Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system - Investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector - The liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of an accident - Port State control (recast) - Ship inspection and survey organisations (Directive recast) - Ship inspection and survey organisations (Regulation recast) (debate)
President
The next item is the joint debate on
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (05719/3/2008 - C6-0225/2008 - for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (Rapporteur: Dirk Sterckx),
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (05721/5/2008 - C6-0226/2008 - for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC (Rapporteur: Jaromír Kohlíček),
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (06389/2/2008 - C6-0227/2008 - for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents (Rapporteur: Paolo Costa),
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (05722/3/2008 - C6-0224/2008 - for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control (recast) (Rapporteur: Dominique Vlasto),
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (05724/2/2008 - C6-0222/2008 - for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast) (Rapporteur: Luis de Grandes Pascual), and
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position (05726/2/2008 - C6-0223/2008 - for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (recast) (Rapporteur: Luis de Grandes Pascual).
Dirk Sterckx
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, the question we must ask ourselves is whether, nine years after the accident involving the Erika and almost six years after the one involving the Prestige, we are prepared if anything like this should happen again. This is the real question before us.
Is everything in order? Do we have a sufficient number of experts who are independent enough to take decisions? Can they work quickly enough? Have we finished all the preparations enabling them to call on other specialists or on relief workers to resolve the matter? Is the crew properly treated in such a case? Is compensation paid out? Do we know enough about the ships travelling along our coasts? These are the questions we asked after the Erika and also after the Prestige. At that time, the Commission lost no time in presenting proposals in this regard, and we also put a few things down on paper - which we now need to refine.
We have had a first reading, to which the Council responded in the form of a common position - a particularly disappointing one. However, to my great satisfaction I must say that, since then, we have held informal talks with the Council - first with the Slovenian Presidency and now, particularly, with the French - that have produced very good results.
As regards the competent authority, we are almost there. We have a good text down on paper that I would at all events advocate to my fellow Members. There is an authority that is involved in planning, is permanent in nature, has the necessary expertise and can take independent decisions to improve the accommodation of ships. We have also made progress in the field of vessel monitoring, not only by means of ordinary radar, but also by satellite. We have more detailed information on the cargo and know who is responsible for providing this information. Monitoring also applies to fishing vessels, so that the safety of small vessels can also be increased. We have worked out the measures to be taken in the presence of ice.
We have made progress, therefore, but we are still not completely finished. What remains to be resolved? The tendency to regard crews as criminals, compensation in the event of financial losses for ports, and compulsory notification for bunker fuel. After all, small quantities of this highly polluting fuel can sometimes do very great damage to the environment - as was the case, for example, with the Tricolor accident off the Belgian/French coast, where 180 tonnes of fuel, although a very small amount, caused fairly considerable damage.
President-in-Office, I should like to express my appreciation for the work that we - Parliament and the Council - have managed to do together in connection with my report, and I wish to encourage Parliament and the Council to continue in that vein.
This brings me to the two texts on which we have no common position. As rapporteur for one of the texts, I would urge the Council to adopt a decision on the two missing texts, too. I know that the President-in-Office is working hard on this, but the two issues of the financial responsibility of shipowners and the task of flag states are regarded by Parliament as an essential component in order to reinforce maritime safety. The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea ('HNS' Convention), for example, must be ratified by all Member States if a proper system for the accommodation of ships is to be developed for the various Member States and for the Union.
Parliament urges the President-in-Office to do everything possible to ensure that the Council adopts a decision on these two texts, too. If it does not, we shall have a very serious problem; the likelihood is that Parliament will regard everything we have achieved, however much I value it, as unsatisfactory. I would ask the President-in-Office to keep up the good work, therefore. Parliament - this rapporteur, in any case - is behind him. Let us continue to work to achieve the best possible result for maritime safety.
President
I do not see Mr Kohlíček in his seat. We will move on to the other rapporteurs, and if he arrives in time we will give him the floor.
Paolo Costa
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we were in this Chamber in April 2007 for the first reading. Now it is September 2008, and I do not think that the time has passed in vain. There have been many developments, many advances have been made, and I remain confident that we will be able to go the last mile that we still have to travel for the completion of a major task, that of giving all European citizens, and non-Europeans too, in fact all those who sail on Europe's seas, safety conditions that are certainly better than the existing ones.
I would like to call to mind not only the Erika or the Prestige, as mentioned by Mr Sterckx, but - and this is the task that I have set myself for my report on the sector - I would also like to say that we must avoid tragedies such as that of the Princess of the Stars, with 800 deaths in the Philippines, as well as the 'mere' 4 deaths recorded in the collision between a container ship and a hydrofoil on the Strait of Messina or again the 'mere' 2 deaths a few days ago among those on La Besogne, which hit a bateau mouche in Paris. To sum up, there are risks on all waters, and we need to take action on all waters.
The direction is very simple, though: it seems to me that we cannot put ourselves in the position of regretting not having taken the decisions required in the face of accidents that recur. I would like to make the point again - these decisions relate not only to the protection of the environment, shores and seas, such as Erika and Prestige, but also to the protection of human lives such as in the serious accidents that have, through luck, up until now taken place on seas far from us - recently - as well as those incidents that seem smaller. I gave just two examples: one on the Strait of Messina and the other on the River Seine a few days ago.
My report also contains a strategy, which I believe we should all adopt: making the best use of all European competences in terms of environmental protection and consumer protection. In this case, that means protection of lives, of individuals, and protection of safety and security to improve on the current situation.
We need to be careful, however: we need to use the competences that the Treaty allows without any absolute transfer of further sovereignty, and without taking away any area from the Member States that, as we believe, and as we want to believe, fully share this objective.
From this viewpoint, then, I think that we ought to continue to work in the area to which my report relates to find mechanisms whose scope can be extended in ways that nobody can reject, and to find gradual methods of implementation over a reasonable period that will allow everyone to adapt over time, without demanding that things should happen overnight. On the limitation of liability, we need to find a way to combine certainty on the part of the shipowner regarding the liability it is assuming and the amount of damages that it might incur, with certainty on the part of potential victims that they will receive compensation. We therefore need to come up with some solutions that take up the option of moving around the upper or lower limits - which are currently fixed - that we want to or will be able to impose. We need to ensure that better information is given to those who travel on our vessels and we need to make it possible for action to be taken immediately when accidents happen, including through advance payments in limited, appropriate cases, which can be verified.
I believe that on these issues we can find an agreement very easily; we can find a way to respond to those points that still remain and close the dossier. The fundamental point remains, however: we must not permit ourselves to tackle just one point, but we need to close the issue and to be able to say to European citizens that we are working on all fronts and in all sectors.
I will not repeat the issue relating to the two - let us say - reports that are missing, the two provisions that are missing. I would like to tell the French Presidency that it has made an enormous effort and I am sure it will continue to do so. Personally speaking, and as regards Parliament, I can assure you that in any case we will work every day, at all times, from now until 31 December this year, to ensure that the dossier can be closed under this presidency and that it can be closed in the best way possible for all those who are watching us. I am convinced that in the end we will all be able to feel proud of having made progress on maritime security in Europe, with nobody feeling - how shall I put it? - that they are losing any responsibility that they want to exercise directly.
