Electronic communication networks and services (debate)
President
The next item is Mrs Trautmann's report on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (03677/2009 - -.
Catherine Trautmann
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, here we are once again - this time for the last time - to discuss the telecom package and, more specifically, my report on the 'framework', 'access' and 'authorisation' directives, which represents the final cornerstone.
This is an opportunity for me to thank my colleagues, particularly my co-rapporteurs Pilar del Castillo and Malcolm Harbour; the chair of the Conciliation Committee, Mr Vidal-Quadras; the chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Herbert Reul, and all the services of the European Parliament that were involved. I also wish to thank the Commissioner for her involvement and support throughout this period, and I thank her services as well. Finally, I also welcome the efforts of the Swedish Presidency to reach a satisfying conclusion. Let us take a moment to remember Ulrika Barklund Larsson.
Tomorrow's vote will give a very positive signal to those expecting a more dynamic European industrial policy. As the second reading agreement on 99% of the text has been maintained, I shall just summarise the aspects that we made our priority. In particular, we wanted to maintain effective, lasting competition, but also to make that competition useful to economic and social development through complete coverage of European territory in terms of access, high speed internet for all and for all regions - including better management of radio spectrum - and full rights for consumers.
This will involve establishing a consistent, operational framework for those who will be using these directives, that is, regulators, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications and the Commission; guaranteeing legal certainty; encouraging the investment needed to relaunch our economy and make the market dynamic for operators, their consumers and employees; and, finally, developing plenty of high-quality services that are accessible to the majority and fairly priced.
It is important that we remain within the terms of the agreement and, unfortunately, recent statements made by certain Member States raise some doubt over their commitment on this matter. I shall support the Commission's interpretation of the result of our negotiations over Article 19. As a matter of interest, the wording chosen for this article is closely linked to the debate on the mechanisms of Articles 7 and 7a. It would be disappointing if the Council, through non-binding declarations, put across the message that it somehow wanted to have its cake and eat it by denying a fair balance of powers between Member States, BEREC and the Commission, as emerged in the final compromise.
Finally, of course, the salient point that led us to conciliation: Amendment 138. I would just like to say that the result obtained was the maximum that Parliament could obtain with the legal basis we had: harmonisation of the internal market. So this result must not be taken lightly, since it offers all users of electronic connections solid protection of their right to privacy, to presumption of innocence and to contradictory procedure, no matter what course of action they face and before any sanctions are adopted.
I am also delighted by the Commission's willingness to assess the situation of net neutrality in Europe and to make the appropriate instruments available to Parliament and the Council by the end of the year, based on the result of these observations.
To conclude, I therefore ask everyone to think about the transposition of the package. I am already aware that Parliament, to which this package means a great deal, will make sure that the transposition is undertaken with respect for past agreements. Mr President, I will now listen carefully to my colleagues' speeches before taking the floor again at the end of the debate.
Viviane Reding
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, today is the culmination of what has been a very long, and very often intense, legislative process, and the efforts shown by all sides in the negotiations have produced results which were worth waiting for. I would like to thank the rapporteurs, the committee chairs, the President and the members of the Conciliation Committee, and all the individual Members of Parliament who have brought their commitment and expertise to bear.
With the adoption of the reform package as it now stands, the Union will have a regulatory framework that is fit to meet the challenges of a rapidly developing digital economy based on fair prices for all to get telephone and internet connections, while preparing the ground for investments in high-speed networks delivering high-quality, innovative services.
These rules, these reforms, will make the European Union a global leader in the regulation of electronic communications, not just by improving the mechanism to move towards a competitive single market, but also by putting the rights of the citizens at the heart of a regulatory policy.
The compromise reached in conciliation lays down for the first time in EU law the fundamental rights of internet users against measures that could limit their internet access. This is a very important internet freedom provision. It makes clear that the internet, which is becoming more and more central to our daily lives, should be subject to the same safeguards for our fundamental rights as other areas of activity. Prior, fair procedures, with the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy, followed by the right to effective and timely judicial review: those are the rules which have been put into the new reform package.
At the same time, the reform package enshrines the vision of an open and mutual internet as an objective of regulatory policy. The EU approach is a very pragmatic one. It has, by the way, already been hailed on other continents as an important trendsetter.
The protection of consumers against loss of personal data and against spam has also been strengthened, particularly by requiring operators to notify consumers in case of personal data breaches and by strengthening the principle of user consent when it comes to use of cookies. Amongst other major gains for consumers is the right to change their fixed or mobile operator in one working day while keeping their old phone number.
Thanks to Parliament, the new provisions on radio spectrum will bring lower prices and encourage the introduction of new services, thereby helping to bridge the digital divide. Parliament will have a key role in setting the strategic direction for spectrum policy at European level through the new multiannual radio spectrum policy programme. The reforms will also permit investment by operators in the next-generation networks. They will strengthen the incentives to invest efficiently in new infrastructure by taking account of the investment risks, while ensuring that competition is not stifled.
At institutional level, the body of European regulators, the famous BEREC, offers the opportunity for the 27 national regulators to contribute to the functioning of the single market in a more transparent and effective manner. The strengthened oversight of remedies by the Commission, supported by BEREC, will consolidate the single market by improving the consistency and the quality of implementation of the framework across Europe and ensure that operators have a level playing field.
Let us not forget the important agreement reached on Article 19 of the framework directive, which gives the Commission enhanced harmonisation powers covering general regulatory approaches, including in relation to remedies. This gives the Commission a central role, in cooperation with BEREC, to ensure that the Telecoms Regulation is applied consistently in the single market in the interests of citizens and businesses.
I already presented to you my declarations at the May plenary, saying that the Commission will build on the reforms by consulting widely next year on the scope of the future universal service and a wider application of the principles relating to data breach notification. I reaffirm these commitments today, adjusted of course only to the time that has elapsed since then.
The Commission will also do its part to ensure that the new tools are put to good use when needed. I have indicated that the Commission will monitor the impact of market and technological developments on net freedoms and report to the European Parliament and the Council before the end of 2010 on whether additional guidance is required. The Commission will also invoke its existing competition law powers to deal with any anti-competitive practices that may emerge.
I believe that the confidence and the legal certainty provided by these reforms will be critical in helping the e-communications sector to contribute to Europe's economic recovery. I would therefore commend Parliament for its support for the package and urge Members to vote in favour of its adoption.
(Applause)
Pilar del Castillo Vera
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks to my fellow Members, and in this case, mainly to the rapporteur, Mrs Trautmann, because she has really done an extraordinary job. You had to be there to know how much was achieved in this final stage, which resulted in success in the conciliation process.
I would say that at the moment, we are in an excellent position to begin to tackle a future that is, in a sense, revolutionary, or should be revolutionary.
We finally have - or we are soon going to have - a regulatory framework that lays some very good foundations for putting the development of the internet, the digital society and the digital economy at the forefront of our objectives. This framework provides good protection for consumers, promotes their rights and also provides security for investors.
I think, however, that it is very important for us to now look decisively towards the future. We must look decisively beyond 2010 so that we can devote all our efforts to setting a digital agenda beyond 2010. The key objectives of this digital agenda should include: enabling everyone, as consumers and citizens, to have all the resources needed to access and participate through the internet and, of course, developing an internal digital market that is open and competitive.
