Formal sitting - Slovenia
President
Spoštovani gospod predsednik Republike Slovenije. It is a great pleasure to welcome the President of the Republic of Slovenia to the European Parliament here in Strasbourg today. Welcome, Mr President.
Slovenia joined the European Union on 1 May 2004 and currently holds the Council Presidency. Mr President, four months ago, you took office as President of Slovenia and we have met three times already during that period: for the first time, two days before you officially took office in Ljubljana, then on 8 January at the official launch of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, and finally in New York in February during the UN General Assembly's thematic debate on climate change.
Mr President, you are the third President of Slovenia since your country gained its independence. You can look back on a long and distinguished career as a Professor of International Law and, above all, as a diplomat, for you have dedicated much of your career to the service of the United Nations. For eight years, you were the Republic of Slovenia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Representative" \o "Permanent Representative"
to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations" \o "United Nations"
and for five years, you were the UN http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assistant_Secretary-General_for_Political_Affairs&action=edit&redlink=1" \o "Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs (page does not exist)"
. Now, Slovenia has the great honour to be the first of the new Member States - the countries which joined the European Union on 1 May 2004 - and the first former communist country and the first Slavic country to hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
This privilege entails a great deal of responsibility for Slovenia, which you are facing up to, because the new Member States, in taking on this commitment, now also bear a responsibility towards the large family of the European Union. For Slovenia, the Council Presidency entails another responsibility as well, towards the countries in its neighbourhood, the countries of the Western Balkans.
Slovenia is a model for these countries, demonstrating to them that success is possible, that membership of the European Union can be achieved and that accession brings stability, development and prosperity.
Mr President, it is my great pleasure to invite you to address the House. Izvolite, prosim!
Danilo Türk
President of the Republic of Slovenia. - (SL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour to have been invited to address this esteemed assembly. Just a month ago we celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the European Parliament's first session. The anniversary is an excellent opportunity to think about the present and the future of the European Union. Today I have this special opportunity of being able to share my thoughts with you - the elected representatives of the nations of Europe.
This Parliament and, of course, the European Union as a whole are an imposing realisation of a great vision, a vision of lasting peace and welfare, a spirit of cooperation and continually increasing integration, from which the European nations are benefiting. The fathers of this vision - Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi and others - probably could not even imagine that, 51 years after the formation of the European Communities, in a highly integrated European Union following its major expansion in the year 2004, Slovenia, as the first country among the new Member States, would be the presiding country and the Slovenian President would be addressing the European Parliament.
However, their feeling of satisfaction would probably overpower their feeling of amazement. Not only has the European project succeeded, but it has also proven to be a project that has a huge transformational power, that is creating a completely new type of Europe, a type of Europe that has, during the previous periods of its long history, been unknown. What is even more important today is that the European Union has, through the European project, to a large extent already affirmed itself as a world factor, as a world actor. And this is precisely what I would like to talk about today.
What has enabled this incredible success to be achieved, the creation of such a large and important world actor as this? What conclusions can we draw from this success today? Are we capable of applying the knowledge gained in the past when facing the challenges of today and tomorrow? These are the questions that we continuously have to ask. The European Union will continue to face complicated questions in the increasingly 'globalised' world, and it will have to provide credible answers. The European Union will continue to be a success story, provided it preserves its dynamism, proving that it is a political world actor with ever-increasing importance, and I would add - a political importance. Moving forward is a precondition for success. What is required from the European Union at today's level is that it assumes the role of a world leader.
In many a field its role has either already been established, or it is eagerly expected. Here I should like to mention two of them: global warming and human rights.
Last year the European Union placed environmental issues and particularly the issue of global warming at the centre of its policy-making. Without any doubt, this was a wise decision, because climate change and environmental degradation are evidently the most serious threat and the greatest challenge we are all facing. The European Commission has established special objectives, which make it possible for the European Union to play a leading role worldwide. The key target is to achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse emissions by the year 2020, in comparison to 1991. The achievement of this target has been set out as an independent commitment. The initiative for an even more ambitious target should be part of a general international agreement, which would include also other key actors. In this instance, under the proposal by the European Commission the European Union would even be prepared to achieve a 30% reduction over the same period. These objectives are so important and so ambitious that they really afford a transformational vision for undertaking measures against global warming, thus providing the necessary example and world leadership.
However, can these objectives be achieved, or will they again become yet another insurmountable obstacle? The answer to that is still not quite clear. A month ago the European Council welcomed a proposal by the European Commission - as a good basis for agreement. Consultations this year and next will show how much can actually be achieved before the conference in Copenhagen, scheduled for December 2009. I should particularly like to emphasise that by setting up a special Committee on Climate Change the European Parliament has already recognised the importance of this issue and will, in relation to this, have an extremely important task.
The task before us will probably be difficult. The disquiet that is beginning to be felt in the European media conveys a whole range of mixed messages. There are expressions of support but there are also sceptical voices warning of concerns being expressed by some European branches of industry, including the fact that, since the world economy is experiencing difficulties, competitiveness is becoming increasingly difficult too, and at the same time the environmental issues are becoming relatively less important.
Difficult moments such as this represent a real leadership challenge. It is evident that global warming has already reached the point where the international community is faced with a stark choice: either to continue the methods of growth and accept an eventual catastrophe, or to pluck up courage for a transformational approach which can adequately mitigate the consequences of global warming and prevent the worst. We shall not succeed by worshipping growth. Although not easy to achieve, this is essentially the order of the day. And I hope that this year we shall choose the road leading to transformation.
In making these efforts it will be necessary to considerably widen the frontline of its advocates. In any event there are already many of those who feel that a shift towards transformation is necessary. Non-governmental organisations, the media and other factors of civil society are being mobilised. Within the business community there are indications of a strong inclination towards the development of new technologies based on clean energy, and more and more people are prepared to change their habits as consumers.
Now the tendencies have to be linked into a purposeful movement. The time frame is known. The place is known. According to the Action Plan adopted last year in Bali, the negotiations are expected to be concluded next year with the adoption of a world agreement which, in 2012, will replace the Kyoto Protocol. Although the negotiations will be held in the United Nations, it is important that support is received from everywhere. The time and place will enable us to join our efforts, and that is when the European Union must take the lead.
Ladies and gentlemen, the environment is not the only issue where the European Union must take the leading international role. The Union must also play a more powerful role in worldwide efforts for human rights. That the European Union is supporting human rights is, of course, obvious. The European institutions are based on the principles of the rule of law and human rights, Europe is a domain of human rights.
Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all the Member States by the end of this year, the year when we celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, will also mean that for the first time in the Union's history the whole spectrum of civil, political, economic and social rights of the Union's citizens, as determined by the Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, will become legally binding.
From a global point of view the situation around the world is not encouraging. In many places around the world there are numerous examples of the systematic violation of human rights. This is partly due to the wanton pursuit of economic benefits regardless of the needs of the local population and the environment. The poor and the indigenous population, in particular, are frequently threatened by poverty and hunger and, in some cases, even to extinction. In armed conflicts in a number of locations in Africa and Asia cruelties representing crimes against humanity continually take place.
The European Union must act in such a way that it proposes economic models for sustainable growth, it must also act by making humanitarian and diplomatic efforts, but also by applying sanctions that will support the decisions handed down by the International Court of Justice. At this stage the European Union has to take a leading role, particularly because world action in the sphere of human rights is lagging behind.
The UN Human Rights Council is still fighting for correct working methods. Their efforts to establish a universal periodic human rights review system at world level are promising, but still not effective. Their activities against numerous and systematic violations of human rights are not sufficiently integrated. All of this can slowly be rectified, although not without an efficient leadership, not without an effective leading role of those UN Member States who really fight for human rights.
In reality this cannot happen without a stronger leading role on the part of the European Union, which represents the most important group of influential United Nations Member States. Some other traditional supporters of human rights have lately become less active and have not applied for membership in the UN Human Rights Council. Growing concerns due to terrorism and other security threats, including reactions to those threats which are sometimes insufficiently well thought out, have obviously reduced the level of sensitivity to human rights. The European Union must fill this gap.