Dominique Vlasto
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, to begin, may I just remind you all here that maritime safety must remain a priority on the European political agenda. We cannot wait for another major accident to happen at sea to make us realise that maritime safety is a priority for us as political leaders, and also for the population, which will no longer put up with seeing its coasts polluted, not to mention the fact that these accidents constitute an environmental catastrophe and cause financial disasters.
The first reading in Parliament was in April 2007. It has taken the Council more than a year to advise us of its Common Positions and this has only been on five of the seven texts in the package. I must admit that I find this quite difficult to accept.
It can, of course, happen that some issues raise major problems and it can be difficult to reach agreement. At least we agree on the package of legislation, which is indeed complicated, but I see few valid reasons to prevent agreement on technical yet concrete texts that actually form a very coherent whole. As I recall, a year ago we were all very happy - even pleased with ourselves. Clearly, along with my fellow Members, I would like to know why it has taken the Council so long to look at this dossier, and I would also like the Council to tell us what prevented it from reaching agreement on two important proposals, namely shipowners' civil liability and flag state obligations, particularly because the flag state text is the natural complement to my report on port state control. In view of this, it is quite easy to see how the interaction of one text with the other texts fully justifies this 'package' approach and the need for agreement on all of them.
I may sound a bit harsh, but I want to know what is going on. However, I applaud the genuine efforts made by the French Presidency of the EU, which has tried to resolve the blockage and revive discussions on the two proposals currently missing: those of the Savary and Fernandez reports. It has not been a lack of progress on each of our texts or individual difficulties with each proposal that have prevented us from reaching agreement with the Council, but the fact that two proposals are not in the package at the moment, which obviously presents a problem for all the rapporteurs.
Personally, I believe we will soon come to an agreement on each of the proposals, because we will have to, even if the conciliation procedure is used. Anyway, I know that the French Presidency is working on it and I hope it will succeed.
I am not particularly concerned for my report on port state control because I know that at the end of our informal trialogue many problems were resolved. Apart from various differences in formulation, three major differences with the Council remain, for which my preference was to reinstate Parliament's First Reading position.
The first point was the application of the Directive to anchorages, which is a key issue for maritime safety. We must include anchorages in this text. I believe we are sending the message of a firm and consistent policy. Ships that are not up to standard must not be able to escape inspection, regardless of their shipping route and where they are calling in European waters.
The second point concerns the application of permanent bans. Once again, I believe this is a measure that should be kept as a deterrent for bad behaviour. This measure should, in fact, be used only rarely because there should be few vessels that meet its conditions of application, but it must exist for vessels that are not up to standard so that these vessels are not likely to present new problems and leave a feeling of impunity.
The third point concerns the flexibility measures for the application of the inspection system. At First Reading we chose flexibility mechanisms based on specific circumstances; for example, inspections missed because bad weather prevents inspections from being carried out, or where safety conditions are not met. The possibility was included of postponing the inspection of a vessel from one Community port to the next.
The Council wants more.
(The President cut off the speaker)
Luis de Grandes Pascual
Mr President, Mr Bussereau, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are returning once again to the debate that we brought to a close at first reading a year and a half ago.
We are doing so with more reasons than we had then to be pleased with the results achieved, which were the fruit of the cooperation and consensus that exists in this House on such a sensitive issue for the public as safety on our seas.
However, I regret that our pleasure is not complete or as we had hoped, as despite the fact that we have all learned lessons from the past, with the tragic examples of the Erika and Prestige disasters, which are still very recent in our eyes, and despite the need to act now and not wait for the consensus that always follows disasters, the attitude of the Council has unfortunately prevented us from being able to bring the matter to a close today with the adoption of the eight proposals that make up 'the third package' on maritime safety.
This does not prevent me from recognising and expressing thanks for the will of the French Presidency, as it has taken the baton from the Portuguese and Slovenian presidencies, and has set the right pace in the Council, with the sound intention of reaching an agreement on a package of proposals that should be treated as a whole, as we all agree, because there are overlaps between them, and all those in the maritime transport chain are involved.
There is therefore no room for discussing, as unfortunately many, or at least some governments think, whether any of these proposals are unnecessary or inappropriate. Each and every one of them is essential.
Based on this, I call on the Council not to let slip away a precious opportunity for us to conclude this matter in conciliation, which some of us will come to with our homework almost done, as the informal trialogues that have been held so far, and the complete consensus that exists with all the shadow rapporteurs, have produced very satisfactory results and could provide a good basis for the final agreement.
Having said this, ladies and gentlemen, there is still an issue that concerns me greatly, which I would like to mention, as it concerns an essential aspect of the package, in our opinion. I am referring to the independence of the organisations and authorities created specifically for the purpose of adopting the best possible decisions in the shortest possible time.
In this respect, I am specifically talking about the independent authority to be created to make what is always a difficult decision: to accommodate a vessel in distress in a place of refuge.
Ladies and gentlemen, there would be no point in creating an authority that is independent from the influences of political power if it is not provided with the necessary resources and decision-making capacities, but what is even more serious is to invest it with powers if, when the moment of truth comes, it is only left with one option: compulsory accommodation of the vessel, even if it does not have insurance or guarantees.
That being the case, the entire burden will fall on the Member State concerned, which will end up being the victim of the ecological and social damage that may be caused by accommodating a vessel in a place of refuge, as well as having to cover that damage.
So I say yes to creating this authority, but it should be given powers, and a vessel in distress should be accommodated only if the prior assessment of the situation leads to the conclusion that this is the best decision, and the risks are contained.
I must tell you that I am not alone in this battle, as the European association that represents all of our ports has also protested greatly about this.
Having said this, I thank Mr Sterckx for his persistence in this difficult undertaking, in which he has had to fight a battle.
I particularly welcome the progress made with the ship monitoring tools, which are essential for reducing risk situations.
As far as the differences are concerned, there will be time in conciliation, and we will make every effort to reach compromises; I have no doubt that we will reach them.
Finally I will move on to my report. Having been examined by the Council, what was previously only a proposal for a directive has been split into two legal instruments, a proposal for a regulation and a proposal for a directive, and the members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism felt that this was the right thing to do. Our view of the common position is therefore positive, as it largely accepts the line advocated by Parliament: being able to strengthen the monitoring mechanisms for recognised organisations through the creation of an assessment committee of an independent nature with permanent powers and which acts autonomously; achieving a more flexible, fair penalty system, which is ultimately more effective, as it punishes those who do not act as they should, but does so based on the seriousness of the violation committed and the economic capacity of the organisation; finally, having managed to make progress on the very thorny issue of the recognition of class certificates, setting out the conditions under which the recognised organisations will have to recognise each other, without putting maritime safety at risk, and using the most demanding rules as a reference point.
In any event, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that there is a solid basis for a final agreement, and that together we will find a sound solution for all the people of Europe.
Jaromír Kohlíček
rapporteur. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in all sectors of transport there has long been careful investigation of the causes of serious transport accidents. Individual Member States view such investigations and the determination of technical causes as an essential component of accident reduction. The only exception up to now has been maritime transport. There are of course some framework regulations, but maritime transport and shipping are far more complex than other types of transport when it comes to establishing which state is to be responsible for investigating the causes of accidents. A ship owner need not be the operator of the ship and the two of them may come from different states. The seafarers may be multiethnic and multinational. Passengers may also be of different nationalities. The same goes for the cargo and for the client commissioning the voyage. A ship sails from a port in the territorial waters of one state to another, on the way passing through the territorial waters of other states or international waters. As if this were not complex enough, some states have subordinated the investigative bodies we are calling for to different state organisations. They are therefore not even organisationally independent.