This is an absolutely essential objective if we want to put the European economy where it should be in the global world of today.
Corinne Lepage
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I was pleased, Commissioner, to hear you say that freedom of access to the internet should be guaranteed just like other fundamental rights.
This is precisely the issue that we, Members of the European Parliament, have been fighting for: to obtain the same level of guarantee, that is, a prior procedure before an impartial judge.
We did not quite manage that but, thanks to the work of our rapporteur, it would seem that we have obtained as good a solution as we could. It is not perfect. It is not perfect because it will pave the way for disputes that we would have rather avoided; and if we had said things as clearly as I just have, there would not have been any disputes. Unfortunately, we did not reach a compromise on this point.
This means that we will have to return to the subjects of freedom of internet access, net neutrality and the way in which, in an open society such as ours today, there should be a certain level of free access to knowledge and information. This is all part of the same issue. We have taken the first step; we have the fundamental, vital first text, and that is the reason why I, personally, shall vote for it even if others hesitate.
Nevertheless, we will have to go much further in safeguarding freedom of access to open science, to open research and to all intellectual works while, of course, bearing in mind that property rights in the areas of literature, art and research should also be safeguarded. In the coming years, however, we will almost certainly have to make further compromises.
Philippe Lamberts
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are delighted that the action taken by the European Parliament has allowed internet users to enjoy guaranteed, and now explicit, protection. It is true that if Parliament had not twice voted in favour of the famous Amendment 138, we would not be where we are today. It is clear that the content of the compromise text today has been obtained thanks to that.
However, as Mrs Lepage said, the compromise we reached is certainly not the be all and end all when it comes to the protection of internet users' rights.
I think that we went as far as we could given the constitutional order within which the European Parliament operates today. The compromise therefore paves the way for the adoption of this telecom package which, for us, represents real progress in relation to the system we inherited from the days of telecommunications monopolies - an era which, thankfully, is in the past.
Tomorrow's vote, however, is only the beginning. We shall, both here and in the national parliaments, be keeping an extremely close watch over the way in which the compromise adopted tomorrow is transposed into national legislation, because we know that a number of Member States of the European Union are, shall we say, somewhat heavy-handed when it comes to public freedoms - particularly where the internet is concerned - and I am not sure they will avoid the pitfall of diverging from the rule we will adopt tomorrow.
Finally, it is time for the European Union to endow itself with a true charter of internet users' rights, defining access rights, of course; privacy rights; freedom of expression; and net neutrality. For us, a simple declaration on net neutrality is not enough.
It is also true that we should pay particular attention to the rights of authors and creators, so that the dissemination of their work on the internet is an encouragement for them. Yet this must not lead to the expropriation of this remarkable tool to the benefit of private interests.
Malcolm Harbour
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, as one of the three rapporteurs who worked very closely together on the whole package - and this is clearly a package - I want to give a very warm welcome to this compromise agreement and also to add my compliments to Catherine Trautmann, who has led the negotiation with great skill. The wide-ranging nature of the final text and the safeguards it provides for consumers' rights are a tribute to her negotiating skills.
I welcome the fact that all the political groups represented in the conciliation have endorsed the text and that we can finally unleash the benefits of this whole package with our vote tomorrow, because it has now been some months since we worked on it. The Council had already accepted, on 26 October, my own report on universal service and users' rights, a number of points in which Mrs Reding highlighted. I will not repeat these, but suffice to say, this is a major advance for consumers.
I would like to make one or two remarks about some elements of my own report and particularly to highlight our negotiations with the Council - Mr President, unfortunately you have not had a chance to speak, but you were deeply involved in these - which achieved significant advances in the areas of data breach and particularly issues around the use of cookies and the rights that consumers have to refuse devices that may collect information on their computers.
Commissioner, we very much welcome the statement that you have already made on data breach, but I have to say I was somewhat surprised to receive a statement from 13 Member States that seemed to me to rather reinterpret the agreement that they had already signed off on 26 October. You may perhaps wish to comment on that later. I just wish to reinforce the view - and I am sure you would agree, Mr President - that what we have agreed is the position. The Commission will now carry out that position. If it needs clarification, it is down to the Commission to do that. We look forward to it enforcing and moving this out as soon as possible, particularly in the area of net neutrality, your declaration on which is warmly welcomed, because that is something that we fought very strongly for in my committee. This is an important step forward for consumers. I very much welcome it on behalf of my group and, I hope, the whole Parliament.
Eva-Britt Svensson
Mr President, the telecoms package will be decided on tomorrow. I would like to thank Mrs Trautmann and all of my fellow Members who have fought for a free internet. Above all, I would like to thank all of those citizens who have demonstrated their commitment to this issue. They have got very strongly involved, and quite rightly so, as this is ultimately about freedom of expression and our civil rights and freedoms. It was thanks to our committed citizens that the protection of internet users against monitoring and the abuse of power is better than expected, but, in my opinion and that of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, it is not good enough.
There are three reasons why I will be voting against this package. Firstly, the compromise - Amendment 138 - does not give citizens sufficient protection against the power of the authorities and internet service providers. It merely refers to a review prior to exclusion - not a judicial review. This could open the way for arbitrary measures. The text prevents the end users' rights being restricted by the Member States, which is a good thing, but companies can introduce restrictions provided they do so in the agreement.
The second reason is that my amendments concerning internet rights, in other words, the well-known Citizens' Rights Amendments, were not included in the compromise. This, in fact, opens the way for a network where it is not a foregone conclusion that all users will have access to the whole network and where not all sites have the same possibility of being viewed. I think that we should have been very clear that it must not be permitted to lead the internet down such a blind alley. The end result then runs the risk of being more like a collection of cable television channels rather than free communication for everyone.
The third reason is that the telecoms package falls within the regulatory framework for the internal market. This means, of course, that in the event of a conflict, it will be the European Court of Justice that decides. Freedom of expression should not be decided by the European Court of Justice. It is not enough to have mediocre protection for citizens' rights; they must have complete protection.
Jaroslav Paška
At the end of voting time in the plenary session of 6 May 2009, the European Parliament approved a draft directive setting out the terms and conditions for electronic communication.
However, the plenary also approved one amendment proposal which the Council regarded as being difficult to enforce. A conciliation procedure therefore ran up until 29 September, attempting to harmonise the views of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament so as to ensure that the requirements contained in Article 138 could be transposed correctly into current European legislation.
I would therefore like to applaud the efforts of the European Parliament's negotiating team, as well as the businesslike and constructive approach taken by the representatives of the Council and the Commission, thanks to whom it was possible to reach agreement on the wording of the contentious provision in such a way that the aims and ideas contained in the original Article 138 were transposed in an acceptable way into the new telecommunications directive. I firmly believe that, following the conciliation procedure, the new telecommunications directive is ready to be applied in European public life.
Herbert Reul
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, that was a hard slog, involving two rounds in the ring, so to speak, but it was well worth the effort. The result is something of which Parliament can be proud.
I would also like to give special thanks, on behalf of my colleague Mrs Niebler - who unfortunately cannot be here today, to the rapporteurs, Mrs del Castillo Vera, Mr Harbour and Mrs Trautmann, as well as to all the other people who have helped to pave the way for a compromise. It was a truly difficult task, sometimes involving a great deal of effort on the part of individuals and political groups, but in the end, a consensus was achieved.