The Union must also find new methods of cooperation with the UN Security Council. It was the activity of the Security Council in Darfur that helped establish the role of the International Court of Justice in its efforts to prosecute the perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes of our times. Almost exactly one year ago the International Court of Justice issued custody orders for some of these perpetrators. Efforts to bring them before the court must be continued, and cooperation with the Security Council will remain of critical importance.
However, even without the activities of the UN Security Council, the European Union must consider actions which would contribute to the International Court of Justice's efficiency. I would like to emphasise that it is precisely the international administration of justice that is the backbone of today's international activity for human rights, and it requires effective support.
The European Union should also support those emerging democracies around the world that are truly committed to human rights. They are interested in international activities, but at the same time they have to take into account their regional and other affiliations, and also that in all international activities connected with human rights these aspects are not neglected. However, these countries are the European Union's partners, and these partnerships have to be nurtured.
Ladies and gentlemen, in its different forms international activity for human rights can be effective if it rises from a solid foundation, from a principled respect for human rights at home. This includes the protection of the human rights of both migrants and asylum seekers, and a careful application of laws in those cases that include charges of terrorism. However, the construction of this foundation must be continued. The Lisbon Treaty includes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and an improved decision-making procedure that will, in connection with human rights, facilitate the adoption of courageous and creative solutions.
For the European Union the requirement for creativity is nothing new. European creative unrest, as German President Horst Köhler said in his speech to this Parliament two years ago, this creative unrest has helped Europe take on various social and political challenges in their commitment to freedom and truth, with an ability to make solidarity become reality and to create a better world for everyone. In no other area will creativity and creative unrest be as necessary as in the area of immigration management and the social inclusion of immigrants.
Europe is getting old and will no longer be able to play the role of a world leader without a successful demographic policy. These policies will inevitably include migration management. Europe needs newly arrived people, positive in spirit and capable of contributing their share to the creation of a better world for everyone. The political measures that can help the process of migrant integration obviously differ and must be put together in a correct way, depending on the circumstances of each host country receiving immigrants. At the same time some elements are more widely applicable, and in some instances the European Union can also learn something from non-European countries such as Canada.
Migration policies will require a number of coordinated objectives at the level of the European Union as a whole. The objective of the common European asylum system up to the year 2010 appears to be both ambitious and urgent. Also necessary is improved coordination between immigration policy and development aid policy. The European Union must strengthen its role in its high level dialogue with the United Nations regarding migration.
At the same time, creativity is required in connection with the integration of immigrants and their communities. Economic welfare and greater upward social mobility are the key to a successful migration policy. For example, the business activities conducted by the ethnic minorities provide jobs and contribute significantly to the economies of the host countries. On the other hand, governments can make their own contribution with adequate regulations and qualification programmes and by providing general support for free enterprise.
Integration must include efficient access to quality training, parallel with language courses and access to university. Education is a precondition for the immigrants' successful integration into the wider society.
And success must be made visible. Individuals of immigrant origin who have managed to succeed must be given the opportunity to appear on television and in other media and must be held up as examples of success. This will help the wider public to understand that diversity and social inclusion are compatible, and that non-discrimination and equal opportunity are among the most important political virtues. Nothing succeeds like success. And nothing shown on television is more impressive than the success of those who started from the social margins.
I have to some extent highlighted immigration and integration issues in more detail because of their importance for the future of Europe and also because they represent another area where European creativity will be tested. In the past, the European Union has managed to resolve the majority of social issues and, as a result, has become a world example of social justice and economic welfare. There is no reason why our generation could not find good solutions in the area of immigration and integration. By integrating people who are capable, professionally qualified and willing to contribute to its future and its welfare Europe can gain considerably.
Ladies and gentlemen, today we undoubtedly need management, vision, and we need creativity. At the same time the European Union must prove that it is capable of continuing to find pragmatic solutions to various challenges. We must not forget that more than fifty years ago it was precisely pragmatism that provided the key to the creation of the European Communities and it continues to be the key to success even today.
The establishment of the European Communities for advantageous economic purposes was an exceptionally pragmatic idea, making further integrating development possible. The development of the European Economic Community towards a Customs Union and still further, the ability to develop new forms of cooperation and new institutions with additional authority, and the ability to expand geographically, all illustrate the importance that pragmatism has had in the European Union's history and development.
Today the Union faces new challenges demanding pragmatic adaptation. Prominent amongst them is primarily its further expansion. Although it is clear that all those trying to become EU Member States, all the candidate countries, must meet the criteria, yet we should not prevent any of them from becoming a Member State solely because of political difficulties or cultural prejudices. (Applause)
In its efforts to assume a world role of strategic importance the European Union needs Turkey, therefore the accession negotiations with Turkey must continue. The Union must not deny Turkey the prospect of becoming a member, after all this is something that has already been confirmed. Should this happen, the credibility of the European Union itself would come into question.
The European Union cannot resign itself to having a black hole in the Western Balkans. The accession negotiations must clearly define a European perspective for the Western Balkans. This will require further work with the individual countries of this region, which must strengthen their capacity to meet the membership criteria, as well as with the entire region, which needs a framework for discussing and resolving the problems they share. In its policy towards the neighbouring countries in the East and elsewhere, the European Union must apply the same pragmatism that helped achieve results in the past. Without talking of models, I should like to emphasise that Ukraine and Moldova need the European membership perspective, and they should not be denied it.
Ladies and gentlemen, pragmatism is manifest both in practice and as a state of mind. Obviously, the candidate states must meet all the required criteria in all matters concerning membership. There are good reasons why the Union's practice regarding conformity with eligibility criteria is consistent and strict. If the course for meeting the criteria is long, let it be so. One or two years of negotiations are a small price to pay for preserving the credibility and respect of the European Union's standards. However, the perspective of expansion, the perspective for new members must remain credible.
The countries that are capable of meeting the criteria must not be excluded from the European Union's expansion process. The sense of being excluded gives rise to dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction gives rise to instability. That is why a pragmatic state of mind must be preserved, and any further expansion must be contemplated in the light of what the European Union as a world actor requires.
Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, the European Union is a huge historical achievement. Now it has reached a development level where it must urgently become aware of its leading role in world events and of the responsibility that this status dictates. It is to be expected that the European Union will play a leading role in all matters such as global warming and human rights.
Creativity will continue to be the central motivation in looking for effective policies in areas such as immigration and integration. And, finally, pragmatism will continue to be as important in all matters concerning further expansion, which is necessary in order for the European Union to secure its leading role at world level. All of this may sound somewhat grand. However, progress is always the best cure for stagnation. In this respect the time we live in is not an exception, although it is true that today's issues are more varied than they used to be in the past. However, we must not forget that this too is just a natural consequence of success. (Applause)
President
Mr President, may we thank you very warmly for your European speech. Your presence here and your speech have made it clear that Slovenia and the Slovenian Presidency under Prime Minister Janus Janša - and I see two ministers sitting here: Janez Lenarčič and Janez Podobnik - want to work closely with the European Parliament. As the President of Slovenia, you convey that message with particular resonance.
Our experience here in the European Parliament has shown us that it is not the size of the country - small, large or medium-sized - that determines whether an EU Presidency will be successful; it is the spirit guiding the Presidency that counts. I think we can safely say that because Slovenia - and its President - are motivated by such a European spirit, this is a Presidency which will take Europe forward, and we would like to express our warm thanks to you for that.
(Applause)
We would also like to thank you for supporting the European Parliament's priorities. Let me mention just two that you have talked about. The first is climate protection. If we stick to the timetable, we will complete our work so that there is an EU position for the UN Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. We would also like to thank you for your appeal for human rights, for if we, as the European Parliament, do not champion the cause of human rights, who will do so? So often, governments are guided by other interests - which is understandable - but we must find a way of dovetailing these interests and our values skilfully in a way which genuinely benefits people, and that is why human rights are at the heart of our policies here in the European Parliament.