The investigation of accidents in the field of maritime transport has been discussed with shadow rapporteurs and with the Presidency. The Committee on Transport and Tourism decided that it is desirable to retain the basic outlines of the draft directive. This involves standardised investigations in accordance with a common methodology, whereby deadlines for determining which state is going to conduct an investigation and for the submission of a final report must be laid down. It is of course open to discussion as to what classes of accidents are to be compulsorily investigated in accordance with the methodology adopted and as to how precisely the organisational independence of the investigative body is to be defined. During discussion of the materials, we reached agreement that the conclusions of a technical investigation may be used for further, for example criminal, investigations. The details of a technical investigation must, however, remain confidential. It was also clarified in committee that it is not possible to ignore the provisions requiring fair treatment of seafarers on ships which have been involved in maritime accidents, unless this is prevented by the inclusion of such provisions in other regulations. There is also agreement that the independent investigative body must comprise experts from several countries and that individual states may reach mutual agreement on representation in the investigation of maritime accidents.
I should like to emphasise that one of the main aims of the maritime package under consideration is to strengthen the responsibility of the flag state. It is therefore appropriate that the proposed wording relating to the rapid notification of technical shortcomings identified should remain part of the directive, as should specification of the ships to which the directive relates. I do not think it would be a good idea, following the experiences with tanker accidents on the Spanish coast, for it still to be possible for several technical investigative bodies to be able to work in parallel. If the European Commission does not feel itself to be sufficiently competent to decide on the conduct of investigations, then the only option is for such decisions to be taken in the European Council. I certainly consider the launch of several parallel technical investigations to be a poor solution. The still incomplete investigation into the accident involving the tanker Prestige shows where such a buck-passing dispersal of responsibility for an investigation leads. It is right that the whole maritime package should be discussed at the same time, thus avoiding differences in the definitions of individual concepts in the various component directives and thus enhancing the clarity of the resultant materials.
I believe that, even with the directive on maritime disasters, we can reach a sensible compromise which will be practicable and will make a contribution to a reduction in the likelihood of occurrence of further maritime disasters and perhaps to a thorough re-examination, including of the technical aspects.
Dominique Bussereau
President-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow you will vote on the third maritime safety package. As you know, the maritime economy provides jobs for approximately 3 million people, making it a key sector for the European Union.
There were seven legislative proposals in the package sent through by the Commission in early 2006. They aimed to introduce measures for preventing accidents at sea and to establish measures to be taken following accidents - that is, to analyse the causes and compensate any victims. The priority of the package is ensuring the safety and quality of shipping, while respecting the environment, as well as improving the competitiveness of the European maritime sector.
The Council, Parliament and the Commission all support the objective of promoting maritime safety. At the Copenhagen European Council in 2002, the Council welcomed efforts to improve maritime safety and recalled the European Union's determination to 'take all necessary measures to avoid a repetition of similar catastrophes' to the Erika accident. The Council can also have no qualms about accepting many of the demands expressed by Parliament in its resolution of 27 April 2004. However, there are still some differences over the third maritime package, and these will require further consultation between the parties.
Since the package was presented by the Commission, through the work of several presidencies - most recently the Slovenian Presidency - the Council has adopted six Common Positions on the following proposals: investigation of accidents, classification societies, port state control, traffic monitoring, and the Athens Convention, all while taking account of European Parliament opinions such as those adopted in April last year.
Since the start of its term of office, the French Presidency has been making a major effort to reach agreement in Parliament at Second Reading on these six texts, for which the Common Positions were communicated by the Council in June 2008. During informal contacts with the rapporteurs during the summer months by the President of Coreper, real progress was made on each dossier, the purpose of which was to reach rapid agreement on these texts. In a recent letter, Mr Costa, you described this as 'substantial progress'.
Furthermore, as you know, in accordance with the commitments I made last April, the Presidency has energetically and enthusiastically revived discussions in the Council on the last two texts on civil liability and flag state obligations. This revival was very necessary for maritime safety and, Commissioner, also came in response to constant requests from your Commission. You know this item was put on the agenda by the Presidency at the informal meeting in La Rochelle, to which I had invited the European Parliament representatives Mr Costa and Mr Savary, who were kind enough to attend. You know we are currently continuing with the technical aspects of the work so the Transport Council can look at it at its next meeting, planned for 9 October.
Let me be frank with you: in view of the momentum this has triggered, I would have hoped we might avoid going to conciliation. Nevertheless, here we are. We must now make sure we do not lose the momentum, and above all we must not give the impression that all this progress and effort has been in vain, because this would send a poor message to the public. For this reason, in parallel with the work going on in the Council on the last two texts, the Presidency is still happy to maintain informal contact with each of the rapporteurs on the first six texts in order to reach agreement on the content.
I particularly wanted to share this analysis with you, and I will tell the Council about it at its meeting on 9 October, when we will be looking at the last two texts. The Council will decide what its position is regarding conciliation on the first six texts.
Mr President, I really hope that Parliament, the Council and the Commission can find a way forward for close cooperation on these dossiers. I think we have very nearly reached a final agreement, something we are all longing for.
Antonio Tajani
Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you in particular to my colleague. After so many years of being an MEP, I am pleased to be here in the Chamber. Mr President, Mr Bussereau, ladies and gentlemen, how could I not share the concerns and aims that have emerged from the outset of the debate on this maritime package?
Our concern and the concern of Parliament, which represents the peoples of Europe, is to provide guarantees or to seek to provide guarantees to European citizens that tragic events such as those we have unfortunately had to witness a few kilometres from the coasts of Europe do not recur. There have been accidents such as the more recent one, although it was less serious, in the port of Tarragona, that confirm that our undertaking is right, that confirm that we need to give answers to citizens. Of course, it is impossible to prevent accidents from happening, but we must certainly do all we can to prevent them, through legislation, and through political action.
How can we do this? Firstly, we can do so by making life more difficult for unscrupulous operators, with more rigorous, systematic checks in all EU ports and also with more effective provisions regarding the taking in of a vessel in danger to a place of refuge, and finally through more rigorous control of the organisations authorised to inspect vessels and issue security certificates on behalf of the Member States.
In brief, we need to improve the way in which we tackle the consequences of accidents, obtaining fair compensation for passengers or their families or for the maritime community, and learning more thorough lessons from the investigations that take place after accidents. This is one of the important issues - understanding what happened in order to prevent it happening again. It is these various aspects that you will have to deal with, once the Council has decided on five of the seven proposals in the third maritime safety package.
As we know, the Transport Council last April was not able to consider the proposals relating to the obligations of flag States or the civil liability of shipowners. We should not underestimate the difficulties expressed by the Member States, which also emerged during the course of the informal Council meeting in La Rochelle - concern about a transfer of competences to the European Union for subjects covered by international conventions and the fear of an increase in the administrative burden of checks.
We sought during the Council meeting in La Rochelle - at which Mr Costa was present - and by 'we' I mean the Commission and the President, as well as the French Presidency, which I thank for the work it has done in coordination with the Commission to try to get the whole package adopted speedily, without abandoning two legislative texts that we all consider to be very important, as Mr Bussereau stressed.