The telecommunications sector is a vital sector in terms of economic development, as it provides an important stimulus for employment. In 2007 alone, this sector had a turnover of around EUR 300 billion. This means that the sector will have a new legal framework, which will also have a big impact on economic development in the European Union.
Europe faces significant challenges: investing in high performance broadband networks and expanding them. The business sector is ready to take action and we also want to open doors. An important decision has been made.
Last but not least, we want to make the radio spectrum policy more flexible, and need to make use of the digital dividends. Here, too, an important prerequisite has been met. And finally, we have had to invest a lot of effort, as, at the beginning, many of us were not aware of the problems and the issue of how to deal with internet freedom and how to strengthen citizens' rights on the internet.
We have now secured the protection of our citizens to a far greater extent than we had imagined at the start of the process, as things have moved forward. Measures taken in the EU Member States in relation to access or usage of electronic communication network services must not infringe fundamental rights in any way. Limitations should only be introduced after a fair and independent process. The person must have a right to a hearing and be able to challenge the decision in the courts. This is an amendment that could not be foreseen at the beginning. Everyone contributed to this process, and I hope that everyone will therefore be able to vote in favour of the proposals. Thank you very much.
Christian Engström
Mr President, we in the Swedish Pirate Party support the compromise that was reached in conciliation. It is not perfect and it is not everything we would have wanted, but we think it is a good step in the right direction.
Nobody should be shut off from the internet without at least a prior, fair and impartial procedure that includes the right to be heard and respects the principle that you are innocent until you are proven guilty.
The compromise sends a strong signal to the Member States that things like the French HADOPI law or the Mandelson method in the UK are simply not acceptable. It is now up to activists in France and in the UK to make sure that their governments respect this.
But for us here in the European Parliament, this was only the beginning. We need, as several speakers have said, a proper bill of rights for the internet that makes it absolutely clear that the internet is an important part of society, where our fundamental civil liberties must be respected.
This includes the right to information freedom and the right to privacy as specified in the European Convention of Fundamental Rights. We need net neutrality and we need a policy that says 'yes' to the fantastic possibilities that the internet and the new information technology give us all.
Europe has a unique opportunity to show leadership and set an example to the world for a free and open internet. This is a chance we should take. The road ahead is open. This compromise is only a first step, but it is a step in the right direction. So I encourage all colleagues to vote 'yes' to it.
Trevor Colman
Mr President, the prospect of this intended measure has raised the hackles of internet users throughout the Member States. It threatens unprecedented levels of state surveillance, state intervention and commercial exploitation and seeks to deprive internet users even of the protection of the courts.
The Council has stated that this assembly is exceeding its powers by providing that the protection of the courts be maintained. But, whether this is true or not, how much more would those powers be exceeded by a provision which allows officials to hound and spy on internet users whilst remaining above the law?
This House interposed Amendment 138 between governments and governed in order to protect the latter from grave miscarriages of justice, of which bureaucrats are more than capable when freed from judicial supervision. According to reliable legal opinion, the conciliation process has vitiated the spirit and the letter of Amendment 138. I call upon all Members to determine that, if this House cannot provide the safeguards which should rightly accompany this measure, then it should not adopt this measure at all.
Gunnar Hökmark
(SV) Mr President, protection for internet users has been the focus of a large part of the telecoms debate. Last spring, Mrs Svensson and others voted down a proposal requiring a judicial review to be carried out if someone was to be excluded. Now we have a different solution, which protects users through very clear references to the regulatory system that is required to be in place in every Member State. I think it is important to say that the difference here is not about whether we want to protect users, but about whether we respect the Member States' right to decide on their own legal systems.
In this regard, it is interesting to note that one of the Swedish parliamentarians who is most against the European Union and Sweden's membership wants to make it more supranational than is usually proposed by anyone else in this Chamber, as she wants the European Union to legislate on how the Member States' legal systems should be organised. That is a major step and the vast majority in Parliament has opposed it, as we support the compromise that we now have and that will provide good protection for users. We also support this compromise because it will ensure that Europe's consumers and internet users will always be able to choose between different suppliers and different operators. Making it possible to change operators if a particular operator is providing a poor service gives consumers and citizens a power that they have never had before. Mrs Svensson, things have changed since the time when it was the large monopolies that determined citizens' rights to view, decide on and use information. This is a tremendous change that Mrs Svensson, and possibly others too, will, unfortunately, be voting against.
However, the main issue - for which I would also like to congratulate Mrs Trautmann and the Commissioner - is that we are now also getting to grips with the question of the spectrum and ensuring that we in Europe can lead the way when it comes to utilising the digital dividend. This will bring European citizens success and opportunities and give European industry a chance to be world leaders. Therefore, I and the vast majority in this Chamber support the proposal that we are to vote on tomorrow.
Eva Lichtenberger
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the difficult discussions that were part of the mediation process had one main, important purpose, namely establishing basic rights and liberties on the internet, above all, respect for the rule of law. These should not be rendered ineffective by the individual interests of the large economic powers on the internet because they want to fight tooth and nail to save an outdated copyright system which is not adapted to the internet era.
We need a completely new system to protect the intellectual property rights of creative forces on the internet, a system that we need to develop together. However, in terms of protecting the rights of the citizens, we need to be consistent, and this includes monitoring implementation in the Member States. It was, after all, the Council that was not in favour of protecting these rights and would have liked to see them fall by the wayside. We must engage in this power struggle with respect to the protection of the rights of the citizens and we must win. No Member State should now be allowed to worm their way out of these obligations.
Lambert van Nistelrooij
(NL) The European Parliament has rightly placed emphasis on a number of issues: guaranteeing access, net neutrality and better supervision.
The entire package, as it now stands, is exceptionally well balanced. On the one hand, it now enables us to seize opportunities for proper competition, for growth in this sector, and also, in economic terms, to seize opportunities for jobs and economic advantages. On the other hand, it makes particularly good provision for consumer protection. Consumers who are suspected of committing a punishable offence may only be cut off from the internet after a ruling has been brought by the judicial authorities and a clear procedure must be followed. We also have a provision for appeal, which means that established human rights are guaranteed, as they should be.
Last week, an important conference on internet governance took place under the aegis of the UN and it was also attended by a delegation from the European Parliament. It turned out that everyone in the world was looking to us to see how we are regulating this field. In many countries and throughout large parts of the world, governments seek to dictate what content can be shown on the internet and under what circumstances citizens may be cut off from the internet or, for that matter, allowed access to it. We are setting an example here of a good legislative framework and we are striking a balance between the market and the protection of citizens. Non-governmental civil society organisations, in particular, the whole world over, are looking at how this issue has been regulated in this package.
I had the opportunity to witness this for myself last week and I would like to point out that we are writing a small piece of telecommunications history. I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Trautmann, who has done a fantastic job of setting the boundaries. This is a pièce de résistance of the art of negotiation. Initially, however, the Council was not prepared to go that far.
Sandrine Bélier
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 4 November, Parliament was given the Council's guarantee that any restrictions on internet access can only be made if certain conditions are met: prior, fair and impartial procedure; a guarantee of the principle of presumption of innocence and the respect for privacy; and respect for the European Convention on Human Rights. This agreement is the first step towards better protection for citizens faced with growing attempts made by certain States and private operators to trivialise the principle of flexible response, data storage and the control of digital exchange on the internet.
