Cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Hirsch, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on European cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy.
Nadja Hirsch
Mr President, Commissioner, tomorrow, we will vote on the role of vocational education and training in the Europe 2020 strategy. In this connection, it is worth taking a brief look at the position we are starting from. We currently have a level of youth unemployment of 21%, in other words, almost double the normal average. We have an EU-wide school drop-out rate of over 14%. The participation of women in gainful employment is still very low. Many people with disabilities, as well as migrants, are without jobs.
The goal of the Europe 2020 strategy is precisely to tap this potential in terms of workers and to bring them into the workplace so that the EU, too, can deal with globalisation. Thus, it is also our job to ensure that initial vocational education in particular is of high quality. The discussion began in connection with the Copenhagen process, followed by the Bruges Communiqué, and now it is up to us to see to what extent this area can also be incorporated into the Europe 2020 strategy.
An absolutely key element is the fact that young people must have the opportunity, not only in their studies, but also in their vocational training, to undertake part of their training in another EU Member State. It is a key element because someone who has already worked in another Member State will also take the opportunity later on to regard the European labour market as his or her labour market, with all the opportunities that that offers. It is therefore an absolutely key aspect that we must pursue.
The second major area is, of course, that of further training. On account of demographic change, people are having to work for longer and longer - or they can work for longer, but everyone has to take that decision for themselves. People are living until they are much older and will continue with their careers for much longer, and in order to be able to carry on in skilled work until they are older, they will also need to undertake further training.
There is currently a very low level of participation in further training initiatives. Here, too, it must be ensured that the willingness of both employers and workers exists and increases when it comes to taking advantage of further training and continuing to gain education by means of lifelong learning. For this, of course, the options on offer also need to be flexible. We must take everyone into consideration. Further training must fit in with other elements of people's lives and it must be possible to do it alongside work and family life. For that reason, we clearly need to create flexible opportunities in future.
The area of universities has received a great deal of attention - in connection with the Bologna Process, for example - and a similar situation faces us in the area of vocational training, including with regard to mobility. We could almost say that no one has noticed this. Nevertheless, alongside the universities, the area of vocational education and training is particularly important and we therefore must not ignore it. For that reason, I would like at this point to thank my fellow Members from the other groups once again for their very committed cooperation.
Antigoni Papadopoulou
(EL) Mr President, as shadow rapporteur, I welcome the Hirsch report, because it highlights how important it is to always have the capacity to learn and work, alongside mobility and flexibility, in the modern and demanding international labour environment. It is true that the economic crisis has brought unemployment and insecurity to everyone, especially young people, women and the disabled.
In order to achieve the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, we need constant and proper vocational education and training both in the European Union and in the Member States. We need targeted policies and strategies to reduce the percentage of early school leavers, proper programming of people's needs for training, and closer ties between the education provided and the needs of the labour market.
I am certain that the European Qualifications Framework, the European system of academic units for vocational education and training, transparency and cooperation and comparability of the various education systems will support the needs ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Mr President, investment in education is vital to ensure a better future for Europeans. At the moment, the EU youth unemployment rate has reached 20%, while the average EU school dropout rate is 16%, and in some countries, like Portugal, it has reached 40%.
Lifelong learning is vital if unemployment is to be prevented. We must give due consideration to the different career paths. Workers must be made more greatly aware of the need for ongoing further training.
We feel that vocational education and training should be accessible, available and affordable at every stage of life, regardless of people's status on the labour market and their income. Vocational education and training should create the conditions conducive to labour mobility, both during initial studies and as part of the lifelong learning process.
We call on Member States to simplify the procedures for recognising qualifications.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă
(RO) Mr President, one of the biggest challenges Europe is faced with is the youth unemployment rate. At European level, the focus is placed on reducing the school dropout rate below 10% and on actions such as 'New skills for new jobs', whose aim is to bring the world of education and training closer to the labour market. The distinction between education and training, apart from their context in the workplace, will become even less clear in the future. In order to achieve a greater level of integration, a vital change will need to be made in the way education and training provision is conceived, not only from an individual perspective, but also at institutional level and every level of administration.
Therefore, I think that system-related obstacles and those in terms of attitude preventing integration need to be removed if Europeans are to learn to make progress in the areas of their skills and values and make an effective contribution to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives.
Emilie Turunen
(DA) Mr President, firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, who has tabled an extremely good report. Like everyone else, I believe that we should remember the context in which this report is set, and that, of course, is the youth crisis that we are experiencing in Europe. We are agreed about the general crisis - soaring youth unemployment and young people who are, in fact, moving out of Europe to find work, and this, in my opinion, will be a very serious threat to our economy and our cohesion in Europe in the coming years.