I really must warmly thank the French Presidency for the action it has taken, its attempt to mediate, and its wish to involve Parliament in what is a very delicate and also very difficult legislative decision. Certainly, I cannot say that I am satisfied with the situation as it is today. There are two issues that are at risk of being put to one side, and they are of extraordinary importance.
The Commission wants the whole package to be adopted, and we will work and persist in attempts to reach an agreement. Europe cannot permit itself to fail to give concrete answers to its citizens; we must have an aim that is simple but binding: that all vessels flying flags of Member States are fully compliant. Our concern must be to guarantee, in addition, that the victims of maritime accidents receive adequate, uniform compensation throughout the European Union.
In La Rochelle, we tried to set out on a path that will lead to an agreement between Parliament and the Council. We are working with the French Presidency, seeking to put forward texts that will receive a positive verdict from the Council and at the same time a positive verdict from Parliament. Yesterday, I met the Federal Republic of Germany's transport minister, and urged that Germany should also play its part; what I am trying to do with all the Member States, in the meetings that I have, is to try to take a step forward by supporting the mediation activity that the French Presidency, together with the European Commission, is attempting.
I understand perfectly that meanwhile Parliament wants to insert into the texts at second reading amendments designed to incorporate the substance of the two proposals that have remained pending. I back these amendments. As for the dossiers that are being officially examined, I know that significant progress has been made in bringing the viewpoints of Parliament and the Council closer together and even though it has not been possible to translate this progress into compromise amendments, I am convinced that the rest of the procedure will be considerably facilitated by this progress. Naturally, I will be able to talk about these issues and the amendments envisaged after having heard what you have to say.
I believe, however, that it is still possible for us to reach an agreement; it would be wrong to say that negotiations are easy, because they will be complex, but I believe that there is still room to attain an objective perhaps even before conciliation; certainly we cannot give up until we have made every effort to achieve the objective of the adoption of all the texts that make up the maritime safety package.
Representatives of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, you can count on the active commitment of the European Commission, all the managers and officials in the Cabinet and the Directorate-General that I have the honour of leading and my staff, in order to seek to achieve the objective of a specific answer for all the citizens of the European Union.
Georg Jarzembowski
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I am pleased to note the common ground - there is actually a great deal - that has emerged in the debate so far. Our French Council representative, our friend, has said he is of the opinion that we shall still be able to reach agreement by the end of the year. Yes indeed, let us reach that agreement! I should also like to thank the Vice-Presidents for the support of the Commission during the discussions between the rapporteurs and the French Council Presidency.
President-in-Office, we wish to acknowledge that you and your colleagues have already made great progress in the individual discussions on the six dossiers. We are very much on the right track but - and I also say this to you to support your reluctant colleagues in the Council - there is either one package or no package. I therefore hope that you will make progress in the two dossiers that are still unresolved at the next Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council meeting on 9 November. These are not unimportant dossiers. I do not wish to delve into the details of the civil liability of shipowners, but I do consider it particularly important in the case of the flag States.
It is evident, however, that, despite all their professions to have maritime safety and the safety of seafarers, of passengers and of coastal waters in mind at all times, Member States are shying away from ratifying and implementing very specific obligations or even just the IMO resolutions on maritime protection. If we want these flag State obligations to become established, if we - Parliament and the Commission - want to be able to put pressure on the Member States - in court if necessary - to fulfil their obligations under the IMO Convention on maritime protection and the protection of coastal populations, the Member States recoil. Although there are good people who fulfil their flag State obligations, there are some who are very reluctant to comply with the inspection by Parliament and the Commission to ensure they are fulfilling their flag State obligations. This is unacceptable.
We had the disasters of the Prestige and the Erika, and my fellow Members have also pointed out the disasters of recent times. We are beholden to people and to the natural environment to ensure that flag States, in particular, fulfil their obligations.
It is bizarre. In Mrs Vlasto's sound report, we talk about port State control, which, in theory, is our way of checking the safety of third-country ships anchoring at our shores. We therefore inspect ships from third countries, but the Member States fear being subjected to the obligation to be checked to ensure they as flag States are fulfilling their duties with regard to ships' safety. This is unacceptable.
In this respect, I should like to encourage the President-in-Office effectively to win the majority over on 9 October. I say 'majority', President-in-Office, because it could be, if I am not completely wrong, that majority decisions are possible in the transport dossier. You may perhaps have to break through the esprit de corps in the Council - if an individual is reluctant, the others will not push him - because this concerns the safety of the natural environment and people and we shall have to reach a majority decision if need be.
I appeal to you to carry on. We are proud of you - you have fought well in the Council to date. Please pass on the following message to the Council: we are behind you, and we are ready and willing to achieve good results together with the French Presidency. However, some do need to budge - including the German Government. Let us all fight together on this!


European Critical Infrastructure (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council directive on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure and the assessment of the need to improve their protection - C6-0053/2007 -
Franco Frattini
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur for this important report, which follows the presentation of an initiative by the Commission.
The protection of critical infrastructure is, of course, a priority for the European Commission as well as for the Member States, not least because the need to protect critical infrastructure from the eventuality of a terrorist attack, for instance, derives from the very nature of such infrastructures and the interconnection and interdependence between them. Indeed, if a physical or technological infrastructure is attacked in one Member State, the effect will inevitably be felt in other Member States. That is why we need a common European prevention and protection framework.
Our view was that the best way forward was to involve the private sector first of all, which means drawing on currently available technologies and stimulating more technological research. We would then call on companies and research laboratories to collaborate by placing the outcome of such research at the disposal of the common European framework. The idea is to have proper security schemes devoted to the various infrastructure sectors and a real network of liaison officers to ensure that this common European framework functions.
Our idea is to take into consideration only those infrastructures that are truly cross-border in nature and not of course those confined to the territory of just one Member State, unless that particular critical infrastructure has an influence that goes beyond the borders of that Member State.
As you know, we adopted a communication last December to set up a European programme for critical infrastructure protection, together with a proposal for a directive to identify which infrastructure needs protecting. I am therefore grateful to Parliament for having examined all the proposals on such an important subject. The communication, of course, identifies principles and processes to be carried out as well as the instruments for carrying out the processes, while the directive lays down rules for identifying those infrastructures which, according to a common European approach, require protection. It is our intention to develop this action plan through a broad web of public-private collaboration.
We think that the Member States should be assisted in developing the various initiatives included in the action plan; we are also convinced that the international dimension must be taken into account and that financial measures must be put in place. Of course, we already have a financial programme for the prevention, preparation and management of the consequences of the terrorist threat, which may be able to provide appropriate funds for critical infrastructure protection measures.
I can say straight away that I can accept certain important amendments that Parliament is preparing to examine. The first concerns the need to emphasise in the text of the directive that it is the responsibility of each Member State to identify the most appropriate forms and methods of implementing it: in other words, we must stress the principle of flexibility in the implementation of the directive, on the basis of which the measures, whether mandatory or not, should be put into practice without an excessively rigid approach.
The second point that I think is acceptable concerns the need to clarify the procedures for exempting certain sectors from some of the obligations laid down in the directive. The Commission has foreseen the possibility of exempting certain sectors, and Parliament's draft amendments substantially seek to specify more clearly when a particular exemption applies to a given sector. I believe I can agree on the need to introduce some specification, thus making things clearer.