That, however, is not enough. Accepting restrictions on digital freedoms and going against net neutrality is not acceptable. It is contrary to the Lisbon Strategy and undermines the fundamental rights and values of the Union. As the sole directly elected European institution, in order to protect citizens' interests, Parliament now has the moral and political duty to take up this issue and define the rights and duties of internet users so as to guarantee their digital freedom and access to knowledge.
We will vote in favour of this text, but we will make sure that we take the matter further tomorrow.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by offering the Commissioner my sincere thanks. The telecommunications legislation passed during the last five years has shown that Europe is earnestly and systematically making progress, thanks to the commitment and the know-how which enabled us to introduce adequate legislation. At this point, I would like to thank my colleagues and, above all, the rapporteurs.
We have seen that new generation technologies are appearing, and that these new generation technologies, such as the Fourth Generation LTE Network, need to be given space on the European internal market. In order for this to happen, we also need to make sensible use of digital dividends, and we need data roaming that corresponds to the needs of the internal market. I still foresee a great deal of work ahead of us in this field. The issue of internet freedom has been discussed rigorously and in great depth. I would like to thank everyone who took part in the debate. However, we still need to take action on the issue of intellectual property, to allow us to take the necessary measures during the next legislative term.
In this respect, I also look to the national regulatory bodies, which have now been granted additional powers through BEREC. It is their task to help their national industries and national consumers to assert their rights in the other 26 countries. In this regard, there is a great need for the national regulators to take action, as this is a starting point for a future expansion in the field of digital communication in Europe and beyond, and for Europe to take a leading role in this field at international level.
Ioan Mircea Paşcu
Mr President, let me change tack and bring to your attention some real-life facts. If you have to report major incidents, such as the breaking of your mail account, you can do it only electronically. There is no way to speak to a real person and establish a normal dialogue. If you have a problem you want to report to a telephone and internet provider, you get stuck in a labyrinth of recorded voices transferring you from one to another until the company is satisfied with the money they have got out of you, even if the problem you want to report has been caused by their faulty service.
Therefore, I would suggest that the new Commission look into the matter and come up with a regulation to force the providers to have a real person answering your first transfer. It will save consumer time, health and money and still give a profit, albeit smaller, to the service provider, plus some jobs to the unemployed.
In concluding, Commissioner, I would like to draw your attention to another fact of life, namely the amount of personal data the consumer is asked to provide for a free download of software for products bought directly off the shelf. Where does that information end up, and for what purpose?
Axel Voss
(DE) Mr President, our lives, and especially the lives of young people today, revolve around the internet to a significant degree, and both the digital revolution and the use of electronic means of communication are contributing to progress in this field.
As a result, many people view having easy access to the internet, and the wealth of information available online, as a necessity. In this respect, we also should not, and must not, forget those people who have, until now, not had access to the internet. That is why I specifically and strongly welcome the measures that have been taken thus far, as we are now on the right path to creating greater competition and improved access to important information. I am sure that whatever remains to be done can still be achieved in the future.
Seán Kelly
Mr President, I am very pleased with what I have heard here this evening and I would like to compliment the rapporteur and the Commissioner for the manner in which they have put their case clearly and succinctly.
People have referred to the salient points: the rights of citizens, investment, controls, transparency, consolidation of the single market, a level playing field, accountability, proper competition and consumer protection. That is all very important. Mr van Nistelrooij said we are writing communications history here this evening. What needs to happen now is that this is transposed as soon as possible into national law and implemented, and the key points are three words: there will be free, fair and fast access to the internet for people and businesses, whether they are at the centre of the Union or in its outermost regions.
We have started to write history. We must now continue to do so and implement it for the good of all citizens. Well done!
Sophia in 't Veld
(NL) There are many good things in this package, but there are also a few things that I still have grave concerns about. One of them, of course, is the 'three strikes and you are out' provision and, to this very day, I cannot understand why it has been included in this telecommunications package at all. It is an entirely foreign element in the package. Nor do I understand why Europe has to provide reasons to the Member States as to why it is introducing such a provision. They themselves already have a pretty good idea of why it has been introduced and do not need Europe to tell them. To my mind, this is another splendid example of policy laundering.
I am disappointed that Parliament has not shown any backbone to the Council and has told the Council: this is what we have voted on and we are going to stick to our guns. I still have to make my mind up about how I am eventually going to vote because, as I said, there is a great deal that is good about this package. At the same time, however, I think that the telecommunications package as a whole is still something of a hotchpotch, that it falls short of the mark and that we need clarity about which areas it applies to and those which it does not apply to. I am assuming, therefore, that this is only a first step, but I want more safeguards and more assurances that we are not going to rely on this telecommunications package to solve the problem which the 'three strikes and you are out' policy is aimed at solving and that we will instead look to be guided by better regulations, in order to reward and protect intellectual, creative and financial efforts.
Lena Kolarska-Bobińska
Mr President, the discussion on Article 138 and the compromise we reached shows that Members of the European Parliament are reacting to public opinion and people's interests, and that this Parliament is defending freedom, in connection with people's reactions.
This is a wonderful example, with internauts having performed monitoring, written to MEPs and adopted a position in defence of their rights and wishes. It should be taken as an important case study in Parliament's work.
Viviane Reding
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think that I can join all those who have said that this is a nice piece of collaboration in order to get a nice piece of legislation. No piece of legislation is perfect; this one is not perfect, either, and you know how much time we need in order to set up new legislation - so that by the time we arrive at an agreement, the world has already advanced so much that we should start from the beginning again. That is exactly the reason why we said that the protection of the individual rights on net neutrality is the first step; another step which needs to follow is how the copyright has to be adapted to the online world. Because we cannot wait until all these rules are implemented into national law, I have, in the name of the Commission, said that the Commission will monitor the impact of market and technological developments on the net freedoms and report to the European Parliament and the Council before the end of 2010. We then, altogether, have to see if we need to take other, supplementary measures or if we have to push to implement the existing measures which we are going to vote on tomorrow in the action at the level of the Member States.
Two concrete answers to two concrete questions: first, the declaration on Article 19 relating to harmonisation procedures. Exactly like Parliament, I regret that 16 Member Sates have made a declaration which calls into question the scope of the Commission's powers, agreed between the Parliament and the Council under the amended Article 19, in particular, the Commission's power in relation to the regulatory obligations that might be imposed by national regulatory authorities (NRAs). So, because there were those 16 declarations, the Commission has also made a declaration pointing out that, while it may not take decisions under the article that refer to specific notifications by NRAs under Article 7a, it may take decisions in relation to general regulatory approaches relating to the imposition, maintenance, amendment or withdrawal of such obligations. Parliament is right, an agreement has been made and we should not come back to such an agreement by the back door.