The second context for this report is the common 2020 objectives that we have set for training, employment and the reduction of the drop-out rate. This is about Europe's competitiveness. It is about having a trained workforce, which is something that we know we need. It is also important to ensure that the new generation has the opportunity for jobs and training. This is absolutely crucial. It may be the case that the EU does not have a great deal of competence in this area, but something can be done nevertheless. In any case, it is a shared concern, and therefore we must ensure that we provide high-quality training and that there is guidance available. We must reduce the drop-out rate and ensure that there is a strong link between training and work, for example, by means of exchange systems like we have in Germany and Denmark. We must also ensure that all young people have the right to undergo training.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Hirsch, for her very constructive approach. I have listened to her with great interest because that was actually my dossier 12 years ago. I started to bring about the mobility in training which was not on the agenda at that moment, and I am very glad to hear how strongly Parliament is in favour of developing this essential element in the Europe 2020 strategy. I would also like to say how much we welcome the report, which reinforces and complements the Commission's communication of June 2010.
This communication was an input to the latest review of the Copenhagen Process, and the Bruges Communiqué has now, of course, become the European agenda par excellence for vocational training for the years 2011-2020. Many of Parliament's suggestions correspond with the actions proposed in the Bruges Communiqué. The Commission shares Parliament's view because we need to modernise vocational education and training in Europe to make it attractive, to have qualified teachers and trainers, innovative learning methods and high-quality infrastructure and facilities, and, of course, we have to have the mobility. We have to give the will to young people - and to less young people - to go outside their Member State in order to get the experience which is important if we want to have a real European education and training area.
The Commission also aims to attain gender balance and to help disadvantaged groups through the lifelong learning programme, notably through the Leonardo da Vinci programme, which is included. So all the help which the Commission can get from Parliament is most welcome.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June 2011, at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Ioan Enciu
During the current economic and financial crisis where the unemployment rate, especially among young people, has exceeded the 20% mark at EU level and even 30% in some Member States, improving vocational education and training must become a priority for the European Union. In this context, youth mobility within the EU, combined with greater flexibility in terms of the labour market and the education and training on offer, are essential elements which ought to be developed at EU and national level.
Ongoing, well-structured dialogue between universities, research centres and businesses can enable a real link to be established between employers' requirements and the skills acquired during education and training cycles. Furthermore, increasing mobility at European Union level through expanding programmes such as Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci or Youth on the Move can also help improve the EU's ability to respond better to the demand of the European labour market and to have greater potential for development in this area. Particular attention must also be focused on socially disadvantaged groups, who need to have fair access to vocational education and training.
Alajos Mészáros
The transition from education to work is a structural challenge for employees all over the European Union. Unfortunately, early unemployment has lasting negative effects. For this reason, Member States should ensure that vocational education and training is better adjusted to the needs of the labour market, and that vocational education provides employees with the skills needed to take up new, sustainable jobs that will be created in the future sustainable economy. I consider the role of local governments, entrepreneurial partnerships and educational institutions important in the development of the labour market demands of vocational education and training. The opportunity for mobility is an important part of vocational education and training, but more emphasis should be placed on a better harmonisation of Member States' different education systems - including mutual recognition of certificates and diplomas - in order to enhance collaboration and support mobility. High-quality vocational education and training fundamentally contribute to sustainable development. Better training opportunities must be created for trainers, particularly at regional and local level, with a view to securing the effectiveness of vocational education and training systems, as well as efficient and successful transfer of knowledge. The possibility to learn in an international context is a prerequisite for a successful working life that will promote the acquisition of foreign-language skills and increased competitiveness.
Olga Sehnalová
Cooperation at European level in the field of vocational education is also absolutely crucial for the functioning of the single European Internal Market. High-quality vocational education and training must both respond to the demands of the labour market and create the conditions for workforce mobility. Highly qualified and well-educated people represent a competitive advantage for the EU, and support for vocational education should take this into account. We need to focus on establishing close links with the world of work, and also on facilitating high-quality work experience as part of vocational training, both at home and abroad, within the framework of European mobility programmes. We need greater coordination at European level between the education systems in the individual Member States, and, following on from this, cooperation on the mutual recognition of vocational qualifications. The report covers these issues, and, as shadow rapporteur for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I am happy with its final form.
Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska
I welcome the report on European cooperation in vocational education and training. It points to an incredibly important issue which has not often been discussed to date, namely, the need for national authorities to take action, in cooperation with the European Commission, to prevent unemployment by tailoring vocational training to the needs of the job market. Unfortunately, vocational education has been neglected in recent years and has reduced in significance. This is why it is so important to promote it as an effective tool in the fight against unemployment, and particularly against unemployment among the young inhabitants of the European Union, which has reached 21%. Apprenticeships, the establishment of advisory services making it easier for workers to plan their training according to the needs of the jobs market and the promotion of lifelong vocational education should be priorities. That is why I call on the Commission to carry out constant monitoring of the outlook for possible changes in the EU jobs market, so that Member States can continuously adapt their vocational training programmes to the needs of the market.
Jutta Steinruck
I welcome the report on European cooperation in vocational education and training and would like to emphasise how important it is to promote lifelong learning through initiatives and Europe-wide programmes in order to make it possible for workers to have a better future. These days, workers are at the mercy of frequent and risky employment transitions. There are many types of transition: from training, redundancy, internships or precarious employment into full-time employment. The report contains some important points, including increasing the quota of women in work, recognition of informal learning and promotion of languages with the goal of providing mobility programmes. I am particularly pleased that the focus has been placed on education and training for young people, which is something that I will actively support in the flagship initiatives that follow.