I also agree with the proposal to amend the list of critical infrastructure protection sectors given in Annex I to the proposal for a directive. I think Parliament's proposal to amend that annex is acceptable, as is the introduction of certain changes to the sectors where resorting to the comitology procedure is envisaged. There is a specific proposal on that, although we should be aware that by limiting the use of comitology we would be increasing the time it would take to implement the directive. Basically, comitology is perhaps a rather complicated instrument, but it does save time in implementation, However, I am not against accepting the idea behind those amendments.
To conclude, Mr President, I can say that I am happy and pleased with the report before us, and I hope Parliament will adopt it by a large majority. We need to show that we are speaking with one voice on a strategic measure such as this European initiative to protect critical energy, transport and technological infrastructures, which require strong prevention and protection measures, because the terrorist threat is unfortunately directed first and foremost at critical infrastructures. I am therefore grateful to Parliament for the contribution that it has already made and is yet to make to this work of ours.
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, back in June 2004, the Council tabled a request in which the Commission was asked to prepare a general strategy to protect critical infrastructure. In the past three years, the topic has not been off the Commission agenda, quite rightly so. In line with the wishes of the Council and the European Parliament, the Commission finally moved a proposal for a European programme to protect critical infrastructure, which culminated in the Directive we are debating today.
As rapporteur, I support the idea of a common framework in this matter. The effective protection of vulnerable critical infrastructures and services requires communication, coordination and cooperation in which all interested parties are involved, both at national and at European level. The complex processes and interfaces of critical infrastructure with a transnational dimension are, as I see it, also legitimate areas for consideration.
As Commissioner Frattini has already explained on several occasions, damage to, or loss of, a certain infrastructural provision in a Member State can impact badly on various other Member States and even on the European economy as a whole. Thanks to new technologies, for example the Internet, as well as the far-reaching liberalisation of the market, for example where the supply of electricity and gas is concerned, many infrastructural provisions are already part of bigger networks.
Indeed, in these circumstances, the effectiveness of all these protective measures is determined by the weakest link. I do take the view, though, as Mr Frattini already observed, that the Commission has been slightly too proactive or overenthusiastic in some sections of the Directive. It must be clear that the primary and ultimate responsibility lies with the Member States and the owners of this critical infrastructure.
From that point of view, I consider a bottom-up approach to be of critical importance. Common action can, in my view, only be justified if at least three Member States were to experience adverse effects, or at least two Member States other than those in which the critical infrastructure is located. After all, much has already been agreed upon bilaterally, which, to be honest, is also the most flexible solution.
In addition, I take the view that overlaps or inconsistencies with existing legislation and/or provisions should be avoided at all costs. Existing criteria and mechanisms must therefore be taken into consideration. It is equally important to me that the private sector is not faced with an unnecessary administrative burden. I would urge them to make use of the expertise that is already available and would, above all, counsel against re-inventing the wheel. I would therefore argue in favour of this pragmatic, yet structural, approach.
Following the debates in the parliamentary committees, certain groups of Parliament have also agreed to focus on so-called priority sectors. It has, indeed, also been decided to scrap the proposed comitology procedure. In the past, the use of the comitology procedure has too often led to shaky situations. I am therefore very grateful to the Commissioner for his observations on this matter and on the other amendments and for the fact that he has shown his satisfaction. I would like to have a reaction, however, to the definition of two to three Member States, because this is the most important amendment in my view.
I should like to finish off with an observation for the Council, which is once again conspicuous by its absence. The agreement on a common position appears to be a bridge too far for them. This is quite remarkable, given the fact that the Council asked for this common framework itself, and out of character too, because, if anything happens, then the Council is all too keen to be the first to immediately announce all manner of rules without really taking the quality of the proposals into account, their ramifications for the internal market, for example, or the European citizens for that matter.
After all, vision and power are two skills that can be expected from the Council in this matter. At the opening of the plenary sitting earlier today, President Poettering spoke wise words. Nobody is waiting for ad hoc rules and regulations that are dictated by panic. A structural line of attack, on the other hand, taking the principles of rule of law into consideration - and the latter is vitally important - is very welcome. I thank you and I thank the Commissioner.
Harald Ettl
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - (DE) Mr President, cross-border crises, whether caused by terrorism or natural disasters, call for Union-wide protection of critical infrastructures. Critical infrastructures cannot be kept secret by not mentioning them. It would be completely naïve to think that.
From a psychological point of view, the destruction of critical infrastructures leads to a loss of public confidence in the European Union. Crisis protection is not therefore only a national matter but requires European crisis management, as the Commission proposes.
Moreover, as the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has clearly pointed out, moving elements of European infrastructures outside the EU increases the risk of terrorist attacks and access to data in particular makes the entire infrastructure more vulnerable. This is also true of banking and insurance. Even if security and controls are constantly being improved in these areas, there is still a need for additional coordinated European action. Nobody will want double regulation. What we need is greater security. The Directorate General for the Market must be guided by that and not by short-sighted wishes expressed by industry.
Renate Sommer
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. - (DE) Mr President, the Committee on Transport and Tourism is of the opinion, for its area of responsibility, that with this proposal for a directive the Commission is exceeding its powers, because it is misunderstanding its instructions. It speaks of stabilising the internal market, but the directive is supposed to be principally about protection against acts of terrorism.
Moreover, the Commission proposal contravenes the principle of subsidiarity, because it seeks not only to complement Member States' existing measures, but to replace some of them. Finally, the proposal does not address the real task, but delegates it to a comitology committee.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism therefore rejected the Commission proposal, although we know that we do of course need European cooperation. The question is simply how. My main concern is to ensure that the Member States are not obliged to notify their critical European infrastructures to the Commission so that it can then make a complete list of sensitive EU infrastructures, attach security plans to it and then store everything in some office in Brussels. That would be against national security interests. Such a list would be an interesting source of information for terrorists.
All that should be done by the Commission is to define and list in general terms the most important sectors at risk. It should be left to the Member States to identify those sectors, because it is they who are primarily responsible for the protection of critical infrastructures and they carry the ultimate responsibility for measures to protect critical infrastructures within their national borders. In the interests of national security, that must continue to be the case. Only a devolved management of sensitive infrastructures can reduce the level of risk.
I believe the narrower definition of critical European infrastructures, according to which at least three Member States, or two others than the one in which the critical infrastructure is located, must be affected, is the right one. We must ensure that the directive covers only European infrastructures and no national ones. I also consider that bilateral cooperation between Member States is more sensible in this area on security grounds.
Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, most sincerely and assure her of my support.
Herbert Reul
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, indisputably, we have raised a very difficult issue with critical European infrastructures. There can be no doubt, however, that we need to get to grips with this question at European level and find and develop solutions jointly with the Member States, because the potential threats which the Commissioner has just described do exist and must therefore be taken seriously.
It is, however, extremely difficult to say where the European competence lies in this matter, what must be organised at European level and where particular devolved tasks must be dealt with. This question occupied us in committee for a very long time. We have tried - and I would like to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for her very fair and open cooperation - to find a way that will ensure the exchange of best practice between the Member States with EU-wide coordination, while at the same time keeping the subsidiarity principle central. Neither, as Mrs Sommer has already said, do we want to notify specific critical infrastructures and collect them somewhere, rather we want to ensure that secrecy is guaranteed.