Second, the question of cookies. Now the Commission was, like Mr Harbour, surprised that certain Member States appeared to call the agreed text on cookies into question. Let me be very clear: we agreed with Parliament, and we believe that the final text is unambiguous. First, there must be clear and comprehensive information to users on the basis of which second users must give their consent. That is that and that should be applied now in the Member States. I do not appreciate it that after everything has been agreed, some like to manoeuvre in order not to keep 100% to the agreements pacta sunt servanda in politics. That is the way I see things. So I am very proud of the European institutions. I think that they have managed to make a good piece of legislation. They have also managed to keep this equilibrium between the interests of the operators, the economical part of the rules, and the interests of the users, the citizens' rights, and this equilibrium I think is what Europe is about: Europe is about economy and society. Here in this text, we have managed to bring both together. Congratulations to all those who have contributed to make this possible.
Catherine Trautmann
Mr President, may I express my warmest thanks to my colleagues who have taken part in this debate and say that they have certainly made clear what a perilous and difficult job we have had to complete this telecom package. Ultimately, it was held up by an amendment on which we have resoundingly voted several times in this Parliament, but which was not accepted by the Council.
Like others, I believe this to be a basis and not an end. We have not succeeded on this point as we have on others. In the Commissioner's response, she also stressed the same thing about Article 19. I had hoped we would go much further in implementing a procedure of economic arbitration with regard to European regulators, but of course, we could not achieve everything at once.
We tried to be efficient, fair and balanced; we wanted to show that, while the internet and digital society are driven by use and mobility, citizens' rights should never be ridiculed, scorned or ignored.
This is the first time that a text of this kind includes such a reference in its first article, making it a basic principle and linking the internet with the exercise of rights and fundamental freedoms; we believe this makes what we are doing quite distinctive when we legislate with the Council and draft texts with the Commission.
Indeed, we think that the information society should be both respectful of citizens' rights and positive from an economic and social point of view, opening up a new cultural sphere. That is why we anticipate that the market will enable this to happen, that users' rights will be stated and guaranteed, but that we can also have this extended access and connectivity for all. However, this is also why we now have a considerable job to do in the areas of copyright, net neutrality and radio spectrum. The European Parliament will lend its support.
I would like to say what a pleasure it has been to work with my colleagues and how delighted I am that this compromise respects the vote that we so strongly expressed together.
President
Colleagues, you can imagine my frustration at not being able to participate in this debate, so I will simply use my institutional role at the end of it to congratulate warmly Catherine Trautmann, Pilar del Castillo Vera and Malcolm Harbour for their work; to thank the Commission, and especially Commissioner Reding, for their excellent cooperation throughout a very difficult process; and to state that it would have been a pleasure to have welcomed the Council to this important debate, as it might have been better able than the rest of us to explain those surprising letters that were mentioned on some legal aspects of this debate.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 12 noon on Tuesday, 24 November 2009.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Ivo Belet
Mr President, I would like to touch on the thorny issue of the internet compromise (aka 'Amendment 138'). The regulatory package we have produced provides maximum safeguards for all internet users: we have ensured that users' privacy is respected and that the European Convention on Human Rights applies and, above all, that no one will ever have their internet access cut off without an independent body first considering and ruling on their case. What this means in concrete terms is that intervention is only permitted in cases of gross abuse. This legal provision applies to both the authorities and to internet providers themselves. Nonetheless, this European law guarantees free access to the internet and confirms de facto that the internet is a service of general interest, which no consumer can have cut off for no valid reason (just as no consumer can be denied access to gas, water or electricity). The fact that this compromise has received the unanimous approval of all the parliamentary delegations is proof that it is a terrific agreement and one which has placed the rights of the consumer at the very heart of the new telecommunications package.
Tiziano Motti
We have reason to be very pleased with the result achieved today on the telecommunications package since it reinforces the rights of internet users and encourages competition between telephone companies. The new rules will guarantee greater rights for consumers, unconditional freedom of access to the internet and protection of personal data. This is an excellent example of how our work as legislators has an impact on citizens' daily lives. In fact, the internet, for the first time in the world, has come to represent the exercise of a right and a fundamental freedom. As such it will supplement, and take shape in proportion to, and in accordance with, other fundamental freedoms that already exist and which are guaranteed by the treaty: gender equality, respect for sexual orientation and religious belief, protection of the rights of the child, and freedom of expression that is consistent with the protection of human dignity. Any measure that restricts access to the internet may now be imposed only if it is deemed to be 'appropriate, proportionate and necessary' in a democratic society. Today, we have indicated our agreement to complete freedom of the internet, to the promotion of an electronic civil society, to the promotion of fundamental freedoms and best practices and to the identification and isolation of all those individuals, in particular, paedophiles and sex offenders, who seek to abuse this absolute freedom.
Siiri Oviir
The basic aim of the alterations to the framework directive for electronic communications networks and services is to strengthen the rights of telephone and internet users and also to increase competition between telecommunications providers. Currently, electronic communications are regulated by rules which were approved seven years ago. Since then, the area has progressed dramatically. As a lawyer, I think that Parliament exceeded the authority given to it by the treaty by adding, at the last moment, a proposal for alterations which required public regulatory institutions to promote the interests of European Union citizens, prescribing that no restrictions may be imposed on the basic rights and freedoms of the end-user without a prior ruling by the Court. I am pleased that, as a result of the discussions held by the conciliation committee, a better way has been found to secure legal correctness in the text, and also to provide protection for all users and show respect for the jurisdictions of the Member States. The decision allows us finally to approve the changes to the framework directive for electronic communications networks and services.
Bernadette Vergnaud
I am delighted to see this lengthy, highly controversial work reach its conclusion; it shows the importance of the telecommunications sector not only as an economic player but also as a vital element in today's society. Our citizens communicate across borders on a daily basis and our aim was to guarantee quality of services while ensuring that users' fundamental rights were respected.
I want to congratulate Mrs Trautmann and the negotiating team for the compromise they have achieved, making any sanctions taken against users subject to a prior contradictory procedure. Furthermore, the Commission was committed to guaranteeing net neutrality and to combating anti-competitive, discriminatory practices carried out by operators.
This agreement will mean consumers benefit from many positive developments which were sometimes the result of tough negotiations. I particularly wish to highlight guaranteed access and localisation for calls made to the emergency number (112); improved access for the disabled; greater information on contracts and billing; warnings in cases of unusually high usage; the introduction of a maximum delay when transferring a customer's telephone number; and information in cases of security breaches relating to personal data.


9. Adaptation of the Rules of Procedure to the Treaty of Lisbon (
- Before the vote:
Bruno Gollnisch
(FR) Mr President, I see that unlike President Buzek, you do not suffer from poor lateral vision and you were able to see me.
Mr President, I have a very short point of order. Mr Martin's report is intended to sort out problems concerning adaptation to the Treaty of Lisbon, but among the different amendments that we are required to vote on, there is one that is not related in any way to the Treaty of Lisbon and, as I see it, goes against the general principles of Parliamentary procedure. It is the amendment that deprives non-attached Members of the power to appoint their own representatives.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very serious matter regardless of your political opinions. To hand responsibility over to the President of Parliament, however impartial he may be, for selecting a Member to represent the non-attached Members at the Conference of Presidents, based on goodness only knows what criteria, instead of to the non-attached Members themselves, I truly think goes against the general principles of law and against the case-law of the European Court of Justice.
For this reason, Mr President, I consider that this amendment should be withdrawn from the list of amendments we are voting on today.