The transition from educational institution to working life must be as smooth as possible and, in particular, tailored to individual needs, because it must also be possible for young people with inadequate training to gain the skills necessary to be able to work in skilled jobs and to earn a good living. Social background must not determine a person's educational opportunities. Young people must be given help and support in securing entry to the world of work. However, the cost of a modern labour market policy must not be borne by our workers.
Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa
New skills and competences acquired by graduates of various types of educational institutions have strategic significance for economic growth and open up new possibilities for people, creating a basis for sustainable development. That is why we cannot underestimate the problem of unemployment, especially among young people. They are the ones who most often do not obtain permanent work and are forced to accept temporary work which has an inferior level of social insurance and lacks prospects for development. One of the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy is to reduce the rate of early school leavers to a maximum of 10%, and to enable 40% of young Europeans to complete tertiary education. The legislative process should focus on facilitating the implementation of vocational traineeships and work experience for young workers, especially in micro-enterprises and small enterprises which find it difficult to fund this type of initiative. Strong emphasis should also be placed on eliminating differences in men and women's pay by 2020, since this currently stands at about 18%. I believe that the two most important initiatives in the supranational jobs market are the qualifications framework drawn up within the context of the Copenhagen process and the unified European credit transfer system for vocational education and training. It is also worth mentioning informal training, which represents an underestimated additional source of skills, and which shapes the character and sense of responsibility of the individual, which is why it should be funded by the EU. In order to accomplish these many important goals, cooperation between Member States is vital, as is the involvement of all entities, including those at local and regional level.


External dimension of social policy (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Falbr, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the external dimension of social policy, promoting labour and social standards and European corporate social responsibility.
Richard Falbr
Mr President, as I said in my speech a short while ago, the external dimension of social policy covers EU measures and initiatives aimed at promoting employment standards and social standards in third countries. Although the Lisbon strategy and the Europe 2020 initiative place a far greater emphasis on social policy than was ever the case before, competitiveness and economic factors are still the centre of attention. I therefore took a very critical approach to the drafting of this report. If we want the third countries with whom we negotiate agreements to respect the principles and the very basis of the European social model, we must respect this model within the European Union. If we want the countries with which we negotiate international agreements to respect the International Labour Organisation's fundamental conventions, then we must respect them ourselves. It is plain to see, however, that ILO conventions are violated in some Member States.
As far as corporate social responsibility is concerned, it is undoubtedly a good idea, and has been under discussion since the early 1970s. The problem is, however, that it cannot be enforced. When we were debating the comments on this report and amendments to it, one of the views expressed was that a directive should be drafted, since some businesses simply do not behave in a socially responsible way. More than 150 amendments were tabled to the report, but I think that it nevertheless still takes a critical approach. The European Union needs to do more to support the International Labour Organisation, since it is absurd that, while we profess support, fewer and fewer countries are ratifying and respecting the conventions. During the last parliamentary term, the Commission even presented proposals, for example, in respect of the Working Time Directive, which ran completely counter to ILO Convention No 1 on Hours of Work, adopted in 1919, which laid down a working week of 48 hours. I am very glad that Parliament rejected this directive.
That brings my explanatory statement to an end. There is no need for me to say any more, since this is an issue which everyone understands. What I want, above all, is respect for social rights, and respect for something we proclaim as a major achievement of the European Union.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă
(RO) Mr President, according to European statistics, well over half of workers in the European Union, particularly immigrants, do not enjoy social protection. This is why I think that when it comes to social protection for workers in the European Union, basic common standards need to be promoted, along with imposing penalties if current legislation is breached. Ratification of the revised European Social Charter would encourage internal social reforms at EU Member State level, while also facilitating the process of harmonising national legislation with EU regulations. It is important as a political commitment to promoting and guaranteeing social standards and to adapting the legal and institutional mechanisms to the specific standards and values of European democracies. The social rights stipulated by this agreement comply with Community social law and the relevant standards in European Union Member States.
Tatjana Ždanoka
Mr President, as a shadow rapporteur on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, I would like our position on this report to be quite clear. First of all, while we appreciate that the final text may be improved by the votes tomorrow, it is strong enough, and we would simply underline that the role of the International Labour Organisation should be strengthened. On this we agree with the rapporteur.
Voluntary corporate social responsibility is a good thing but the primary role in promoting and protecting human rights belongs to states and international organisations. We do not think that legally binding standards should be avoided in the field of corporate responsibility.
Violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot be used as a legitimate comparative advantage and we must insist, in bilateral and multilateral relations with our partners, that decent work standards are properly complied with.
Ilda Figueiredo
(PT) Mr President, bearing in mind that the World Social Security Report 2010 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) states that over 50% of all workers have no social protection, it is easy to conclude that, in most cases, there is no corporate social responsibility.