That is why we agreed that the Member States should notify the Commission of their respective critical sectors but not specific infrastructures. It was important for us not to go for a comitology procedure, and I am grateful to the Commissioner for accommodating Parliament on this. As the rapporteur has already pointed out, the procedure's inefficiency in the past does not encourage us to go further down that route. We suggest another way.
I also want to say that it was important for us that unnecessary bureaucracy should be avoided, that a contact point in the Member States should do the designating and identifying and that no new bureaucracies should be created, that administrative costs should be reined in and that there should be plenty of flexibility.
Inés Ayala Sender
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, the President of the European Parliament, Mr Poettering, referred today to this very report by Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert when he condemned the latest terrorist attacks, both on European territory - where airports were the targets - and in third countries, such as Yemen - in the case of the murdered Spanish tourists. In the latter case, the target was not a specific infrastructure, but rather tourists travelling in a vehicle along a road.
This reference once again demonstrates or reinforces the importance of this exercise proposed to us by the Commission and for which I would like to thank the Commissioner most warmly. This is not a single measure but rather part of a long process - which began in 2004 - which is now taking the form of increasingly interesting and effective measures.
Furthermore, in view of the complexity of our European society, based on these complex and open networks of communication, supply and services on which, additionally, the economy is founded, we must defend them and defend ourselves in view of their potential vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
I wish to point out that my group was more in agreement with the Commission's original proposal relating to the definition of critical European infrastructures, in the sense of infrastructures shared by two or more countries, or cases in which a State is affected by an infrastructure of another Member State.
For example, for us, the Eurotunnel could be a good example for the application of this optimum protection from possible attacks, not to mention airports, etc., where we have already suffered such attacks.
Tomorrow, therefore, we shall maintain this position in favour of the Commission's original proposal, because we want to remain hopeful that we may find more support in the Council. In any event, we prefer to continue moving towards more integrated and European approaches, and we prefer to avoid savings that appear to reduce costs but that we could end up regretting in the future.
We do support everything that Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert proposes in terms of protection with regard to third countries; we support everything relating to the protection of the individual data involved; naturally, we support everything relating to the necessary confidentiality - we have long experience of dealing with this confidentiality, both at national level and at Commission level, and we do not believe that it is going to be violated in this case - and we also agree that we should avoid any duplication of what has already been done within the Member States and what the Commission is now proposing.
In this way, we hope to overcome the backward-looking position that we had to accept in the Committee on Transport and Tourism and with which my group still does not agree. We hope that, with the proposal that will be put to the vote tomorrow, we will be able to continue moving forward and that with both what Parliament is proposing - and I am grateful for the great work by Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert and all of the honourable Members - and with what the Council is proposing, we will be able to achieve better protection of our critical European infrastructures.
Margarita Starkevičiūtė
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (LT) I would like to thank the Commission member and the honourable rapporteur for their suggestions; however, I would like to stress that these suggestions should be interpreted as only the beginning of the discussion. I do not know whether the Internet can be described as critical infrastructure according to the definition used by the Commission. It is hard for me to know, if a website was blocked in one country, would that mean that it was no longer critical infrastructure? One need only block the website of a large bank that has its headquarters, let us say, in Germany, France or Great Britain, and all the residents of Europe will feel it. We are talking about the consolidation of the financial sector, the consolidation of economic activity, even the consolidation of hotel chains. In other words, we have to acknowledge that critical infrastructure has spilled into cyberspace, and I believe that Estonia is the first country to have experienced elements of cyber-war. I regret that little attention has been paid to this, and now this topic is getting beyond the scope of the concerns of the Commission Member responsible for communications. However, I would like to say that this topic has to be highlighted from a security point of view, because it is hard to imagine what the lives of European citizens would be like without the Internet. Whether the Internet is European or whether it belongs to one country we cannot say - it is a world-wide web, and of course, to define how to protect the web from an attack that could be carried out at any minute is rather complicated and the level of debate has to be quite different. We are presently talking mainly about physical infrastructure and, without a doubt, tragic scenes upset us, but life is becoming ever more virtual and this needs attention.
Eva Lichtenberger
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, no one in this House disputes that close cooperation between the Member States is very important and necessary for countering terrorist risks. Our criticism is of how this is to be done. More bureaucracy will not help us against terrorism! I would like to thank the rapporteur for at least bringing the proposal back down to earth and greatly improving the Commission's version. She has also made a number of very practical suggestions.
We are all agreed that improved cooperation and information are good things. That can be done bilaterally or multilaterally. But compiling a list of all at-risk infrastructures will bring no gains in terms of security and may even be counterproductive. In the end, however, competence lies with the Member States in any case, and there is no point at all in shifting it to the European level.
I hope that when we come to the vote tomorrow we will all proceed with the same realism as the rapporteur has shown and go on to secure what we now have: a sensible way forward that takes account of reality and fosters no illusions!
Erik Meijer
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, those who already wanted more government pressure in the areas of the army, police, security services, all kinds of other control system and the prison system in the past have been able to reinforce their position since the turn of the century. They can now refer to the advent of a new kind of terrorism, which, as it came as a shock to everyone, creates scope for ill-thought-out solutions.
At all administrative levels, proposals have been moved to subject democracy, the freedom of association, the freedom of demonstration, the right to strike, the freedom to travel and privacy to the proposed guarantees for security. The trouble with this line of attack is that it does nothing to remove the seedbed from which terrorism springs, including the utter inequality in wealth or power that divides the world.
Instead, we collect more intelligence, monitor more objects, organise more bureaucracy and bring about more displeasure. In the European Union, in the area of critical infrastructure, there are already 32 directives, regulations, treaties and decisions that make a European approach possible. This is why adding a new directive with yet more powers and obligations has raised a few eyebrows.
In January, the committee for the subsidiarity test of the Dutch Parliament drew my attention to this very subject. This committee is calling into question Article 308 of the EC Treaty, which focuses on the interim enhancement of powers, as a legal basis, and considers the protection of critical infrastructure to be first of all a national affair.
As shadow rapporteur on this subject in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I was delighted to find that this committee decided to invite the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to emphatically reject the proposal. The main reason for this request was that everything that is in the draft Directive can be regulated more effectively on a smaller scale, in other words by the Member States or their regions. In this case, more interference from the European Union means, above all, more unproductive bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, the groups that voted 'no' unanimously in the Committee on Transport were divided in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. My group was no different. Most smaller national delegations consider this to be a poor proposal, partly because unnecessary interference obscures the division of tasks between the Member States and the Union, and partly because it may be used inappropriately in order to cut down on civil rights, such as the freedom of demonstration, by referring to the protection of infrastructure, in which case it does not affect international terrorism, but rather domestic democracy.
By contrast, the members of our larger delegations from Germany and Italy also see positive points in the proposal. They expect a reduction in the powers that are already being exercised by the Commission anyway and better parliamentary control of the application of the remaining powers. Those in favour and against in my group applaud the fact that the amendments predominantly weaken the effect of the draft and confine the application to matters that affect at least three Member States.
Christian Ehler
(DE) Mr President, unlike the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy or the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the committee responsible, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, failed to recognise the importance of the European level for the protection of critical infrastructures. The focus is no longer on the protection of individual infrastructures but on the consideration of sectors.
I think the procedure proposed in the report lacks resolve. The added value that comes from including the European level has been almost completely abandoned. It is clear that responsibility for critical infrastructures must rest with the Member States. However, if we leave designation entirely to the nation states we will not identify the weaknesses and structural dependencies, and that is precisely what is needed for the designation of critical European infrastructures.