President
Thank you, Mr Gollnisch. You may recall that for several months I sat as a non-attached Member and, if I may say so, my political views are so divergent from yours that it merely proves the point that the non-attached section is not a group, and never can be.
- At the end of the vote:
David Martin
rapporteur. - Mr President, I do not want to delay the House, but before we conclude this item, there are two technical points to be dealt with.
As you know, this process started last November. We need to add a new citation to link last November's vote with this vote, and I would ask the House to agree that we add the words 'having regard to its decision of 25 November 2009 on the adaptation of Parliament's Rules of Procedure to the Lisbon Treaty'. This is just, as I said, a technical point.
The second such point is that we currently say that these rules should come into force on 1 December 2009. Clearly, that is not possible, and therefore I ask that we apply the normal Rule 212(3), which means that the rules would come into force on the first day of the next part-session.
President
Mr Martin, thank you for all your work on this and other things.


Question Time (Council)
President
The next item is Question Time (B7-0009/2011).
The following questions are addressed to the Council.

Subject: Rule of law in Serbia
How does the Council view the development of the rule of law in Serbia, particularly in the light of the questionable court case against alleged guerrillas belonging to the Albanian minority in the Preševo valley in southern Serbia?
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) The opinion of the Council on the development of the rule of law in Serbia is presented in the Council conclusions of 14 December 2010. In these conclusions, the Council welcomes the fact that Serbia is continuing the implementation of its reform schedule and has shown further progress in implementing the provisions set out in the interim agreement signed with the European Union. In its conclusions, the Council also established that Serbia continues to achieve good results in the performance of its obligations under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. However, the country needs to make further efforts, particularly in the following areas: the reform of public administration, the rule of law, including the reform of the justice system, the fight against corruption and organised crime, and the improvement of its business environment. The Council did not discuss the development of the rule of law in Serbia with regard to the specific procedure referred to by Mr Posselt.
Bernd Posselt
(DE) Since I submitted the question, a group of Serbian citizens of Albanian nationality have been given the maximum sentences in a show trial by a special court where they stood accused of crimes in Kosovo. Should this not have been dealt with by the European Union Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) instead of Serbia? Could you please look into this and find out about the specific case that I have asked about?
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Thank you very much, Mr Posselt. Please note that the so-called accession criteria laid down in 1993 by the European Council in Copenhagen are decisive considerations with regard to the position of the Council on any enlargements and stabilisation and association agreements. These criteria also include respect for human and minority rights, and nothing can be more important to the Council during the negotiations than this principle. What I can tell you is that the Hungarian Presidency, representing the Council, will naturally acknowledge your request and the issue, is aware of the gravity of these events, and, as in all accession and association agreement procedures, is paying special attention to these matters in this case as well.
Daniel Caspary
(DE) Mr President, I have another supplementary question for the Council with regard to the Mr Posselt's question. My colleague has already asked whether the Council can envisage, in this specific case in particular, contacting the government and those responsible on the ground once again. Therefore, I would again like to ask the Presidency of the Council: Can the Presidency envisage, in this specific case, entering into contact with the people responsible on the ground?
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, of course, as you have mentioned the broader context and the spirit in which the Council approaches similar issues, what I can tell you is that Serbia's accession is in progress, since it has submitted its accession application, and I believe that we have now entered into a new phase, as Serbia has replied to the questionnaire presented by the European Commission. These replies were submitted on 31 January. As in the case of all important matters pertaining to the accession procedure, both the European Commission and the Council will, of course, pay particular attention to such issues.

Subject: SMEs and the Hungarian Presidency
One of the stated aims of the Hungarian Presidency of the Council is to improve the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Could the Council elaborate a little on this point and give practical details as to how it will improve things for SMEs which are struggling to survive?
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Small and medium-sized enterprises are vital actors in the European economy. The improvement of the framework conditions for their operation represents one of the special priorities of the Hungarian Presidency. Over the next months the focus of the Presidency will be on the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the flagship initiatives for innovation and industrial policy laid down therein, as well as the full establishment of the internal market, since at present only 8% of European SMEs are engaged in cross-border activities.
Based on the report by former Commissioner Mario Monti, this accomplishment must include the elimination of all barriers that still impede the operation of the internal market. We can achieve this by implementing and enforcing all directives, especially the Services Directive - this matter has also been addressed by Parliament in this part-session - precisely and in due time by providing consumer-friendly solutions within the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA), by facilitating compliance with taxation rules for enterprises conducting cross-border business activities, and by promoting the adoption of an SME-friendly EU patent - and Parliament took a very important decision on this subject on Tuesday, after the Monday debate. The prerequisite for all this is what I have been talking about so far, that we must inspire SMEs to undertake as many innovative investments as possible.
Additionally, the Hungarian Presidency will undertake the mid-term review of the European Small Business Act. This Act should be a veritable Magna Carta for SMEs. Furthermore, the Presidency intends to promote a comprehensive approach with regard to the new, integrated industrial policy, in the framework of which we endeavour to eliminate all informational, financial and technical support barriers that prevent SMEs from becoming the true backbone of the green economy.
In addition, we intend to reduce administrative burdens and the risk of state operation through a better and more intelligent regulatory framework, as well as institutional changes. We are convinced that it is vital to strengthen the innovative capacity of SMEs, and this requires a new approach to innovation, one that does not focus on the promotion of technological innovation. I would like to remind you that the European Council also took very important decisions with regard to innovation on 4 February.
Concerning the key issue of how SMEs can obtain financing, it can be said that we are committed to supporting healthy SMEs in obtaining credits and loans through guarantees, innovative financial instruments and banks offering favourable terms.
Lastly, I would like to add that the Hungarian Presidency will submit proposals to the Council with regard to the mid-term evaluation of high-budget, multi-year EU expenditure programmes in the field of research and development, which will also include important aid instruments targeted at SMEs, such as the Risk Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF).
Jim Higgins
(GA) Madam President, I want to congratulate the Presidency for being where it is tonight, and I welcome what the Minister has said.
One of the biggest problems of small industry is too much bureaucracy - or red tape as we say in English. President Barroso promised in 2004 that he would do something significant to deal with this difficulty, but it has not happened yet. Having heard what has been said by the President-in-Office from Hungary, may I say that I am extremely optimistic.
It is extremely important that we do everything to deal with this problem, because it causes great difficulty for people who are going into this kind of industry.
Zigmantas Balčytis
(LT) Mr President, back in 2008, the Council approved the allocation of a EUR 15 billion package from the European Investment Bank, which was supposed to be the main instrument for saving small and medium-sized enterprises during the crisis. The report published shows that there was a low uptake of funds and these were allotted mainly to big business, while small business did not receive the required funding. How does the Hungarian Presidency plan to ensure that instruments already adopted to support small and medium-sized enterprises are used and implemented fairly?
Nicole Sinclaire
I just wonder whether my colleagues would agree with me how disappointing it is that there has not been much support for a written declaration which is being sponsored by my colleague from the West Midlands, Malcolm Harbour, who is the Chairman of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
Today he sent out an email saying that only 184 of the 736 colleagues have signed this. Does this show that, when it comes to small businesses throughout the European Union, cooperation is not possible and in effect it is up to the Member States to take care of their own small businesses?
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - First let me answer Mr Higgins' question concerning the regulatory environment. This is really very important for the existence and working conditions of SMEs.
