by the European Commission. I suggest that this question be addressed to the Commission as well.
President
Ladies and gentlemen, let us continue. The following questions will not be answered because they were not deemed admissible:
the first because it is similar to a question that was put in February;
Nos 7 and 8 because they deal with issues relating to the political situation in Chad on which we had a debate just before this Question Time.
Subject: Transport of liquids
Could the Council make a statement on the ongoing EU negotiations with Canada and the US regarding the transport of liquids through airports? Is the Council confident that any outstanding problems can be resolved within a short timeframe?
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) The only response I can make to Mr Higgins is that I cannot answer his question because the answer lies within the competence of the European Commission. This subject comes under its competence and, sadly, I cannot give a meaningful answer.
Jim Higgins
(GA) Mr President, I understand that the President-in-Office of the Council is not able to give me a response. Clearly, this is becoming much too drawn out. Do the authorities and the governments of Canada and the United States not understand that we have a solution in the European Union? A solution that is practical, simple and effective.
I would like ask the Commission or the President-in-Office of the Council why Canada and the United States do not accept this solution? The root of this is in the 9/11 attacks on the United States. It is a security measure. And it is very difficult to understand why we cannot accept this solution everywhere in the world.
Hubert Pirker
(DE) Mr President, we are always calling for appropriate measures to be taken in respect of our response to, and especially prevention of, terrorism, which is why this particular measure was initiated.
However, is this instrument really still effective, or have the terrorists already found ways of sidestepping these controls?
What could be done to harmonise the controls? Although we have a single set of provisions, their practical implementation varies widely from one airport to another, and this creates problems and annoyance.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) I am going to attempt to answer some points raised in the supplementary questions. The limits on liquids, sprays, gels and similar articles for air passengers were introduced for a reason. They were in response to a threat which was seriously and clearly expressed, a threat to security in civil aviation.
We have been informed that experts in various fields are intensively searching for solutions and technologies that will make it easier to detect a real threat, and in that way ease the transport of liquids, sprays, gels and similar articles in civilian air passengers' hand luggage.
Many debates on this topic are being conducted in many places, especially in the International Civil Aviation Authority. We are following those debates, but as yet there are no conclusions. If and when something happens, we expect the Commission to act appropriately.
President
Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have much time, in fact only six minutes, as the Council has informed me that it will have to leave at 7.30 p.m. However, we have enough time to answer the next two questions.
President. - As they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together:
Subject: The EU perspective of the Western Balkans
Inevitably, the fate of the Western Balkans will be of particular interest to the current holder of the Council Presidency. Given recent developments in relation to the status of Kosovo, will the Council Presidency assume an active role in attempting to integrate further the countries of the Western Balkans into EU structures?
Subject: Development of relations between the EU and the Western Balkan countries
The Slovenian Presidency has indicated that one of its priorities is the development of relations between the EU and the Western Balkan countries. Can the Council set out the principal objectives regarding the development of future agreements between the EU and the Western Balkans?
Subject: Role of the EU mission to Kosovo
The Prime Minister of Kosovo has recently stated that the declaration of independence is a matter of days away. The Russian Foreign Minister has linked the EU mission to Kosovo with a new UN Security Council resolution on the presence of the international community in Kosovo.
What is the mandate and the timetable for the EU's mission to Kosovo? Is the Council expecting a new UN Security Council resolution to make any changes in relation to the presence of the international community in Kosovo?
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) I would like to answer all three questions together, so the answer will be somewhat longer, but it is a particularly topical subject at this moment.
The Council is determined to continue supporting the European perspective of the Western Balkans, bringing it more within the grasp of the citizens of the region. Among other things it will speed up the start of dialogue with the countries of the region on the liberalisation of visa regulations.
At the session on Monday 10 March, the Council welcomed the inaugural session of the Regional Co-operation Council, which marked the official handing-over of the Stability Pact to this new Council. The establishment of this Council is evidence of great progress in regional cooperation in the fields of democracy, economics and security.
The Council has stressed the great importance of regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations and the need for renewed efforts on all sides to find, through a constructive approach to negotiations, acceptable bilateral solutions to unresolved questions on relations with neighbouring countries.
In its decisions of 18 February the Council confirmed its resolve to give total and effective support to the European perspective in the Western Balkans. It requested that the Commission use the instruments of the Community to stimulate economic and political development and offer the wider region concrete measures for progress in this direction.
Here I would like to mention a very important event: on 5 March the European Commission published a special communication about the Western Balkans. In it the Commission proposed a string of tangible measures for further deepening relations between the European Union and the countries of this region. This communication and the consolidation of the European perspective for the Western Balkan countries will be the main topic at the informal session of the European Union Foreign Ministers which is planned for the end of this month in Slovenia.
The Slovenian Presidency has given the Western Balkans special attention. The stability of this region is of crucial importance for the security and prosperity of the entire European Union. Among others, the following activities are possible in 2008: revision of the 2003 Thessaloniki agenda, conclusion of many stabilisation and association agreements, and strengthening of cooperation within the region in various fields.