Nonetheless, the Commission continues to negotiate free trade agreements that generally only serve the interests of big companies and financial institutions, do not give proper attention to labour rights, and fail to promote freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. They do not take the measures necessary for the effective elimination of discrimination in the workplace or profession, or for the elimination of forced labour or insecure or poorly paid work, including child labour.
This report should therefore denounce all of these issues, but it falls short of what is required, and we hope that the Commission will go further tomorrow in consolidating its approach to these issues ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Jaroslav Paška
(SK) Mr President, it is true that social protection for workers is often a lot weaker than it should be, even within the European Union.
This is particularly true for migrant groups in the population, who travel abroad to work in places where they are often unfamiliar with the language and the local regulations, and are subsequently, of course, unable to keep up professionally with local workers.
Despite this, I do think it is important for the European Union to seek the application of the International Labour Organisation's rules and agreements in international treaties with third countries, because it seems to me, as we learn more about the labour market and working conditions in Asia, Africa and other corners of the world, that we must strive to ensure that significant improvements are made in the status of workers in these regions and areas too.
Therefore, I personally support Mr Falbr and his report. I am certain that it will also lead to improvements in these rules in Europe as well.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Mr President, I, too, want to congratulate the rapporteur, while also calling on the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures so that European companies adhere to European principles and values even when they are operating in other countries.
The European Union must promote the European social model. This is why it is of paramount importance to adhere to the European Union's principles and values. We regret that the European Union does not have a homogenous formula for a social clause to be inserted in all bilateral trade agreements. I want to point out, Commissioner, that a horizontal civil aviation agreement between the European Union and Canada was voted on recently. It is the most ambitious agreement of its kind signed by the European Union, even though it does not provide any social clauses. Both sides have committed to work and develop things in this area. Unfortunately, however, I should emphasise that we regret that the European Union does not have a homogenous formula for a social clause to be inserted into international agreements.
Richard Howitt
Mr President, I congratulate Richard Falbr on the comprehensive approach to international labour standards in his report. I have been pleased to contribute to his work on the specific question of corporate social responsibility.
Tonight, this gives us a chance to influence the Commission in advance of its CSR communication by asking it firstly to maintain the open definition of CSR latterly adopted by it in the Multi-Stakeholder Forum; to return to the principle of convergence in private and voluntary CSR initiatives, which was its former policy; to make concrete proposals for implementing global CSR standards, specifically the updated OECD guidelines on Multinational Enterprises and the new Ruggie framework on business and human rights; to commit to the principle of integrated financial, environmental, social and human rights reporting by business - indeed paving the way towards the possibility of future legislation in this area; and to advance the responsibility of European businesses in their global supply chain, responding to the governance gaps identified in the Commission's own recent Edinburgh study.
Parliament always likes to help the Commission, Ms Reding. I hope these suggestions help tonight.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, on behalf of my colleague, László Andor, I would like to welcome the fact that the motion for a resolution for discussion today addresses so many crucial aspects of social policy's external dimension.
The Commission firmly supports closer cooperation at global level, with employment and social objectives going hand in hand with economic objectives. In particular, we support the continuation of discussion and the coordination of efforts within the G20. In this connection, the preparations for a G20 Labour and Employment Ministers meeting provide a good example of the increased cohesion emerging at world level.
The Commission also supports close cooperation with and among international organisations, which - and I am quoting the OECD and the International Labour Organisation - is vital for achieving a level playing field internationally and, in particular, for setting international labour standards.
The 100th session of the ILO began last week: it will focus on a new ILO convention on domestic workers, an issue which this House discussed recently. Social protection, including the development of the Social Protection Floor initiative, is another area of interest for this year's ILO conference. We will closely follow the discussions on implementation of the labour standards enshrined in the ILO Convention, and I would point out that the Commission welcomes the emphasis in today's motion for a resolution on the need for the EU to promote the ILO core labour standards and the decent work agenda worldwide, including gender equality and non-discrimination policy as a cross-cutting issue.
The Commission will also continue to promote sustainable development, decent work, labour standards and corporate social responsibility in other policy areas, such as trade and development policy. In 2011, the Commission intends to present a communication on corporate social responsibility outlining proposals for further action at international level, including promoting cooperate social responsibility in relations with partner countries.
In our view, the involvement of enterprises is also essential in order to address issues such as youth employment, training, workforce skills, health and diversity, responsible restructuring and local development, especially given the current economic and social difficulties facing Europe.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Siiri Oviir
I attach a lot of importance to the activities and initiatives associated with the external dimension of the European Union's social policy, the aim of which is to promote social standards in third countries in order to prevent, among other things, the present-day slavery in which people are treated purely as 'production machines', rather than valuable individuals.
As a result of the prevalent and increasing economic competition in the world, conditions for workers are deteriorating further, with workers' pay being the main victim of cuts and the working age being extended, in an attempt to make profits. Therefore, in order to change the current trend, we must move from words to deeds and implement the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Decent Work Agenda and the relevant conventions. If necessary, we must also apply extreme measures - various economic sanctions and restrictions - against countries and companies which consistently ignore them. Of course, the relevant sanctions should not be implemented lightly or based on the desire to eliminate economic competition.