Mr President, thank you for visiting the European Parliament. You will be staying with us for a little longer. Once again, on behalf of the House, may I express my sincere thanks to you personally and to the Slovenian Presidency. We wish you every success for the rest of the six months during which Slovenia is at the helm of the European Union. If you succeed, we all succeed, and by that I mean the European Union. That is our common goal. Thank you. That concludes the formal sitting.


1. Electronic communications networks, personal data and the protection of privacy (
Before the vote:
Hanne Dahl
Madam President, I have one thing to say regarding the vote that we are about to hold. It seems, from the voting list, that we are voting on the compromise text from the committee, instead of the amendments, first. Normally I would have thought that we would vote on the most far-reaching amendments first, so I would ask you to use the power that you have according to Rule 19 in the Rules of Procedure and change the order of the vote so that we vote on the amendments. This concerns the citizens' rights amendments. This is very important for both the Harbour and the Trautmann reports.
President
Mrs Dahl, as far as I am aware there is no problem. I see no problem with the voting order on the Harbour report. We will proceed as it is on the order paper.


Public service broadcasting in the digital era: the future of the dual system (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Ivo Belet, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on public service broadcasting in the digital era: the future of the dual system.
Ivo Belet
Madam President, good evening Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution which we hope to adopt here on Thursday sends, in my view, a very important signal, a signal which demonstrates that there is a great deal of support in this House for our typical European media model, which gives space to both commercial broadcasters, on the one hand, and public broadcasters, that is, public media companies, on the other. This model, Madam President, is typically European, because you will not, or only very occasionally, find it in the United States or Japan, let alone in China. In most Member States of the European Union, this dual media model has proved to offer the best guarantees when it comes to media pluralism, independence of editorials and freedom of the press in general. However, this model is, unfortunately, coming under heavy pressure in the European Union. That pressure is coming from various quarters. It is coming through the heavy cuts that competent authorities, national or regional, are facing, but there is also a great deal of pressure from private media companies on public broadcasters. They consider public broadcasters to be representative of unfair competition, especially on the Internet. As a result of this overall situation, public broadcasters in a number of Member States of the European Union are actually struggling to keep their heads above water. This is calling into question the delicate balance of the dual system which is being compromised. We have to do everything we can to ensure that our European media model remains intact in these turbulent times and that we give it a firm foundation for the future, too. A number of interventions are needed for that purpose and we have formulated these in the resolution. The first point I would like to make, and I am not sure whether this forum is aware of it, is that, at one time, all Member States of the European Union formally committed themselves to guaranteeing freedom of the press under the framework of the Council of Europe. That includes a clearly defined remit and funding for public broadcasting. Long-term funding is important. It is time that we, as the European Parliament, reminded all 27 Member States that they made those commitments back then and that they also have to keep to them. My second point is that pluralism in the media, and freedom of the press in general, are an essential part of our democracy. That is why we want to introduce the role of media pluralism monitor. That, Commissioner, is a tool developed on the Commission's initiative. It is a very useful tool and one that can serve as a beacon in a number of Member States, in a number of regions where media diversity and media pluralism are at risk of coming under pressure. Last but not least, I think that the biggest challenge for all media is to secure for themselves a presence online, a digital presence on the Internet. The growing nervousness about - or, we might even say, the growing hostility to - public broadcasters' initiatives on the Internet is disturbing. Some people in politics, in national politics in particular, and also in the media, seem to forget that clear agreements were made last year about the online activities of public broadcasters, and it is essential that they are respected. If we follow this line of argument, Madam President, I think that we also need to develop models which will allow search engines and Internet service providers to play their part. To conclude, I think that we cannot afford to stand on the sidelines any longer, otherwise we will wake up to find that Google and YouTube, and Apple too, have taken over our media landscape. That, of course, would be completely undesirable.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) Madam President, there is a need to take steps in the European Union to ensure balance and a plurality of views, which will be greatly helped by an equilibrium between public service and commercial media on the market. With regard to maintaining cultural diversity, freedom of expression and healthy competition, we must not, of course, adopt a one-size-fits-all solution, and we must therefore respect the efforts of individual Member States to address the issue of increasing the share of public service media at the national level.
In my opinion, a balanced ratio between public service media and commercial media on the Internet as well should be a priority both for national strategies and for European media policy in the near future. It is also necessary to encourage interested parties to cooperate creatively in order to improve the quality of information provided on the media market, and to produce innovations in this sector. I would like to end by saying that media plurality and freedom is a cornerstone of democracy.
Martin Ehrenhauser
(DE) Madam President, I am also of the opinion that the dual media system can also be a success here in Europe and that it is important that we should have public broadcasters, on the one hand, and the private channels, on the other, operating in free competition, in a free market economy. Unfortunately, the reality is somewhat different. There is evidence of a huge trend towards monopolisation, particularly in the private sector. We need to take steps to counteract this. This trend is particularly dangerous because it is happening against a background of grave economic difficulty.
On the other hand, we have public broadcasting companies that are failing in their public service duties by allowing party spin-doctors and handlers to decide on the subject matter and content of their editorials. Of course, this cannot be allowed. Let me take the example of ORF in Austria: this broadcaster operates like a branch of the civil service, but not in terms of economic efficiency. There is no liberalism or pluralism in the media and no editorial freedom at present, or at least not as much as there should be. What can the EU do about this? I am convinced that the early warning system for identifying monopolies already presented to the European Parliament some time back is a good solution to this problem.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Madam President, I would like to make two other comments on the debate. The directive adopted earlier on audiovisual services improves cooperation between the supervisory bodies, and provides a high level of protection for children against inappropriate shows and advertisements. However, Member States are not disciplined in the way they implement it. For example, in my own country, it has only been in force since June. We also have the incomplete harmonisation of copyright law. We need both to make it easier to obtain cross-border licences for audiovisual works from collective authors, and to release the archive of audiovisual works of uncertain copyright in the case of so-called orphan works. I have confirmed that the Commission will submit new legislation next year, but it wants to restrict the legislation only to musical works and not to audiovisual works. I therefore call on the Commission to state whether it will correct this fundamental error, or whether we will have to correct it as Members in committees. This problem is dealt with by item 33 of the report.
Jaroslav Paška
(SK) Madam President, I would like to begin by supporting the efforts of the rapporteur to launch a debate in the European Parliament on the media environment. I think this is a very useful theme, particularly in the period of digitalisation, a period when revolutionary changes are under way in this environment.
The media environment definitely varies between the individual countries. There are countries where the media environment is dominated by commercial media, with public service media essentially forming just a kind of background. In some places, the commercial media are weaker or broken up and diffuse, so that they do not create a concentrated pressure or a concentrated media environment, and the public service media are then more able to provide more information and to influence public opinion to a greater extent.
In any case, however, we see that political bodies often interfere in the activities of public service media in particular, just as owners interfere in the activities of commercial media, and our information and public awareness are then influenced to a considerable extent.
In order to achieve media freedom, genuine freedom that is independent of money, whether private money or state money, it is necessary to strive hard for journalists to be free, and not subject to some form of monitoring or self-monitoring which would, in effect, oblige them to be loyal to their employers. In my opinion, this is the greatest problem to arise in the media in our time, and we must make changes here in the future.
Maria Damanaki
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission welcomes the European Parliament's report entitled 'public service broadcasting in the digital era: the future of the dual system'. The report is a well-balanced text as it supports the existing dual system, based on coexistence between public service broadcasters and commercial broadcasters in Europe. As the audiovisual media services directive recalls in one of its recitals, this coexistence is a feature that distinguishes the European audiovisual media market from others and the report fully recognises this.
The protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States, annexed to the EU treaties, recognises the Member States' freedom to define the public service remit to organise public service broadcasting and its funding, as long as such funding does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community. Therefore, the Member States determine the form and conditions of funding of their public service media so long as EU State aid rules are respected.
We agree with the main thrust of the report, i.e. that public broadcasters should be able to use the opportunities offered by digitisation and the diversification of distribution platforms, in line with the principle of technological neutrality. This was acknowledged in the revised communication from the Commission of 2009 on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting. We have some comments on two elements of the report in particular.