The idea that a list would be as good as a textbook for terrorist attacks is downright naïve. The Member States have had such lists for a long time. One of the most important structural errors was, for example, not having checked those lists with NATO. In the military sphere, NATO has had such lists of critical infrastructures for 40 years and relevant scenarios have long been provided for in anticipation of military crises.
Inger Segelström
(SV) I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur for a constructive report and an efficient piece of work. It feels as if we in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs are systematically wading through all those areas of society that have bearing on the terrorist threats to our citizens. The President too addressed this issue today.
It is very important that we not look at each individual measure in isolation but review all areas together so that we obtain common security regulations covering everything from visa regulations and security checks in aviation to better ways of protecting ourselves against the threats to airports, public transport and harbours and to the whole of the infrastructure which, because of the huge number of passengers involved, could be hit by a huge disaster if a terrorist attack were to occur.
The issue from the rapporteur's proposal that I wish to address is that of whether three or more Member States should have to be affected by disruption or destruction, or whether it is enough that two be so affected. The rapporteur's proposal involves an increase to three Member States from the two referred to in the original proposal's directive. I consider this increase to be unreasonable because a threat, disaster or instance of devastation may affect a lot of people, despite few countries being involved. Moreover, the incident may make more impact on the place affected than it would have done on more centrally located places in the EU. This proposal makes it still more difficult to take account of smaller EU Member States, in spite of the fact that they are in danger of being hit by equally serious crises on just as large a scale.
I also believe that as we plug the holes and make it more difficult to attack aviation, the terrorists will concentrate on other targets and on central locations within the infrastructure, to which a huge amount of damage can be caused. We should not be naïve. Instead, we must be as well prepared as we possibly can be. That is our responsibility.
Marianne Mikko
(ET) The cyber attacks against Estonia that took place in April and May of this year were the first such events that gained global attention. Yet these were not the first attacks against the essential infrastructure of Europe. Until now, cyber attacks had been directed against individual companies, primarily in the financial sector, where the Internet has become an indispensable environment for transactions.
For understandable reasons banks prefer not to make a lot of noise about attacks. Lack of confidence in the reliability of banking systems would have serious consequences for the entire European economy.
Fields of activity in which the Internet has become an essential part of infrastructure include public administration and the media. The inability to repulse a cyber attack could in the worst case scenario throw the European Union back in time to the last century.
Imagine today, in the 21st century, a situation in which communication between ministries is interrupted, and both the government and the media are unable to inform the public. This is precisely what happened in Estonia, as Mrs Starkevičiūtso correctly stated.
I would like to thank the rapporteur and emphasise her excellent timing. Cybersecurity is the best example of the need for cooperation in the defence of the essential infrastructure of the European Union. During this hitherto unique cyber attack against an independent state, Estonian IT specialists were supported by experts from both the European Union and beyond.
May this cooperation be an example and a lesson in internal security to the responsible parties in all the Member States. Neither wealth nor military force can help repulse a cyber attack. The only defence is cooperation. Once again, many thanks to the rapporteur.
Franco Frattini
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while I am grateful to all the speakers, including the rapporteur, I am afraid I have a few concerns about accepting the rather restrictive approach that the Committee on Transport and Tourism has tried to put across.
As certain Members have rightly pointed out - Mrs Segelström was the last, and there were others - restricting the minimum threshold for defining a European infrastructure to just three or more Member States would, in my view, have two drawbacks, the first of which would be to prevent the smaller European Member States from taking part in the critical infrastructure protection programme. We, of course, want to avoid any such eventuality. We want to offer all Member States that are potential targets for terrorist attacks a way of taking part in this European strategy.
I must also raise objections to the restrictive attitude that is hostile to the idea that Europe should concern itself with a common infrastructure protection framework. This is not a matter of subsidiarity, which we are extremely careful to respect. The problem is that infrastructures nowadays are closely interconnected, and the last speech by the Member from Estonia, who recalled the cyberattack on her country, provides the most obvious proof of that: it was an attack that affected an entire countrywide system. Even though only a single countrywide system was involved, can we have any doubt that that attack indirectly affected Estonia's entire network of relations with the other countries of Europe? If the banking system of just one country is paralysed for a certain number of days, then one of the basic structures of the European Union is inevitably affected. I therefore believe that the Commission's original proposal, for which I confirm my support, is better in that it provides a wider range of opportunities.
With regard to cyberattacks, I do not rule out the possibility that terrorists may plan an attack on a countrywide system, such as a banking system, a ministry or an administration system: we are examining what happened in Estonia and our information security agency will be producing a report after the summer. I obviously intend to publish its report but, leaving aside the analysis of this particular incident, we cannot rule out the possibility that terrorist organisations may be thinking of knocking out an entire countrywide system by means of a cyberattack. That is why I believe a rather less restrictive interpretation is absolutely essential.
To conclude, I once again thank the rapporteur and all the Members of this Parliament. I believe that adopting a rigorous report on the initiatives undertaken by the Commission would show very clearly that we are concerned about prevention. As someone rightly pointed out, the European Commission and the European Union's institutions have been acting to strengthen our policies on prevention ever since 2004. It is only by doing so that we can provide a truly effective and coordinated response to the threat of terrorism.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, 11 July 2007.


Simplification of the CAP (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Richard Ashworth, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on simplification of the CAP -.
Richard Ashworth
rapporteur. - Mr President, Commissioner, we are at the very early stages of the debate, which leads up to the common agricultural policy reform post 2012. In this report, I suggested some of the principles which should underlie the reformed common agricultural policy. It is clear that the agricultural industry needs to change. It will need to change in order to reflect both the challenges of the times in which we now live but more the times which are to come.
Those will be issues such as food security, market volatility, climate change, and the need to adequately meet the expectations for the delivery of public goods. It is clear, therefore, that the common agricultural policy has to change in order to reflect those challenges, but it is also clear that the way we apply the common agricultural policy needs to change.
In setting out these principles that should underlie the reformed common agricultural policy, I have deliberately not gone into detail; that will come in later reports. But what I have developed is two main themes. Firstly, that the common agricultural policy needs to be simpler, fairer and more transparent and that, secondly, the culture of the common agricultural policy needs to change, that a future reformed common agricultural policy ought to be more outcome-driven and less burdened with excessive regulation.
I have highlighted four ways in which we can reduce the bureaucratic burden on farm businesses. Firstly, we should ensure that the requirements made of the industry are proportionate to the risk assessed. Secondly, we could harmonise inspections standards and we should cut out the duplication of inspection standards and procedures required of the industry. Thirdly, there could or should be greater scope for self-certification within the industry and, fourthly, we need to ensure that the penalties imposed on farm businesses are commensurate to the scale of the infringement rather than the current inappropriate flat-rate penalties, especially in those cases where infringements were not the fault of the farmer.
In my view, one objective of the common agricultural policy should be to help and encourage the industry to adapt to these new challenges. To do that, there is a need for a change of culture in the common agricultural policy. It does need to adopt a more flexible, lighter-touch approach. There needs to be greater consultation with the stakeholders of the industry and, in particular, in order to better assess the impact of proposed regulation. It also needs to be easier to interpret. The reformed common agricultural policy must be able to publicly demonstrate the industry's delivery of public goods. It must find ways to reduce the cost to the industry of complying with its requirements and, finally, it must effectively and efficiently and fairly manage the industry.