Violations of labour norms by third countries also contribute to excessively high duties in developed countries and in the European Union's Single Market, so we must not fail to follow the ILO's conditions if we want to be competitive. The European Union should not point the finger here; instead, it should put forward its own solutions and compromises in order to improve the situation.
I welcome the increase in companies' social responsibility and respectful attitudes towards their own workers. Yet we cannot accept a situation where the obligations of countries and local governments are shifted onto companies. This is more the kind of policy associated with the former Soviet Union and present-day CIS countries, where the authorities essentially channel the money of the businesses.
Sirpa Pietikäinen
I would like to congratulate Mr Falbr for his excellent work on the report on the external dimension of social policy, promoting labour and social standards and European corporate social responsibility. A politically and economically integrated EU also needs a social dimension more urgently than ever. It is important to guarantee the existence of basic services, basic security and decent working conditions for all EU citizens, especially now during this economic crisis. As the rapporteur says, the approach to social policy that Europe chooses should also be adopted in our relations with third countries. The Union must insist more strongly that a condition of future trade and investment agreements should be that international agreements are ratified, implemented and monitored. Furthermore, European companies, too, should be required to be more open with respect to their accounts and subcontracting chains, so that the European Union's strong socio-political values do not remain merely illusory.


Export and import of dangerous chemicals (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals - C6-0439/2006 -.
Stavros Dimas
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to thank and congratulate the European Parliament and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, the shadow rapporteurs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as well as Mrs Mann and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for their excellent reports and the views expressed at first reading.
For the last 30 years the European Union's policies and legislation on the protection of public health and the environment have made significant progress in reducing the risks posed by chemical substances, not only in the European Union, but also worldwide. The European Union has constantly been an important partner in international conventions, including the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade. Regulation 304/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals implements the Rotterdam Convention within the Community. On many points the regulation does not stop at the provisions of the Rotterdam Convention, but goes further by offering a higher level of protection for countries that import chemicals.
On 10 January 2006 the Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted a judgment annulling Regulation 304/2003 on the grounds that it should have had a dual legal basis, namely Articles 133 and 175(1) of the Treaty. In response, the aim of this proposal is to adopt a new regulation with the aforementioned dual legal basis. At the same time, the Commission, on the basis of its report on experience to date in implementing the relevant procedures, has put forward certain technical amendments to the provisions of the regulation. This report was submitted to the European Parliament and the Council at the same time as this proposal. The Commission's main proposals for amendments to the regulation are as follows:
Firstly, certain exceptions are being proposed to the central requirement for explicit consent in countries of import prior to export. These exceptions are implemented only in cases in which, despite reasonable efforts on the part of the Commission and of the national authority designated by the country of export, there is no response to the request, and provided that certain conditions are met. These exceptions are intended to create a certain degree of flexibility, while at the same time maintaining a high level of protection - one which is, indeed, higher than that provided by the Rotterdam Convention.
Secondly, an exception is proposed to the requirement of explicit consent in cases where chemicals are exported to OECD countries, if certain conditions are fulfilled.
Thirdly, the rules relating to the period of validity of explicit consent are clarified. In addition, explicit consents are reviewed at regular intervals, as well as in cases where alternative evidence is accepted.
Fourthly, procedures and means to allow access by the customs authorities to information are laid down, since in most Member States these authorities play a principal role in ensuring compliance with the regulation, especially as regards controlling exports.
Madam President, I should like to express my satisfaction with the efforts we have all made to reach agreement on this regulation at first reading. The European Commission is able to accept the compromise package of amendments in order to reach agreement at first reading.
Johannes Blokland
rapporteur. - (NL) Madam President, as rapporteur for the import and export of chemicals, I am pleased to be able to report here that we have achieved a good result at first reading. I would therefore like to thank everyone who collaborated on this. I am thinking particularly of the secretariat of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the shadow rapporteurs and their staff, who were outstanding in the support they gave me. I greatly appreciated the good cooperation with the Council, especially with the Portuguese Presidency, and the European Commission.
It was a technically complex proposal, and the discussion sometimes became quite heated on the question of what exactly was best for the environment. The most important thing that we have achieved, in my view, is that through this new regulation the trade in dangerous chemicals will be dealt with in an ethically responsible manner.
We especially wanted to operate from the principle that will be familiar to you as the golden rule: 'Do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself'. Although this is an ancient principle, which we find in the Bible, as well as in other religions, this aspect led to the usual discussions.
The original Commission proposal did actually contain very liberal arrangements for allowing the export of dangerous chemicals with tacit consent. This was proposed, while for developing countries especially it is important that there is complete transparency about what is being imported. After all, we are talking about substances that are banned in the European Union or severely restricted. I believe that we have got a good result in the agreement reached. It means that the protection and awareness-raising of developing countries is guaranteed when it comes to dangerous substances.
Madam President, this new regulation properly implements the global Rotterdam Convention, which was adopted in 1998 but has only officially been in force since 2004. I can therefore wholeheartedly recommend that everyone vote tomorrow in favour of the agreement reached with the Council.