First, regarding monitoring the Council of Europe standards, there is no EU responsibility for the political independence of public service media. Furthermore, EU Member States cannot give a mandate to the European Audiovisual Observatory without the agreement of the non-EU members. The Commission could not do so either.
Second, the report suggests that certain Member States have failed to take any action in promoting European works in broadcasting. This is not supported by figures from the Commission's recent report on the application of the directive's provisions. According to that report, broadcasters across Europe are doing well overall in terms of the promotion of European programmes.
Public service broadcasters should be at the forefront of innovation, driving the development of new formats and quality, as regards both the programme itself and technically, if they are to keep up with trends and challenges from elsewhere. It seems that we fully agree on these points and I look forward to cooperating with Parliament on these issues within the legal framework provided by the treaties.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 25 November 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Iosif Matula
At the time of transition from the analogue to digital TV system, coupled with the growing importance of new media, including 3D format, we must bear in mind a number of factors in the policies which we are devising. Firstly, I believe that it is useful for us to take measures to facilitate the transition to the digital system, while also considering the possibility of offering vouchers or other measures to compensate the general public. Another important measure would be to organise traineeships for journalists and public broadcasting managers, given the sums steadily allocated to this area by the private media. Furthermore, I think that it is worthwhile us considering in the future the opportunity to set up a European public radio service. At the same time, I believe that it would be useful for public TV broadcasters in Member States to contribute programmes of European interest to the Euronews channels. Given not only how widespread 3D productions have become, but also the warnings issued by doctors about the impact on viewers' health, I call on the European Commission to devise urgently a study which will take into account the possible risks which 3D TV can pose to Europeans' health under current technical conditions.
Emil Stoyanov
I should like, first of all, to congratulate Ivo Belet on his excellent report on this highly important subject. I would also like to thank him for accepting my ideas and proposals on it. I believe that we have come up with a well-balanced report which aims to guarantee fair competition between public and private media.
On the strength of a long tradition, national budgets, i.e. the taxpayer, support public TV broadcasters based on the assumption that public TV stations are there only to protect the public interest, while private broadcasters are there to protect private, commercial interests. However, the practice in Bulgaria and in the whole of Europe has long since shown that this is not entirely true for public or for private media.
Drawing on many years of experience in the media sector, I proposed some amendments to this report, which aims to put public and private media on an equal footing in order to enable them to provide better quality information of importance to the public. European citizens have the right to receive the best information both on European and on national issues. This requires the efforts both of public and of private media, while regulatory authorities have to make sure that they operate on an even playing field. I thank you for your attention.


Measuring devices containing mercury (debate)
President
The next item is the recommendation for second reading by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing of certain measuring devices containing mercury (05665/1/2007 - C6-0114/2007 - (Rapporteur: María Sornosa Martínez).
María Sornosa Martínez
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we in this House all agree that it is necessary to reduce the demand for mercury in the manufacture of products and to speed up its substitution.
It would be appropriate to introduce Community level marketing restrictions on mercury-containing measuring and control equipment for consumer use, with some exemptions in the healthcare sector.
We want to prevent significant amounts of mercury entering the waste stream. In that way, we shall contribute to guaranteeing a high level of protection of the environment and human health, whilst preserving the internal market, as required by Article 95 of the Treaty.
Mercury and its components are highly toxic to humans, ecosystems and wildlife. Initially seen as a diffuse local problem, mercury pollution is now understood to be global, chronic and serious.
As regards a potential blanket ban on the use of mercury in all devices, which is the aim of this proposal, it should be emphasised that the experts the Commission consulted have come to the conclusion that hospitals need devices with a high level of accuracy to treat life-threatening conditions such as hypertension, arrhythmia and pre-eclampsia.
Mercury sphygmomanometers provide the appropriate level of accuracy and reliability to ensure patient safety. We are therefore currently proposing that these instruments be exempted from the ban until there are complete guarantees with regard to the functioning of possible alternative instruments.
I would also once again call upon the Commission to adopt short-term measures to ensure that all products containing mercury currently circulating in society are collected separately and safely processed. Otherwise, this Directive will be less effective in practice.
With regard to the production of new traditional barometers containing mercury, which has been the most controversial aspect in this Parliament, we proposed an agreement that there would be a transitional period of two years for manufacturers to enable them to adapt to the new rules. Unfortunately, not all of the political groups have agreed to this, though I believe that we will have a sufficient majority in this House to adopt it.
With regard to the manufacturers of these barometers, I would like to say that they will have this transitional period of two years in order to stop using mercury in their industrial processes. They will not suffer any competitive disadvantage or economic harm, since we know that they have been manufacturing this kind of barometer without using mercury for some time.
We must remind our citizens that this equipment may pose a risk to health and the environment, since it can break easily and end up being dumped, or, worse still, if it is burnt, the mercury is dispersed into the atmosphere, polluting the air, the soil and water. Mercury thereby enters the food chain, mainly into fish, and then us human beings.
As this House is well aware, at second reading, a majority in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has rejected the amendments intended to make it possible to continue manufacturing new mercury barometers.
I believe that it would be irresponsible for us to accept that request and I therefore call upon all the honourable Members to vote against it, as the Council and the European Commission also propose, and I thank them for all of their efforts to avoid a possible conciliation procedure.
Finally, I would once again call upon the Commission to increase awareness within the population through the organisation of information campaigns on the health risks resulting from exposure to mercury and the environmental problems it may cause, since I fear that the citizens are not yet sufficiently well-informed about its toxicity, unfortunately.
I would like to end by thanking the Commission for its work and for the possibility of reaching an agreement at second reading. Thanks, too, to the Council and to the political groups that have supported this proposal.
Günter Verheugen
Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to begin by offering my sincere thanks to Mrs Sornoza Martínez, the rapporteur, on her work on this proposal. We are discussing a very important directive this evening. It is an important part of our strategy for banishing mercury from our environment for ever - a strategy that has long been backed by the European Parliament.
Mercury and its compounds are highly toxic to human health and the environment. The directive will therefore bring a major step forward, it will restrict the marketing of certain new measuring devices containing mercury and in that way prevent some 30 tonnes of mercury entering the environment through waste every year.
The proposed directive aims to cut the use of this hazardous material in measuring instruments to a minimum and to allow exceptions only where the risks are negligible or there are no substitutes. Thus, the marketing of mercury-containing fever thermometers will be banned completely, for example, and the sale of all other mercury-containing measuring instruments to the general public will be prevented. I believe it is right that there will be an exception for blood pressure meters in the health sector and for antique measuring instruments. The proposals were drawn up on the basis of a risk assessment and detailed impact assessment that were developed for the mercury strategy.
This directive does not only safeguard human health and the environment, it will also serve to maintain the internal market, since it will introduce harmonised rules for the marketing of mercury-containing measuring devices everywhere in the Community.
The rapporteur recommends approval of the Council common position without further amendment. The Commission agrees with this entirely, since the common position has adopted some of the amendments tabled by Parliament at first reading and represents a balanced compromise between the effort to ban the use of mercury to the greatest possible extent in order to safeguard human health and the environment on the one hand while ensuring the safety of patients in the health sector on the other. I must confirm what the rapporteur has already said: the majority of experts still consider mercury-containing blood pressure meters, sphygmomanometers, essential in the treatment of certain life-threatening diseases. We shall have to look into this matter, however. If there are safe alternatives available for these instruments, too, then mercury should be banned here as well. The Commission will therefore be reviewing the derogation in two years' time.
A further derogation means that antique measuring instruments, that is those that are at least 50 years old, will still be able to be sold. The Commission is able to agree with this because antique instruments are predominantly collector's items which, because of their value, are handled very carefully and come onto the market in only very small numbers. In the Commission's view, however, there is no justification for an unlimited derogation for the further sale of new mercury barometers to consumers. Since there are alternatives to mercury barometers that are just as decorative and reliable, there is absolutely no need for this hazardous substance to be used in the manufacture of barometers.