Applying the 'Think Small First' principle when preparing laws and policies is a cornerstone of the new framework we are trying to establish. This is important at all levels, not only at EU level, but - and I think you share my view - also at national, regional and municipality level.
The Commission has revised its state aid rules to encourage Member States to direct more support for SMEs to key areas such as training, R&D and environmental protection and to overcome the current focus on large businesses.
The agreement by Member States to allow for the application of reduced VAT rates for locally supplied services, including labour-intensive services such as hairdressing, catering and repair services, will further stimulate economic activity and create jobs, and the Commission warmly welcomes this decision.
In the area of better regulation, the Commission has tabled important legislative initiatives already. It has adopted a proposal for revisiting the VAT directive to remove barriers to electronic invoicing, with cost-saving potential amounting to billions of euros in the medium term.
The Commission also came forward in February with a proposal to allow Member States to adopt less burdensome accounting requirements for micro-businesses, thus fulfilling its commitment in the action plan for small businesses. It has the capacity to reduce the burden by up to EUR 6 billion. The Commission encourages Member States to reach an agreement as soon as possible to allow Member States who wish to take advantage of this opportunity to do so, so we in the Council definitely have to move along those lines.
The Commission will also carefully assess the likely burden of any new legislative proposals, not only for SMEs. We have quite a number of good proposals on the table, and in the Competitiveness Council we are following this item and trying to address as many of these issues as quickly as possible.
Turning to the second question, on improving access to finance, even in my introductory remark I tried to make a reference to that. To loosen the supply of much-needed credit, the EIB lent EUR 1 billion to SMEs in 2008, an increase of 60% compared to 2007.
The aim is to lend more money on these issues later on. I remember very well that, when I was still an MEP, I was responsible for an opinion on the EIB. In my opinion for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I made an evaluation. I have to tell you that the EIB reacted very quickly to the changed circumstances and reorganised its priorities. So we welcomed those moves by the EIB.
I agree with you that sometimes money does not get to the intended recipients, and there should be better organisation. My view on that is that we really have to pay attention to the counterparts of the EIB in the Member States, because in most cases they are the partners. We should not always blame the EIB for the implementation, which is not directly done by the EIB.
So I agree, on the second question, that it is extremely important that Community money and EIB loans get to the intended recipients, that is, the small and medium-sized enterprises.
I believe the Council cannot give opinions on written declarations, so if you do not mind, Mr President, I will not comment.

Subject: Initiatives on the management of water and drinking water
In its publicity material setting out its priorities, the Hungarian Presidency has expressed the desire to give special attention to issues of water and drinking water management, as well as extreme events related to water resources.
Since the programme does not specify which policies it will follow in this connection, would the Presidency inform the EP precisely which steps it intends to take in this area? Does it consider that over the next few years a specific problem will arise as regards the management and security of supply of water resources and drinking water in European Member States?
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) I would like to answer the question of Mr Georgios Papanikolaou concerning water resources. This subject is of special significance to the presidency trio, of Spain, Belgium and Hungary. It was an important aspect of the common programme we developed more than two years ago, and each country added to it during its six-month presidency in order to contribute to the common programme being realised with regard to an integrated approach to water policy. We are therefore continuing the work started by Spain and Belgium, and would like to add our own contribution by submitting conclusions concerning water policy at the Council meeting in June 2011.
These conclusions will cover three main topics. The first is the integrated management of extreme water events, such as floods, water shortage, excess surface water and irregular distribution of rainfall. The second topic is the role of ecological services provided by water. This is a very exciting subject which I believe we do not talk about enough these days. We take it for granted that we have water and we are using the so-called ecological services provided to us by wetlands habitats, yet we should show much appreciation for these. The third topic will be the intensification of cooperation in the field of water management, both at international level and among EU Member States.
The Council conclusions intend to contribute to the European Commission's communication on the concept of European waters, which is foreseen to be adopted in 2012, and which will highlight the importance of the sustainable management of the water resources of EU Member States and of maintaining the security of water resources and water supply.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, there will also be conferences and events on the subject of water during the term of the Hungarian Presidency, such as the conference on the future of European freshwater resources, which will be held between 23 and 25 March in Budapest, in conjunction with the informal meeting of ministers for the environment. Please allow me one final comment. It is a priority objective for the Hungarian Presidency to ensure the creation of a Danube strategy for the EU and, in this context as well, water, the protection of our drinking water base and an integrated water policy will naturally have special significance.
Georgios Papanikolaou
(EL) Mr President, Minister, thank you very much for your reply. I would add that, in 2007, the Commission noted in its communication entitled 'Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union' that it considered that the European Union could provide funds to help create additional water supply infrastructures.
I also recall that numerous remote areas of Europe, especially small archipelagos in the South such as the Aegean Islands, face serious water supply and drinking water problems and that methods such as desalination are extremely costly.
The question is therefore clear: do you intend and are you favourably disposed towards the idea of promoting a debate on direct Community support for water supply schemes in remote areas?
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Given that on 3 February Hungary and Romania were appointed Priority Area Coordinators for environmental protection in the Danube region, specifically for restoring and maintaining water quality, I would like to ask you when these coordinators are going to implement this priority action, because this will enable us to guarantee the quality of drinking water. Thanks to the projects given as examples, we have investments not only for building wastewater treatment plants but also for developing methods and tools for protecting drinking water sources. It is therefore important for us to discuss the implementation of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
Paul Rübig
(DE) My question also relates to the Strategy for the Danube Region. We, of course, want to dramatically improve the quality of the water in the Danube. Do all Member States plan to draw up an action plan in this regard that will gradually also take into account the sewerage works coming from the tributaries, so that we will also have cleaner tributaries and there will be an improvement in water quality in the Danube right down to the estuary? Do all the Member States concerned intend to draw up action plans?
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Thank you very much for the questions, and the questions, too, indicate that this is a very important subject for the European Union, and I believe that we do not spend anywhere near as much time discussing these issues as they deserve. By the very act of submitting conclusions and directing attention to, for example, the water problems caused by extreme weather conditions, the Hungarian Presidency intends to pave the way for the European Commission to be able to submit the best possible proposals in this 2012 'water blueprint' to the then presidency and to the Council.
Mr Papanikolaou mentioned the problems of the islands in the Aegean Sea. I believe that this is very important to the people living there, and it is just as important in Southern Italy or Barcelona - we may all remember that there was such a shortage of drinking water in Barcelona that fresh water needed to be transported there by tankers -, and therefore, these all demonstrate that it is vital for us to address these issues.
By formulating Council conclusions we provide inspiration to the Commission, and I trust that when, for example, the debate about the multiannual financial framework begins, we will need to formulate them in such a way as to enable us to direct funds in the best way possible to the common problems of the European Union.
Mrs Ticau and Mr Rubiks both asked their questions about the Danube strategy. If you will allow me, I would like to answer them together. It was to our great satisfaction that Commissioner Hahn presented the action plans in early February in Hungary. There are 13 action plans, and as regards the questions you raised here concerning both the drinking water base and sewage treatment, there are so-called action plans for the issues of all kinds of floods and droughts, and each of these is led by two countries. I believe that this is a very good way to also strengthen regional cooperation along the Danube strategy. What is more, the participants include eight EU Member States and six third countries, and it is very inspiring that we have such a comprehensive strategy that allows us to take concrete steps in all these matters. True, there are no new funds allocated to this purpose, but I am convinced that, within this framework, existing projects can be reorganised, and through the reinforcement of cross-border cooperation we will be able to achieve a far more effective outcome than if all countries were making attempts on their own. It is impossible to engage in individual measures over a river that connects us all.