Finally, Madam President, I would also like to make a case for the Council and the Commission to do as much as they can to extend the list of substances in the Rotterdam Convention. There are about 40 substances on the list of the Convention at the moment. There are certainly 200 substances that have been nominated to be assessed and possibly added to that list. To protect developing countries especially, we need to set to work energetically on the other substances.
Erika Mann
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (DE) Madam President, I should like to extend my warmest thanks most especially to the rapporteur and the Commission, and of course to the Council too. We have presented a very good report here. We in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy have given a high priority to producing a practical regulation that will control the international import and export of hazardous chemicals in a reasonable and logical way and that is sufficiently coherent that the importing countries can understand what we in the European Union are trying to achieve. That essentially was the main problem, namely that we had put in some nice things and we had put in some dangerous things but no-one could understand what it actually all meant, all the stuff that we then added in the supplement to the international list.
The proposal before us is a good regulation and I hope that it will be understood at international level, so that it can also be properly applied. Things that are not understood will of course not make much sense. This can be just as dangerous; if something is not understood then it will not work no matter what.
The Committee on Industry is satisfied and I should particularly like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, for having negotiated with such persistence and common sense that we ultimately achieved a good compromise. I would just request that we do not try to add further to the list immediately but that we test out what is there so that we then actually have a piece of legislation that works.
Frieda Brepoels
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the regulation before us, as you know, concerns a highly technical issue. That is why there was no provision for a debate originally, but now that we have the opportunity to express our point of view after all, I would like to say something briefly on behalf of the PPE-DE Group.
I am also very pleased that, after a number of informal consultations with the Council and the Commission, we have reached an agreement at first reading. This was only possible in fact thanks to the efforts and openness of our rapporteur, who was willing to listen to all parties. Naturally I also thank the Commission and the Council for their contributions.
Now the present regulation on the import and export of certain dangerous chemicals, in addition to the dual legal basis - Article 133 and Article 175(1) - and a number of technical changes, does indeed focus, as the rapporteur has also already mentioned, on the amended procedure for explicit consent, which is dealt with in Article 13. The informal discussions mainly concentrated on that issue.
I am convinced that greater flexibility is appropriate in some cases, not only to safeguard the export interests of European countries, but also to guarantee the highest level of protection of the environment and public health for all parties concerned. That way certain dangerous chemicals may still be exported without explicit agreement or consent, but under very strict conditions.
I think that the wording in the agreement ensures that the safe export of substances is guaranteed and even strengthened. This last point was indeed achieved by scrapping part of the Commission's original text. As the PPE-DE's shadow rapporteur, I am also confident that, together with the Council and the Commission, we have reached a good, balanced and practicable compromise. I hope that my fellow Members will approve everything tomorrow.
Gyula Hegyi
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, first of all I would like to welcome the report and of course I welcome the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention, which is an important international convention on the ban of several dangerous chemicals.
The topic is not unknown to me. I worked as the shadow rapporteur of the PSE Group on the restriction of several chemicals, including the ban of PFOS and the export ban on mercury, and now I and my colleagues are working on the restriction of ammonium nitrate and other substances. We had good cooperation on these issues with my colleague Mr Blokland.
We have to understand that a European-level ban is sometimes not enough. For instance, DDT and lindane have been banned in the EU for many years but their presence can still be detected in the blood of our citizens. Following the European ban on certain chemicals, it frequently happens that several multinational companies produce and sell the banned chemicals in non-EU countries, especially in the Third World. Then the banned chemicals easily return in imported products and they are also present as environmental pollutants in oceans, seas, rivers and air. The export ban on mercury, fully supported by this House, showed us the right reaction. The same treatment is needed for other dangerous chemicals as well.
I underline the importance of the international chemical conventions - the Rotterdam Convention, the Stockholm Convention and the SAICM - as only these instruments can lead to an international solution to the problems caused by chemicals.
Marios Matsakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I also wish to congratulate Mr Blokland for an excellent report and for the admirably skilful way with which he has handled all the procedural issues concerned with this important report. Additionally, I wish to thank him for the respect and attention he has shown to all shadow rapporteurs. The Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals, enriched with the compromise joint amendments by almost all the parliamentary groups, will present a set of adequate and much-needed rules which will most likely provide protection of public health and of the environment at a high level. The serious problems caused by unscrupulous international merchants of toxic substances are well known and feared, and it is very much hoped that the implementation of the Commission's proposal will assist in helping developing nations to counter the serious hazards to the well-being of their citizens and to our environment.
Apart from the substance of this piece of legislation, it is also noteworthy that it demonstrates to some extent the usefulness of the Court of Justice decision concerning action of the Commission against the Council and the European Parliament. At the same time, it raises questions as to why such actions had to be taken in the first place, and why the three core institutions of the EU could not find ways of agreeing amicably and without the need to resort to court deliberations. Such action inevitably brought about delay, was expensive and may have caused a certain amount of avoidable interinstitutional animosity. Nonetheless, it has happened, and it must now be put behind us - although it must perhaps guide all of us to perhaps take wiser decisions in the future and avoid court actions as much as possible.