An unlimited derogation for such instruments would be in stark contradiction to the stance taken by the European Parliament in relation to highly dangerous substances when adopting the new REACH legislation on chemicals. A transitional period of two years, as now provided in the directive, is perfectly adequate to allow the few remaining manufacturers of mercury barometers to convert to alternatives. In any case, many of those manufacturers, if not all of them, already offer alternative products. Under no circumstances, therefore, will the Commission agree to the amendments that have been tabled seeking permanent derogations for barometers.
I urgently request your assistance in backing the common position so that the directive can now be adopted at second reading.
Martin Callanan
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, we have been through these arguments on a number of occasions so I shall keep my argument as brief as possible. The only remaining issue to be resolved, as the Commissioner and Mrs Sornosa Martínez pointed out, is that of barometers. I have to say that I remain deeply convinced that both the Commission and the Council, and some Members of this Parliament, have got the argument completely wrong. There is no justification whatsoever for a ban on barometers. They are only being singled out because there is only a relatively small number of companies which still produce them in Europe and they are an easy target as far as the Commission is concerned, to make it look as though they are actually doing something about mercury, whereas the big sources of release of mercury - from power stations, crematoria, etc. - are not being tackled because, of course, to tackle them would be very expensive for Member State governments and local authorities.
This Parliament passed an amendment to exempt barometer-makers at first reading in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and in this Parliament. The Council then rejected it, albeit with a two-year phase-out period. The Environment Committee did not support the amendment this time round, I am sorry to say, but I have retabled the amendments in order to give Parliament a further opportunity to make a decision on this and, as Members are no doubt aware, a very vigorous campaign is being fought by a number of independent operators and distributors throughout Europe.
It is a completely illogical position to say that antique instruments will be exempted but new instruments will be banned. There are probably more antique instruments being circulated and placed on the market in Europe than there are new instruments being created. It is a very small minority specialist market and Europe brings itself into disrepute by delegitimising, by banning, by forcing out of business, a small number of very entrepreneurial and gifted craftsmen. They can be controlled by a proper licensing and control regime which they have said that they are willing to pay for. That would be by far the most sensible solution rather than an outright ban and to force a number of small companies out of business, thereby losing the skills and traditions that have existed in Europe for several hundred years.
Dorette Corbey
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I am indebted to Mrs Sornosa Martínez, who has our warm and unqualified support. Mercury, and particularly mercury compounds and mercury vapours, is toxic. Mercury can accumulate in brain tissue and the nervous system, where it can wreak great havoc. This, in turn, can lead to reduced intelligence. An intelligent policy, therefore, prohibits the use of mercury in unnecessary applications. Given that alternatives are available, it is to be welcomed that the mercury thermometer is consigned to the past.
Barometers are the subject of much debate. In the Netherlands, the use of mercury has been banned since 2003, but barometers were exempt until 2005 and then, pending fresh European rules, until 1 January 2006. We are willing to extend the exemption period by another two years for traditional barometers, which are, it has to be said, delightful things. As this brings the total delay to 1 January 2010, there is enough time to develop alternatives, which, as the Commissioner confirmed, are already available to a large extent.
Whilst I can, of course, imagine that this is hard for producers of barometers to take, if we want to banish mercury altogether, we must in any event ban consumer products that contain it. Barometers may break or leak, so that mercury ends up in the environment anyway.
I therefore agree with the producers of barometers that the use of mercury in low-energy light bulbs is, of course, also very harmful. It is a good idea to change over to LED lights as soon as possible, but this Directive is about mercury in measuring devices and not about low-energy light bulbs. I would therefore once again like to express my warm support to Mrs Sornosa Martínez, who I believe has chosen a very good line of attack.
Marios Matsakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I wish to congratulate Mrs Sornosa Martínez on her excellent report.
This legislative report follows the mercury strategy report adopted by this House last year. It aims at restricting the placing on the market of new measuring devices containing mercury. Mrs Sornosa Martínez rightly agrees in the main with the proposal before us and reserves only some derogations in cases where there are no appropriate substitutes yet available.
My group strongly supports this proposal and considers the rapporteur's amendments useful and appropriate. Overall, the proposal meets with widespread agreement across Parliament, apart from the single, well-known issue of the barometer controversy. The difference, as you know, is that the Council has agreed to the compromise proposal to grant a two-year derogation after the entry into force of the directive to a small number of producers of traditional-looking, present-day manufactured barometers. This, we feel, is a reasonable solution and gives those manufacturers time to implement mercury-free substitutes into their products.
This view is not shared by some colleagues who hold the opinion expressed in Amendments 1 and 2 that there should be a permanent derogation for traditional-looking barometers. The matter is not of huge importance in substance, as the amount of mercury used in these instruments is tiny and safety measures are adequately implemented by the manufacturers. At the same time, as a question of principle, no long-term derogation is necessary as the manufacturers have ample time to adapt in the case of safe alternative chemicals without the need to introduce a risky precedent in safety directives.
The issue has, unfortunately, been blown out of all proportion by a section of the national press that want to portray the matter as one of heartless and bureaucratic big-brother-style EU interfering with poor, honest-to-goodness traditional instrument manufacturers and trying to destroy them. This, as you will appreciate, is not true.
The position of my group is to follow scientific logic and not to accept permanent derogations for barometers but, realising the strength of feeling amongst some MEPs, we will not be unduly strict with those in our group who choose not to follow the group line, although there is always the risk of the barometer amendment going through and jeopardising the whole proposal. Let us hope that this will not happen.
Leopold Józef Rutowicz
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to restrictions on the marketing of certain measuring devices containing mercury is an important document as it limits the amount of mercury released into the environment. Mercury enters the food chain in the form of methylmercury in an aquatic environment, affecting fish, fruit, vegetables and eventually human beings. It accumulates in our bodies and poisons us.
Every year, 33 tonnes of mercury enter into circulation in new equipment and 27 tonnes in used equipment. Technical advances have reduced the use of mercury in industry and manufactured products. In dealing with mercury it is essential to recover it from used equipment and to drastically reduce imports of such equipment from countries outside the Union. All European Union Member States should impose a ban of this kind following early amendment of Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing of certain dangerous substances and preparations.
I would like to thank Mrs Sornosa Martínez for her work.
Carl Schlyter
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (SV) I used to play with mercury as a little boy. Hopefully, this directive will mean that future generations of children will not do so. There is now a compromise with the Council, and it is high time that we accepted it. We know that mercury is harmful both to people and to the environment and that it can almost always be replaced by less dangerous substances. The compromise in the Council of Ministers is a balanced one and comes 14 years after Sweden introduced its national ban on mercury thermometers. There is no more time to lose.
Those who are now considering voting through a technically unjustified proposal from the barometer lobby should know that the whole ban will be in danger of being delayed and made more difficult to implement if the proposal is approved. It would be irresponsible to vote through such a proposal. Dentists, laboratories and hospitals have phased out mercury. There is no difficulty at all in measuring air pressure without mercury. Anyone nostalgic for an old barometer will be able to buy one. Even with this ban - which does not apply to antiques - it is still legal to do so in the internal market.
Urszula Krupa
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, it has long been known that mercury compounds are harmful to human beings and to the environment. Mercury enters the food chain easily. The groups most at risk are children, including unborn children, and people in direct contact with mercury. Mercury damages the human body by impairing the nervous system, coordination, and also sight, with negative consequences for health and the environment. It is therefore right and proper to introduce provisions restricting the use of mercury in certain measuring devices.
Medical devices containing mercury should, however, be withdrawn from the market gradually, especially in new Member States that have only limited resources available for their health services. By way of example it is estimated that the additional public expenditure required pursuant to a ban on the use of mercury thermometers will amount to around PLN 3 million a year. Sudden withdrawal of measuring devices containing mercury will not only be very costly, but may also dissuade people from measuring temperature and blood pressure. This is particularly serious as cheap electronic devices are not very accurate.