This report sets out a number of ways that that can be achieved.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, the burden of managing agriculture must definitely be reduced as far as farmers are concerned, and these methods highlighted by the rapporteur are very welcome. Some farmers have said that they feel like criminals when trying to battle with the various administrative documents and regulations. The common agricultural policy needs to be simpler.
It also needs to be said that when more and more changes take place in the markets and EU import protection decreases, administrative and regulatory mechanisms for the market will be needed in the future as well. For example, stock-taking systems and possibly promotional activity for exports will also be necessary in the future.
It is clear that there can be no simple way of maintaining these systems. Particularly in the case of delicate products such as milk, we should create a system of regulation similar to a quota system; otherwise, production in less favourable regions will become impossible.
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
(HU) I congratulate the rapporteur, since not only his specific proposals but the entire philosophy is excellent. Excellent because it seeks to give support in future to those who are actively farming, in other words, those who are, in fact, cultivating the land. I also consider excellent the point that it would be important to put an end to sectoral and other distortions in the future common agricultural policy and here, I would once again like to emphasise the discrimination against the new Member States. Similarly, it is very important not only that Community regulations be simplified, but much depends on implementation by Member States. Let me quote a typical example: two years ago, the Council adopted a regulation introducing the requirement for the compulsory individual electronic identification of each individual ovine and caprine animal intended for slaughter under the age of 12 months. In the case of the poorer Member States, where the State is unable to provide support, this rule impoverished the sector and placed it in a hopeless situation. This is another illustration of the way in which excessive regulation and excessive bureaucracy can often cause serious harm under the common agricultural policy, and constitutes yet another reason why Mr Ashworth's report is important, as are those of Mr Dorfmann and Mr Le Foll.
Herbert Dorfmann
(DE) Mr President, thank you, Mr Ashworth, for this excellent report. The common agricultural policy is a successful policy, but we sometimes cloud this success in excessive bureaucracy. That is just as true of the first pillar of the agricultural policy as it is of the second. However, it is particularly the case for small holdings, where the input of bureaucracy is sometimes quite simply disproportionate to the output represented by the money received.
In the course of reforming our agricultural policy, we need to consider having a regulation for small producers and how we can find a much simpler method for such holdings which, from various budget chapters, we often give a total of just a few hundred to a few thousand euro in premiums, without losing sight of our objectives and producing a lack of clarity in the granting of subsidies. That must be possible and we must endeavour to achieve it.
Zoltán Balczó
(HU) Richard Ashworth's report on simplification of the common agricultural policy sets out excellent proposals. Its great merit is that it examines the question from the perspective of farmers. Naturally it is also important for taxpayers' money to be used in the most legitimate way possible. This, however, is only a means, not an end. The goal is to fulfil all the tasks of the sectoral policy. The Boards of Agriculture often confuse these two things, to the detriment of the achievement of the goal. A radical change in perspective is needed. Instead of what we might describe as a culture of subordination among clients, farmers and officials, we need a culture of cooperation. The Commission should also draw up a regulation that imposes on the Boards of Agriculture an obligation to provide compensation and metes out sanctions on them if farmer's interests are harmed through their own fault. We must ensure that those with entitlements also have the right to turn to an independent court for remedy. In Hungary, this is not yet possible.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, simplification of the common agricultural policy is a beautiful idea, and it is hard to imagine that someone would oppose it. Simplification means a reduction in the number of inspections, a restriction of administration costs and a saving of time for the farmer. It is, indeed, wonderful.
However, I want to point to two cases which require a somewhat different approach. Firstly, there are special areas of production where it is difficult to simplify support instruments. I am thinking here of tobacco, hop and other specialist production of this kind. The second case is that of maintaining production in less favoured areas, where it is necessary to use very specific instruments for the support of production, which a previous speaker mentioned. I share the view of the author that the common agricultural policy, the policy of the future, should be clear and transparent, but it should also be effective, and effectiveness is something which does not always go hand-in-hand with simplicity.
Peter Jahr
(DE) Mr President, European agricultural policy must be made simpler, more transparent and easier to understand. That is the message conveyed by the rapporteur, Mr Ashworth, and it is a good message and the right one.
Our report is intended to encourage the Commission to intensify its efforts to simplify the common agricultural policy (CAP) in a tangible way. Doing so would save our farmers a lot of time and money and would increase social acceptance of the CAP.
Our farmers would also be able to concentrate on their real job again, namely producing food. I would therefore like to see the simplification of the common agricultural policy made a long-term task here in Parliament and in the Commission.
Andris Piebalgs
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, simplification and better regulation are priorities for the Commission. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Ashworth, for an excellent report in this rather complicated and challenging area.
The Commission fully agrees that simplification and reduction of administrative burden should be of particular benefit for farmers. This will enable the farmers to spend more time on their core agricultural activities. The Commission welcomes the report presented; it generally tackles the main areas of concern of European farmers and provides the Commission with new ideas and observations with regard to simplifying the common agricultural policy.
During the past years, the Commission has made substantial progress in simplifying the common agricultural policy. I would like to give just one proof of this: the Stoiber Group, which advises the Commission on the topic of administrative burden, has clearly indicated that the level of red tape for farmers has been reduced considerably as a result of simplification activities carried out by the Commission. But simplification is an ongoing process; work will continue in 2010.
Moreover, there is an overall reflection process on the future of the common agricultural policy. We have already launched a public debate, and that means that we will have to all work together to find efficient ways to reduce the administrative burden while maintaining a high level of protection of the European Union's financial interest and, at the same time, a very efficient agriculture. In this process, I would also warn about one desire, and will just mention one example of it. Sometimes, simplification should not be made at the expense of the challenge that we could face. Take as an example traceability. We have, in recent years, had a peaceful situation, with no major scandals or outbreaks of epidemics, but, at the same time, traceability is the key. We should not just abolish it because we have not had any crises. So I believe that in the whole process, we should be very careful when we simplify; we should not forget the lessons of the past and the reasons why we introduced particular rules. So the Commission will continue to work on this process and we will be very careful not to forget the lessons learned.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place in two weeks' time, at the next part-session in Brussels.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Jarosław Kalinowski
The new system must be based on objective and fair criteria. Reducing differences in payments in different Member States is essential to achieving this objective. Prices for the transportation of goods, agricultural machines and fertilisers and the costs of work have a similar ceiling in many countries. For the conditions of competition in the single market to be the same, the level of basic direct payments must be the same or comparable throughout the Union. The time has come for principles which are in force in other areas of the economy to take effect in agriculture, too. It should also be remembered that the new Member States need significant means to support the modernisation and reconstruction of agriculture and to catch up with the countries of the 'old fifteen'.


1. (
- Before the vote on Amendment 2
Monica Frassoni
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, I wonder whether it might be advisable in this case, given that the amendments have been agreed between various groups, to take a block vote on these amendments, unless there is any opposition from the House.
(Parliament gave its assent.)


2. Labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency (
Ivo Belet
rapporteur. - Mr President, briefly, I would just like to thank the Swedish Presidency for the excellent cooperation. I think this agreement is ambitious as well as realistic. It will convince us to opt for fuel efficiency, for low noise and also, of course, for safety. My thanks also go to the Commission and the shadow rapporteurs, Matthias Groote and Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, for the terrific job they have done.