Carl Schlyter
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (SV) Madam Chairman, let me thank Johannes Blokland for the excellent cooperation we have had throughout the process. It is ten years since the Rotterdam Convention was signed, and it was said then that prior written approval should be sought for the export of dangerous chemicals. After all we are not dealing with just any chemicals; the list of chemicals contains the most hazardous chemicals used by man on earth today. So it has taken ten years. One reason for that is the stubborn attitude of the old Commission which insisted that it was just a commercial matter. I thank Stavros Dimas for ensuring that we now have an appropriate legal basis and can take things forward.
Nor was it always easy to negotiate with the Council. I was shocked when the Presidency thought that lethal chemicals, which are in practice banned in the EU, could be exported to other countries over long periods without prior consent. The reason for this was that the Council did not want European industry to be at a competitive disadvantage. The real competitive disadvantage to our industry, however, would arise if it were forced to jeopardise health, the environment and international law in order to survive. It is absurd to claim that we have to breach international conventions just because others do not comply with rules and standards. You might as well say that the EU should export illegal drugs because, if it does not, the Mafia will.
I am glad that we were able to agree in the end and finally plug the loophole for non-approved exports. We now have legislation which does not just cover Convention chemicals but also contains requirements for other chemicals which are strictly controlled in the EU. These must now be assessed against health and environmental criteria by the appropriate authorities prior to export. It is good that the period for exemptions has been shortened from 36 to 12 months. It is also good that chemicals contained in products are covered. Finally we have legislation which is acceptable and improves on the Commission's proposal but could have been even better if public health and the environment had taken precedence over corporate interests; that is after all the only sustainable economic model.
Hiltrud Breyer
(DE) Madam President, I too would like to thank Mr Blokland. I am pleased that the European Parliament has changed tack and has closed this massive loophole. We know that there are more than 1.5 million cases of poisoning and nearly 30 000 deaths a year in the developing world. It would have been appalling if the Commission's proposal had come into force, as this would have meant that dangerous chemicals could be exported without the authorisation of the importing countries provided that no response had been received within 90 days.
It would also have been a very questionable interpretation of the health and environment legislation if we had continued exporting when on the one hand we are laying down a new safety landmark by way of the latest pesticide certification, while on the other we are doing the very opposite with our exports. The EU should not just be ensuring a high level of protection on its own doorstep but should also be advocating the same for the rest of the world, and this paradoxical softening of the export rules would have done nothing for the EU's credibility.
What is more, we need greater transparency when it comes to the export of chemicals and pesticides. There needs to be a better system for disclosing the quantities of products being exported by the EU Member States. After all, we are talking about the movement of goods that are subject to restrictions and prohibitions and we in the Member States need maximum transparency in this area. We therefore require more information on the quantities involved and on the particular Member States the materials are coming from.
Avril Doyle
Madam President, as we are new to this procedure - and, having looked around, everybody else present has spoken - does that mean I can have five minutes myself? I assume I can have at least two, which was the time taken off our side to allow the 'catch-the-eye' procedure. It is a matter we need to clarify.
I stand to support colleagues on this important regulation, which is on its second trip through the committees and these houses, because of a Court of Justice ruling 12 months ago that it should have been a dual legal base originally.
The main point I want to speak on under the 'catch-the-eye' procedure is my general concern about legal bases and the trouble we have been running into here, not just with this piece of legislation but also with others. A lot of time is spent, at committee level as well as plenary, in debating amendments in relation to single versus dual legal bases and different views.
I think it is time that this Parliament took stock of exactly the procedures we arrive at - different legal bases - because, often, dual legal bases are proposed to us or are proposed at Council coming back to us before a common position is reached for what I would call sloppy legislating reasons, because the larger the EU gets - 27 Member States now and growing, and I welcome that - the harder it is to be tidy in our legislation. We really must look at what we are doing in this area. So it is interesting that the reverse is true here. In fact, the Court of Justice has said that we need a dual legal base in this particular area rather than the single legal base, which normally makes life much easier - if we can keep to a single legal base - because very often dual legal bases have been lawyers' charters.
I wonder whether the Commissioner could indicate what exactly the challenge to the Court of Justice was in relation to the single legal base, who took it, and if he could give us more information on why the Court of Justice itself determined, if you like, on a dual legal base. They have given us time to go through the procedure again and have maintained the effects of the regulation until we readopt it, as it were, and I very much welcome the fact that it looks like we are going to have a first reading agreement because of all the cooperation all round. The Commissioner's views on that and on the whole saga of the legal base that has us here a second time would be very welcome.
President
I allowed you the extra time, as I did others, since the five minutes were obviously not excessive given that there are not many Members present, but only this once.
Stavros Dimas
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, I would like to thank all the speakers for their positive comments.
I fully acknowledge and share Parliament's desire to achieve a high level of protection for human health and the environment, particularly in those countries that do not have the requisite infrastructure or capacity to correctly handle hazardous chemicals.
I also fully agree with the view that the European Community should play a leading role in establishing a legal framework for the Community so as to ensure a high level of protection. On many points, the regulation does not restrict itself to the provisions of the Rotterdam Convention, but lays down implementing conditions that offer a high level of protection for all the countries of the world, not just for members of the Convention.