We proposed extending the transitional period, which would reduce the costs significantly. We also believe that the ban should exclude thermometers for premature babies because of the specific range of measurements, their reliability and precision, and also ovulation thermometers used to diagnose irregularities and for reproduction as part of the basic natural family planning method. In addition, veterinary thermometers are required for use in the diagnosis of animal diseases.
Finally, I should like to say that such hurried changes to legislation tend to arouse suspicions that vested interests are involved. In this case, withdrawal of equipment containing mercury might not be due exclusively to a desire to protect health and the environment.
Thomas Ulmer
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this measuring devices directive is intended to remove around 30 tonnes of mercury from circulation, not very much but nevertheless an appreciable quantity. The dangers of mercury are well known, its neurotoxicity undisputed. Where human health is at risk, I believe the strict principle of substitution applies. Where mercury is absolutely necessary and there are no alternatives, it can be retained under strict conditions.
Exceptions are therefore permitted only where there are no significant risks or where no alternatives are yet available. The exceptions include sphygmomanometers for special applications and old measuring instruments, and it goes without saying that the number of old measuring instruments will continue to fall of its own accord. I believe the transitional period of two years for barometers is quite sufficient. The decisive thing for me is the harmonisation of the internal market, which is taken a step further here. I approve the common position.
Åsa Westlund
(SV) It is, in actual fact, astonishing that we are forced to have this debate. Mercury is one of the most dangerous poisons in our midst. Of course it should not be used unless absolutely necessary. I am amazed that anyone at all can believe that it is more important to go on manufacturing old-style barometers and thermometers than to protect public health.
As a pregnant woman, I am all too aware of all the risks that mercury entails. I know that no one who is to give birth should eat the fish that I myself and others like me ate throughout the period when we were growing up. Is that how things should be? Should it not be possible for young women to eat ordinary food? Should pregnant woman have to worry that their unborn children have been damaged by mercury from, for example, products that quite unnecessarily contain that substance?
In the run-up to this debate we received letters to the effect that we must safeguard the manufacture of traditional barometers. That is genuinely embarrassing. How can anyone believe that I attach more importance to whatever pleasure there may be in owning a barometer than to the risk posed to future generations by the use of mercury? I hope that, by voting tomorrow against all the amendments aimed at retaining the use of mercury, all my fellow Members will show how embarrassing those letters are and demonstrate that we are taking our responsibility for the environment and public health seriously.
Holger Krahmer
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I agree: mercury is highly toxic. It is harmful to the environment, to animals and, through the food chain and by other routes, to human beings.
It is right that this element should be replaced where it is possible and sensible to do so, but not always and at any price and not because of the properties of the substance itself, but whenever its use really does present a hazard to the environment. We cannot remove mercury from circulation completely in any case, because then we would also have to say goodbye to another product that is much valued by many Members of this House. The energy-saving light bulb, which many would prefer to impose by law in order to protect the climate, also contains mercury. If energy-saving light bulbs were universally used, we would have at least as much of it in our households as at present with traditional barometers.
I do not think much of banning mercury and a whole group of craft businesses from the EU market tomorrow while at the same time wanting to screw mercury lamps into our light fittings. I would be interested to hear what the Commissioner has to say about these conflicting aims.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) Mercury is used in many measuring devices, thermometers and barometers. Mercury has also been used successfully, and without major health implications, in dentistry in the form of amalgam fillings.
On the other hand, however, under certain circumstances mercury is known to be harmful and can accumulate in living organisms, including the human body. We are all aware that the Council's joint position includes most of the amendments already adopted by the European Parliament on 14 November 2006. This was reflected in the text, where the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs see almost eye to eye, so that we were close to finalising the legislative process during the first reading.
There is a major point of difference between the Council and Parliament, however, concerning the production of devices which use mercury, notably barometers. As we know, Parliament voted in favour of a complete exemption, whereas the Council is proposing an exemption limited to two years, which appears to be appropriate. A ban would apply to new mercury barometers, but it seems sensible to regard second-hand barometers as acceptable, as this would make possible their continued sale, repair and maintenance.
As a citizen and consumer, I support the type of compromise backed by the rapporteur, which will not jeopardise the overall health of the general public and will enable conventional barometer manufacturers to adapt more quickly to the new situation.
Linda McAvan
Mr President, I think we should remind ourselves that this is part of a wider strategy to phase out mercury. No sector has been singled out - not thermometers, nor barometers - because there is going to be a set of actions over a number of years. I think Mr Ulmer got it right: we have agreed under the REACH Directive that if there is a safe alternative to dangerous chemicals, we should move towards that alternative. We have all agreed on that in this House; all the major political groups signed up to REACH. So to say 'let us make an exemption for barometers' at this stage is totally inconsistent with the REACH Directive. What is more, the REACH Directive would cover barometers.
There is an amendment about licensing barometers. Well, that does not address the issue of spillages, accidental damage or waste disposal, landfill and incineration. In the United States in May, somebody found a broken barometer in a storage cupboard in a school. The school was closed for a week. The whole school had to be evacuated and there was a clean-up bill amounting to thousands of dollars. Sixteen US States are moving towards mercury prohibitions on barometers and other equipment. In fact, they are going much further than the European Commission is proposing to go here today. So anybody who is talking about nanny-state Europe is totally misplaced when they are looking at the barometer issue.
The PSE Group pushed for the two-year phase-out for the barometer industry. We know these are small companies, we know it will pose some difficulties for them, but I think they were aware of the REACH Directive coming their way anyway, and I think this is a sensible compromise.
Finally, Mr Schlyter talked about how he used to play with mercury when he was a child. Many people have said this to me during the course of this debate. We used to play with it in the past. I always point out that we used to drive in cars without seatbelts; we used to breathe in leaded petrol; and at Christmas time I used to get sweet cigarettes in my Christmas stocking. There are things to change and I think now is the time to change them.
Günter Verheugen
Vice-President of the Commission. (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will be glad to once again clarify the Commission's policy with regard to the handling of demonstrably highly toxic substances in our environment. We cannot rule out risks in our society, but whenever the conditions for substitution are present, substitution must take priority. I fail to understand how anyone could see it differently. If it is not necessary to work with highly toxic substances in our environment, then we simply must not do it.
That also applies with regard to the energy-saving light bulbs that Mr Krahmer mentioned, which do indeed contain very small quantities of mercury. There are as yet no substitutes for that. But work must be done on it, and as soon as there are substitutes, manufacture without the use of mercury must of course be preferred here too.
May I conclude by talking about barometers again. No one is a greater friend of beautiful old instruments than I am. I am a great friend of traditional production methods, a great friend of traditional firms, especially small firms. And no one wants to drive even one small traditional firm off the European market. I have here a catalogue from one of these manufacturers. There is no doubt at all. Even today they offer beautiful barometers that show not the slightest external difference from the barometers that were manufactured in the past, but they no longer contain mercury. Even the famous Prince of Wales barometer, a copy of John Russel's royal barometer, nevertheless costing GBP 795, is already available without the slightest trace of mercury.
The argument that even one firm could be forced out of business is simply not correct. I can therefore tell you quite clearly that we are not acting in these small firms' interests if we prevent them from doing what is necessary to give their products a future. And these traditional barometers will only have a future if they are made without mercury.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, 11 July 2007.
Carl Schlyter
Mr President, I wonder if you could check that the interpretation came out correctly. I said I played with mercury as a child and I hope future generations will not be exposed to that risk. Just to be absolutely clear.
President
That is how I understood it, Mr Schlyter: I can assure you, I did the same thing and I hope to live to an old age.


Status of elected MEPs in Poland (debate)
President
The next item is the debate concerning an oral question to the Commission from Giuseppe Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs - B6-0002/2008) concerning the status of MEPs elected in Poland.
Giuseppe Gargani
author. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the issue that we are discussing tonight has been examined in detail, on more than one occasion I may say, by the Committee on Legal Affairs, which I have the honour to chair, and that Committee has asked me, through this question, to open a discussion and to exchange views with the Commission.