We may, of course, still have excellent plans, if we do not implement these, and I therefore very much hope that we can discuss these in Council configurations now, while still in the term of the Hungarian Presidency. We did give the process the initial push at the General Affairs Council on 31 June and are intently monitoring how the work is coming along. The work is progressing quite well, also at working group level, and towards the end of the Hungarian Presidency we will be able to adopt the strategy at the General Affairs Council; the European Council will be able to assure us of its support in this regard, and then it will be up to us to implement it as fully as possible, from sewage treatment to the preservation of our drinking water base.

Subject: Participation by disabled persons and their representative organisations in decision-making affecting disabled persons
The European Disability Strategy 2010-2020, published by the Commission, will affect the lives of 80 million disabled people in the EU. The Commission has identified eight key areas: accessibility, participation, equality, work and training, social protection, health and external action. The EU institutions and Member States are to implement this strategy together. In accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Member States which adopt decisions affecting disabled persons are required to closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, through their representative organisations. Unfortunately, there is no provision for such consultation in the new disability strategy.
Has the Council taken any specific measures to ensure that the principle of 'no action on disability without the disabled' enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is observed? Furthermore, how does the Council view the proposal to establish a disability committee, answerable to the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) and chaired by the country holding the Presidency of the European Union? Does the Council agree that this would make for closer involvement by the Commission and Member States in the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Mr President, I too am very happy that we could still find time for this question. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an appropriate and effective means of promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities in the European Union, and is accorded great significance by both the Community and its Member States. The Council would like to remind the honourable Member that it has already affirmed on multiple occasions that, if we intend to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and wish to ensure their equal participation in society, it is important for us to involve them in forming the decisions and policies that apply to them.
In its resolutions adopted in 2008 and 2010, the Council consistently urged that persons with disabilities and their organisations be involved in policy-making. We recall that the Council also adopted a directive which stipulates the prohibition of discrimination based on disability in employment and at work. The aforementioned directive also provides for membership and participation in employees' and employers' organisations, meaning that it is a specific measure adopted by the Council with a view to ensuring that persons with disabilities are actually able to participate in decision making.
The Commission also has a new disability strategy. To our great satisfaction, it was published in the autumn, and focuses primarily on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Hungarian Presidency intends to submit draft conclusions to the Council in connection with this strategy, with a view to adopting it in the final stage of the Hungarian Presidency in June. As regards the creation of a separate disability committee, to this date the Council has not received any proposals to be examined in this respect. In this context we recall that the Council can only act in its legislative capacity upon proposals submitted by the Commission, however, we of course always keep an eye on Parliament, but this is how legislation works in the EU.
Vilija Blinkevičiūt
(LT) Mr President, in January of this year at a meeting in the European Parliament initiated by the European Disability Forum, the Vice-President of the European Commission Viviane Reding stated that some European Union Member States do not support the Council Directive on equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Therefore the anti-discrimination Directive is one of the most important issues in the field of human rights, especially in terms of guaranteeing the rights of the disabled. Does Hungary, the country currently holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, plan to take any specific actions as regards adopting and reviewing this directive, and what specific measures will you take to clear the way for this directive?
Ádám Kósa
(HU) Minister, thank you very much for your answer. I would like to encourage the Council to pay attention to the importance of the involvement of people with disabilities. This issue also has a bearing on the work of Parliament, as regards the ability of the Members to become involved in this process, since it is we who represent the people, so to speak. I would like to congratulate the Presidency on addressing the issue of disabilities at a high level until the end of the trio. My question is whether subsequent presidencies also intend to address this, the matter of disabilities, at the same level.
Enikő Győri
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Thank you very much for the supplementary questions. As regards the first question by Mrs Blinkevičiūtė, which concerns the developments related to the anti-discrimination directive, well, I could tell you things like 'now we will solve it,' because, for what it is worth, I could say that, but I will not say such things. We all know how painfully slow the progress of this draft legislation has been over the past three years. We, too, are planning to make progress, of course. In order to be able to do so and retain our credibility, we are trying to focus on the very part of this directive that concerns disabilities. We are therefore planning to discuss the disability aspects in two rounds and hope that we can convince the Member States to make progress at least in this respect. As such, we are not aiming in every direction, but instead wish to focus our attention on this issue.
I have to say that this is very difficult. Member States often refer to financial issues and financial difficulties. The former government of my home country was also forced to request an extension in order to be able to implement EU and domestic policies, for example in the field of removing barriers, and in times of crisis and austerity all this is difficult for the Member States. However, I believe, especially considering that we committed ourselves to making this a human-centred presidency, that we indeed have to make progress in this very important issue - because as Mr Kósa is always saying, this does not only concern persons with disabilities, but many others, from young mothers to the elderly, many more than those we call people with disabilities - that is to say, it is very much the responsibility of the Council to achieve progress in this matter.
Mr Kósa asked how we can better involve Parliament, or how can we work together. I believe that Mr Kósa, as the President of the Disability Intergroup, is doing an excellent job and maintains very good relations, not only with the Council and the Presidency-in-Office, but also with the Commission. As we can see in several issues, if Parliament is playing a guiding role - and I am convinced that Parliament is playing a guiding role in disability matters - then the Commission and the Council can do nothing but follow its guidance. These can therefore indeed be incorporated into Commission proposals, which are then submitted to the Council. Thinking of the Roma strategy, the report by Mrs Lívia Járóka, which was adopted this Monday in the LIBE committee, has a good chance of being incorporated into the Commission's proposal, and be then submitted to the Council. I would therefore recommend this route, and I would welcome it if this excellent cooperation could continue.
We will send answers in written form to the questions we had no time to answer.
President
That is right, but I am going to allow Mr Chountis a supplementary on this question.
Nikolaos Chountis
(EL) Mr President, I do not want the question I tabled to be debated. I appreciate the effort you are making and I do not want to upset the order.
I just have one comment, which does not concern or affect the President specifically and I shall be brief. I just want to say that, because we have a problem with the question of parliamentary control, as you know full well, there have been three occasions in plenary when we did not have questions to the Council and the procedures ultimately reduce the time available. Please could you therefore discuss with the Bureau how this time can be ring fenced.
Thank you very much for the effort you have made. I do not wish to run over time, nor do I wish my question to be debated and I thank the Minister who was ready and waiting.
President
Mr Chountis, I am aware of your complaint, which I completely support.
However, it is not the Bureau that makes the decisions about the timing of debates, the content of debates or speaking time - it is the Conference of Presidents, bizarrely, which always tries to put too much on the agenda. It is the Bureau Members, including myself, who have to deal with the problems this creates and clean up the mess.
I apologise to everyone who was not called. As Mrs Győri quite rightly says, any questions she has not had time to answer tonight - and those which she has answered she has answered very ably - will be answered in writing.
Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see Annex).
That concludes Question Time.