In view of the lack of time, I will try and briefly present the main aims of the European Union Council concerning individual countries. Because Kosovo was mentioned in one of the questions, I will say a few words about it.
The Presidency still believes that what is needed is a long-term solution to the status of Kosovo within the general agenda of a European future for the Western Balkans. The stabilisation and association process is a strategic framework developed by the European Union for its policies towards the Western Balkans. The instruments of this framework also apply to Kosovo.
I would like to remind you again of the Council's decisions of 18 February, when it confirmed its commitment to total and effective support for a European future for the Western Balkans. The Council called on the Commission to use the instruments of the Community to stimulate economic and political development and offer the wider region concrete measures for moving closer to this target.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, I know time is short, but I think it is interesting that the landscape has changed since I tabled this question, and I welcome the fact that the President-in-Office has updated us with great detail about his particular and obvious concerns about the region. Could I just ask him, specifically in relation to the EU mission to Kosovo, which is unique and quite untested at this stage: can you assure us that we learn lessons from this intervention and will be ready to offer similar support to other countries in the region if and when we are invited to do so?
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Thank you for the specifications, but I would have liked to have had some additional information. We know that, as far back as July 2006, the treaty on energy was signed to attract investments in energy and I know that in 2007 a list of priority projects was adopted for energy infrastructure in the region and a memorandum on social issues was even signed.
We also know that the signing of a community treaty on transport with the countries in the region is contemplated in order to create a domestic market in the field of road, railway and inland waterway transport. A list of priority projects on transport was also established and I would have liked to have more details from the Council...
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) Regarding Mrs McGuinness' first question: the European Union mission in Kosovo is part of the European Union's common foreign and security policy, that is to say it is a CFSP 'ISDP mission'. However, it is not the only mission to the Western Balkans. The ISDP mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the missions and it has a similar status, that is to say it is a European Union police mission. Similarly, there was the PROXIMA mission to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which has finished.
I would like to emphasise the importance of the Kosovo mission for which the decision was adopted. It is often stressed that the European Union is divided on the status of Kosovo. This division is indeed apparent, but people forget about the unity of the European Union in important issues such as, for example, the question of the European mission, for which agreement was reached and which we hope will be operational as scheduled.
Now to Mrs Ţicău's question. We have already established regional cooperation within the framework of the energy declaration for south-east Europe. We are also contemplating other fields where, with concrete measures, we may be able to strengthen the real integration of the countries of the Western Balkans and re-enforce their connections with the European Union.
You mentioned transport. Yes, it is one of the areas we are studying, but there are others, such as cooperation in research, science and education. I would like especially to stress the importance of liberalising the visa requirements for these countries, which remains one of our targets. We hope it will soon be reached. Negotiations with most of the Western Balkan countries on a gradual liberalisation of the visa requirements have already started under the Slovenian Presidency.
Zita Pleštinská
(SK) The way Europe sees the Balkan countries has a significant impact on, and great importance for, stability both in the Balkans and on a European and global scale.
Kosovo's declaration of independence has planted the seeds of hatred between Serbs and Kosovo Albanians, endangering their fragile relations. Considering that Slovenia is a part of the Balkans too, what does the presidency believe is a sustainable solution that can guarantee peace and stability in this region? Will it be possible without Serbia's approval?
Dimitrios Papadimoulis
(EL) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, in your reply on Kosovo, you did not once mention 'the UN', or 'international legality'! I ask you: can the European perspective on the western Balkans to be endorsed, in circumvention of the UN and in breach of international legality? Furthermore, since the Council welcomes, in its communication, the international presence in Kosovo invoked by UN Resolution 1244, may I ask whether we can pick and choose from an à la carte menu? Is it valid or not, or do you select only those points that suit you?
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office. - (SL) Thank you for these supplementary questions. Regarding Mrs Pleštinská's question, I cannot and dare not predict, either personally or as a representative of the Council, a possible long-term solution for the status of Kosovo. It is a fact that the desirable solution would be an agreement between the parties involved. As we know, there were long negotiations on the subject, but they did not end in an agreement.
It would be equally desirable for the United Nations Security Council to take a position on this question but, as we know, this did not happen. That is why the European Union responded to Kosovo's declaration of independence in the way it did, on 18 February, with decisions and resolutions by the General Affairs and External Relations Council. That is the context in which an agreement was reached within the European Union. As we know, this context allows Member States to make their own decisions on the development of relations with Kosovo.
In response to Mr Papadimoulis' question, that is to say opinion, I would like to stress that there is no doubt that the European perspective for the Western Balkans also includes Kosovo. Kosovo is part of the region which had already been given a European perspective in Thessaloniki in 2003, and that has not changed.
This is also obvious from the European Commission's previously mentioned communication published on 5 March this year, which contains a special section devoted to Kosovo.
President
Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).
That concludes Question Time.
(The sitting was suspended at 7.40 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)