The question relates to the status of MEPs elected in Poland, who are not in the same position from the point of view of elections and all the provisions that govern the elections of other parliamentarians in other Member States. Elections to the European Parliament in Poland are in practice governed by the Act of 23 January 2004, Article 9 of which sets out eligibility requirements: candidates must be aged 21 on the day of the poll, must not have been convicted of criminal offences, must be resident in Poland and must satisfy various other criteria.
Chapter 17 of that Act sets out the circumstances in which Polish MEPs may lose their seats: their eligibility, that is the eligibility requirements on the day of the poll, may be invalidated, giving rise to the possibility of forfeiture if these requirements were not met, and various other matters, which I shall not cite in order to get to the crux of the matter that I should like to discuss here.
On the basis of a number of combined provisions, as we lawyers say, an MEP automatically loses his seat - that is, an MEP automatically forfeits that seat - if he or she has received a criminal conviction; in the case of members of the Polish Parliament, the law of 12 April 2001 - both as regards elections to the Sejm and to the Senate of the Republic - contains no provision of this type, with the result that these provisions relate to Polish MEPs but not to Polish MPs.
For that reason, we discussed the question and asked ourselves a question, a question which among other things has repercussions as regards requests for immunity; as you know, we have - as Commissioner Frattini is very well aware - the power to decide on this question. Clearly, if a member automatically forfeits his or her seat as a result of an event for which immunity cannot be upheld, there is obviously a further problem, a further uncertainty.
For that reason, we ask, and I ask on behalf of the Committee, the Commissioner whether or not he considers that the Polish legislation on elections to the national parliament breaches Article 10 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, which states that during the sessions of the European Parliament, its members shall enjoy the immunities accorded to members of their Parliament in the territory of their own State. There is therefore a clear inconsistency if provision is made for a Polish member to lose his or her seat, when members of the national parliament are not treated in the same way.
I would also ask the Commission if it intends to bring proceedings before the Court of Justice with a view to Poland amending this legislation and correctly applying the treaty, as it would seem that the treaty is not being applied as it should be. As an exception is involved, and as the comparable and equal treatment of members from all the Member States means that this exception for members from the Polish state runs completely counter to what may be provided and is provided for all other members from the Member States, I would ask the Commission these two things and put this information before Parliament and ask whether the Commissioner can reply to these two questions and whether it is possible to find a remedy to the questions I have put.
Franco Frattini
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the issue which Mr Gargani has brought up is undoubtedly an important one: it is important because two principles, both of which are relevant and important in my view, are at stake.
The first principle is undoubtedly that referred to in Article 10 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities and on the status of the members of the European Parliament, which specifies that in the States to which the members of the European Parliament belong, they must be accorded the same prerogatives as members of the national parliament of that country.
However, another provision is also involved - a provision which is also important in my view - and that is Article 13 of the European Act of 1976 relating to the election of members of Parliament. That article very clearly states that when a Member State introduces national legislation covering the case in question here, that is the loss of the status, the loss of the position of member of the European Parliament, termination of the European parliamentary mandate in that country is subject to national law.
In other words, there is an apparent conflict, because the rules set out in the Protocol on Privileges, as cited by Mr Gargani, speak of equal prerogatives for members of the Polish Parliament and members of the European Parliament elected in Poland, but at the same time the European Act of 1976 on the election of members of the European Parliament, as regards the loss of the status of member of the European Parliament, apparently - or explicitly, I would say - governs the loss of the status of MEP and establishes that the loss of that status is governed by national law.
In my opinion, the problem here is more one of the infringement of a third guiding principle for the European Union: whether or not the principle of equal treatment is enshrined in Polish domestic legislation. The principle, enshrined in the constitutional legislation of all the European countries, that establishes that similar situations must be treated in similar ways. It is rather that general principle that is at issue; but that general principle does not, however, allow the European Commission to establish the way in which the Polish legal order should change its legislation, because, as the issue is subject to national law, if it were wished in national law to govern the loss of the status of national MP rather than the loss of the status of MEP in a different way, that would be possible, the important factor being that the provisions on one are brought into line with the provisions on the other.
This is my personal opinion in that the Commission cannot now say 'we are turning to the Court for a ruling that Polish national law has to be amended in a particular way', but I am of the view that a general principle can be drawn. The general principle is that the Polish legal order must act to amend this difference in treatment and that, I believe, is a matter for the Polish legislator. As this is a question that has never arisen and is too delicate to be dealt with in any summary way, I believe that the first step is to reach an understanding: if the Polish legislator, as I believe, should remove this difference in treatment, that is a matter for the Polish Parliament.
Second: does Polish legislation comply with the provisions of the European Act of 1976 which I cited earlier? I can tell you, Mr Gargani, that I have commissioned a comparative study for the 12 new Member States to ascertain whether the legislation, not just Polish legislation, but the legislation of the 11 Member States which acceded to the European Union between 2004 and 2007, whether the national legislation in those Member States complies with the provisions of the European Act of 1976.
In conclusion, two tasks need to be undertaken. First: a review, which I am undertaking, of the conformity of Polish national legislation, and not just Polish legislation, because the fact that Mr Gargani has brought up the case of Poland does not mean that there are not comparable situations in other Member States. My view is that this review is needed for all of them.
The second task is to assess whether the Polish Parliament can, though legislation, remove what is objectively an apparent conflict, since there is an apparent discrimination between the status, regulated by law, of MEPs elected in Poland and Polish MPs. There is an apparent conflict, and the only aspect that I believe would be difficult to accept is that it is up to the European Commission to ask the Court of Justice what action the Polish legislator should take.
Were Parliament to agree with this stance, we could simply point out that there is apparent discrimination in Poland between the status of two types of parliamentarian. This is a very new exercise and we should try to make progress with it in a spirit of cooperation.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Mr President, Chairman Gargani presented the situation of Members of the European Parliament in the context of Polish law very clearly, as also their unequal treatment in this same context as regards Members of Parliament in Poland, and also with regard to senators. I would agree with the argument put forward by Commissioner Frattini that this violates the principle of equal treatment of Members of Parliament before the law.
I would like to inform you that the present ruling coalition in Poland, the Platforma Obywatelska and the Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe, has already begun work on changing this law so as to make it the same for Members of the European Parliament, Members of Parliament in Poland and for Senators. This change will follow the same direction as the provision that is contained in the European Parliament's electoral law, so that the same principle also applies to Polish Members of Parliament and Polish Senators.
However, in this context, as Mr Gargani said that we are opening a discussion concerning a problem that may be a wider issue, I wonder whether it may be worth thinking about a common electoral law, at least in terms of general principles, a common electoral law for the European Parliament for all Member States of the European Union, as today there are very different circumstances in the 27 Member countries. It is difficult to disagree, and of course I accept all legal restrictions as regards MEPs, but it is difficult for me to agree with a situation where, on being sentenced to a fine in a case brought by the public prosecution service for a deliberate crime, or for being charged with such a crime, a person automatically loses their mandate to the European Parliament.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, today's debate raises the issue of unequal treatment of Polish Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Sejm as regards election criteria, as well as that of loss of mandate.
In Article 9 of the Act of 23 January 2004 concerning the electoral ordinance for the European Parliament, we see that the right to stand for election to this institution is given to persons who, among other criteria, have not been convicted of a deliberate crime or charged by the public prosecution service, and Article 142 states that one's mandate can be withdrawn as a result, for example, of the member's election to the European Parliament being invalidated. This means that the conviction of a Member (this refers to a Member of the European Parliament, as has been mentioned earlier) for a crime committed deliberately is equivalent to their automatically losing their mandate, while for members to the national parliament this does not act as an obstacle to them standing for election, nor does it result in the loss of their mandate.
As regards the privileges of Members of the European Parliament, Rule 5(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament states that 'Members shall enjoy privileges and immunities in accordance with the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities'. In the Preamble, the Protocol states that it regulates the issue of privileges and immunities that are necessary to carry out responsibilities for the European Communities, and, in Article 10(a), states that, during the sessions of the Assembly, 'in the territory of their own State, its members shall enjoy the immunities accorded to members of their Parliament'. Members of the Polish Parliament and the European Parliament are protected by the same immunity. According to Article 11, 'Representatives of Member States taking part in the work of the institutions of the Communities, their advisers and technical experts shall, in the performance of their duties and during their travel to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the customary privileges, immunities and facilities'.