I am convinced that this example will encourage other countries to follow suit and to join the Convention. The Commission will make every possible effort to support the Rotterdam Convention to enable these goals to be achieved.
In response to the concerns voiced on arsenic and mercury, the Commission would like to stress that, pursuant to Article 22(3) of Regulation 304/2003, if metallic arsenic is banned or subjected to a rigorous restriction within the Community, then a proposal will be submitted for the application of the relevant annex. Furthermore, the Commission stresses that work is in progress in the Council and in Parliament concerning the proposal to ban exports of mercury to countries outside the Community, a ban which, as long as it is in force, goes beyond the requirement for consent imposed by the Rotterdam Convention and the Community regulation, which implements it.
Once again I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their efforts and their excellent work, in particular Mr Blokland. The Commission is particularly satisfied with the result of negotiations and considers all the proposed compromise amendments to be acceptable.
As for the dual legal basis, it would, in fact, have been much easier and simpler had we had a single legal basis, but we well know the problem that arises so often: here we have, if I remember rightly, Article 133 with Article 175, while in most other cases we have Article 95 with Article 175. Certainly, in proposing a legal basis, we always rely on the opinion of our Legal Service. Here, as I have already said, we have dealt with trade and the environment, and this was the reason for the European Court of Justice's decision on the dual legal basis.
Johannes Blokland
rapporteur. - (NL) Madam President, Mrs Doyle and Mr Matsakis raised the problem of the legal basis and Commissioner Dimas, who I also want to thank warmly for his reply, also touched on this.
The problem, when I was rapporteur, was indeed that the President of the Council came to see me and said: 'We in the Council are unanimous in having serious problems with "trade" as the legal basis; we want to take advice from our Legal Service and make it "environment"'.
Parliament consulted its own Legal Service, and our Legal Service was absolutely confident that the legal basis should not be 'trade' and that it had to be 'environment'. On that basis we came to this conclusion then, almost unanimously, at least in the Council.
It would actually have been better if we had not taken this problem to the Court of Justice, but had opened up negotiations with the Commissioner, with the President of the Council and with Parliament in order to find a political solution to this problem. What happened then? Yes, fortunately the regulation has come into force. It worked: the Council treated the matter as urgent, Parliament treated the matter as urgent. However, there was a great deal of discussion, and in the end that led to everyone being in the wrong: the Commission, the Council and Parliament.
The Court of Justice pronounced a kind of judgment of Solomon and said: dual legal basis, while the Council and Parliament had been assuming that you could not have that, that it was impossible. In a situation like that you end up in the position that we are all in the wrong, that it has cost years of delay, though fortunately not at the expense of the developing countries, as the work carried on anyway.
In any event, we spent quite some time on this. I think that we should act together to prevent these problems in future. When Commissioner Dimas had his preliminary interview with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, we also raised this problem with him.
We also raised the problem in the three hearings with Commissioner Verheugen and with the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso. We had the positive impression at the time that it was not so much a decision of the Commission to go to the Court of Justice but a decision of the Legal Service. I think that from now on it should be left not to the lawyers but to the politicians to resolve this problem.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
in writing. - (RO) The proposal for a Regulation concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals is an improvement in the use of chemicals, in that the health of the population and the environment are protected more effectively. The regulation aims to encourage the joint accountability of exporters and importers and to support them in their cooperation effort so as to ensure control over the international circulation of hazardous chemicals. The new regulation amends the definition of the exporter so as to include persons who export such dangerous chemicals from the EU but are not resident in the EU, thus ensuring an effective control and supervision of the flow of hazardous chemicals.
The Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure, whereby certain chemicals require explicit authorisation by the importing country, also helps trading countries to obtain more accurate information concerning the hazardous chemicals prohibited on environmental and public health grounds which may transit importing countries. Nevertheless, the PIC procedure is no substitute for effective and sustained border controls, and Member States should cooperate to ensure the effective management of the movement of these hazardous materials on their territory.
Richard Seeber
in writing. - (DE) The new regulation on the import of certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides now includes a number of sensible technical amendments. In the past, international trade in this area was forever being halted because of administrative obstacles. This was mainly due to the fact that the importing country had to give its 'explicit consent' before the goods could be shipped out. There is no doubt that this consent is absolutely essential when dealing with potentially hazardous substances and for this reason it is a requirement that should be retained.
The principle of subsidiarity is, after all, one of the pillars of the Union and it is important that the Member States themselves should in future still be able to determine which potentially hazardous substances are allowed to cross their borders.
However, from the point of view of free trade we need to retain a certain amount of flexibility in this area. Having more room for manoeuvre also makes it easier to prevent those countries whose import surveillance systems have not yet been sufficiently developed from being taken advantage of by exporters whose operations are not effectively monitored. The current compromise takes these considerations into account and not only ensures that potentially dangerous chemicals are traded in a responsible way but also provides the room for manoeuvre that is needed so that the international exchange of goods can continue to run smoothly.