There is no doubt that a Member of the European Parliament is a representative of a Member State who is taking part in the work of the institutions of the Union. Since Members of the European Parliament and of the Polish Parliament should benefit from the same immunities and privileges, then the rules as regards their eligibility to stand for election as well as for loss of mandate should also be the same.
In acceding to the European Union Poland assumed a responsibility to respect laws in force in the EU, especially those laws having a direct impact on the internal legal system in Member States. I would encourage the fastest possible standardisation in legislation relating to the status of Members of the Polish Parliament and Members of the European Parliament in Poland, and I fully agree with the view taken by Commissioner Frattini in this regard.
Jens-Peter Bonde
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, the Polish electoral law on elections to the European Parliament is truly unfair and undemocratic compared to the law on elections to the national parliament. The forfeiture of a seat of a deputy to the European Parliament by laws of eligibility is an easy way to put pressure on political opponents and gives the opportunity to settle an account politically with those who have more authority.
Unfortunately, although being in the European Union, the law is still abused in many former Communist countries. This is the case for Mr Tomczak as well. As Members of the European Parliament, Polish MEPs represent not only the Poles but also all Europeans.
It is unacceptable that these people's representatives are discriminated against by maintaining different legislation with regard to Members of the Polish Parliament. A Polish MEP, if convicted, will be punished not only by Polish law but will also lose his seat as a Member of the European Parliament. That fact clearly shows the discrimination of Polish Members of the European Parliament in comparison to members of national parliaments. That situation is unacceptable and shows clearly how unjust and unfair the Polish electoral law is.
May I urge Poland to change its electoral law?
Aloyzas Sakalas
Mr President, this oral question is a consequence of the debates in the Committee on Legal Affairs on the immunity of Mr Tomczak.
The immunity of Mr Tomczak was raised by Parliament a few years ago. Recently the Committee on Legal Affairs received a request from Mr Tomczak to defend his immunity. The committee discussed this request and a draft decision has been prepared. Nevertheless, the adoption of the final decision was postponed as the committee received information that, in the event of his immunity being waived, the legal consequences for Members of the European Parliament from Poland and Members of the Polish Parliament would be different.
According to the Polish Act of 23 January 2004, a Member of the European Parliament from Poland will lose his or her seat automatically in the event of criminal conviction. For Members of the Polish Parliament this provision is not applicable. Such a difference is in breach of European Community law, by maintaining different legislation with regard to members of the national parliament and Polish Members of the European Parliament. This discrepancy between Polish and European Community laws needs to be clarified.
Therefore, I fully support the formulation of an oral question to the Commission. I hope Mr Frattini will use all his influence to aim to eliminate this discrepancy between Polish and European Community laws.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that democracy in Europe needs to be constantly developed, and we are seeing many attacks on our democratic system from outside Europe. The Members of the European Parliament take decisions, of course, on very many issues that have a direct and immediate effect on the European public. Members of parliaments do not take decisions for themselves but represent their voters.
For this reason the Members of the European Parliament must not be inferior in status to members of national parliaments nor, conversely, should national deputies have a lesser status than MEPs.
For this reason I believe that the Commission should examine the impact on Poland's MEPs of the new statute that will apply from 2009 onwards and investigate what changes the statute will make and whether there is not some scope for its principles to be applied in order to remove these disparities.
Manuel Medina Ortega
(ES) Mr President, as ever, Commissioner Frattini has performed an intricate legal analysis. As he said, in the current circumstances there would appear to be no grounds for bringing proceedings before the Court of Justice directly.
However, after listening to Mr Zwiefka, who has been telling us about a proposal from the current Polish Government to amend the law, I would ask the Commissioner whether he believes that the Commission could in fact approach the Polish Government on the basis of the debate we are having in Parliament at present to see whether the Polish Government is indeed proposing to amend the law to harmonise the status of MEPs with that of members of the national parliament.
Marek Aleksander Czarnecki
(PL) Mr President, the proposal put forward by Mr Zwiefka to make the situation of Members of the European Parliament the same as Members of the Parliament in Poland does not provide a solution to the problem. I believe that the best solution, which is in fact already part of Polish law, would be that in circumstances where a person is convicted of a deliberate crime, the court should also decide to deprive them of public rights, meaning that the person in question cannot stand for election.
This solution exists, for example, in France. I would like to give you a specific example: our colleague, Mr Onesta, the Vice-President of the European Parliament, was sentenced a few months ago by a court in France to a suspended sentence of several months for an act that, under Polish law, would automatically mean the loss of one's mandate to the European Parliament. I see the present situation as being completely wrong. I think we should go in the direction of the solution proposed by Mr Frattini.
Giuseppe Gargani
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some further brief comments: I am pleased that the debate overall has recognised that there is a significant and thorny problem. I should like, in particular, to thank Commissioner Frattini who, as the good lawyer that he is, has looked in more detail at the matter, which, as he rightly says, does not just relate to Poland. There is a general principle at stake and I am therefore very content, as is the Committee, that you are undertaking an overall review to monitor compliance and to check whether laws are consistent as regards the national and the European question.
One fact is certain, however, there is not an apparent conflict since, as regards guarantees, the Polish law is contrary to the Treaty; if a Polish MEP were to lose his seat, obviously the article of the treaty which provides for the possibility of taking part in the sessions would fall. From the Committee's own point of view, as you have heard in the debate just now from Mr Medina, and from me personally, the issue is not one of bringing proceedings, but of following up the question in order to resolve it. If our Polish colleague, Mr Zwiefka, says that this matter has already been brought to the fore in Poland, some progress has already been made.
Comparability is what is needed, as that comparability makes Europe the guarantor of the unity of States that are working together, of citizenship and of equal rights from the point of view of freedom and everyone's status.
Sylwester Chruszcz
(PL) Mr President, just to add my support to the speeches, most of which I support, I believe that of course we should harmonise our regulations as soon as possible. To illustrate how necessary this, is I would like to draw attention to the story of our colleague, an MEP, who is present here with us: Mr Tomczak, who has been involved in a criminal case in Poland for many years, which is now approaching a conclusion and could impact on his future as a Member of the European Parliament. A case which does not involve much harm, and in which witnesses deny that the event took place. A case that at one time was closed, which perhaps under the influence of some political turbulence has been reopened; and now, Mr Tomczak, who has twice been elected (our colleague became an MP in 2005, and an MEP in 2004), now, his immunity as well as his mandate may be removed. This is something that is unbelievable, harmful and which should, as quickly as possible, be cut short and removed from this forum.
Franco Frattini
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel that tonight's debate has shown two things: the first is that there is a widespread view, which is shared, I would say, by all those who have spoken - and a view which I believe to be right - that the disparity of treatment between MEPs elected in Poland and Polish national MPs should be removed and that this analysis should be extended to all the other new Member States of the European Union whose compliance with the European Act of 1976 has not as yet been checked.
The second conclusion, and I refer to the proposal by Mr Medina Ortega, with which I agree, is to pass on the outcome of this debate to the competent authorities of the Polish Government, informing them that this disparity of treatment needs to be removed through national legislation. I shall do that. I can tell you that I shall certainly make formal contact with the Minister of Justice of the Polish Government in order to pass on the widespread opinion of this House - which I share - that while the Polish national legislator has sovereign powers over the way in which the elimination of this disparity of treatment is to be achieved, the objective of removing that disparity of treatment must be pursued.
That is the opinion that I put forward at the beginning: I do not consider that I can tell the Polish legislator how to proceed, but I do consider that I can spell out the objective, and that objective is to remove the disparity of treatment between the status of Polish national MPs and the status of MEPs elected in Poland.
I shall certainly pass on that information and I would add that I shall report back to this House, in view of the interest of Mr Gargani and the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the review of the other 11 new Member States so that the governments of other Member States that might be affected can then be notified accordingly.
President
The debate is closed.