Airport charges
President
The next item is the recommendation for second reading by Ulrich Stockmann, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on airport charges (08332/2/2008 - C6-0259/2008 -.
Ulrich Stockmann
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after this very moving issue, we now move on to more technical matters. We want to pass the directive on airport charges at second reading tomorrow and, after the clear vote in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I am certain that we shall be able to do so.
What is this directive about? It introduces uniform principles and procedures throughout Europe for levying airport charges. This means that transparent bases for calculation, non-discrimination against airlines and a set consultation procedure are some of the factors used to establish fair airport charges. An independent supervisory authority can resolve conflicts which arise on the basis of clear rules. This will strengthen the systemic partnership between airports and airlines and prevent any possible abuse of market power.
What was the starting point? Over the past 15 years we have made two attempts to reconcile the conflicting interests of airports and airlines in this area. One of the reasons they failed was because we have totally different procedures and structures in the Member States. In the United Kingdom, for example, there is a strict regulatory authority which can set ceilings, in five Member States we have airport networks and the practice of cross-subsidy, we have parliaments which decide on airport charges, decentralised competences in Germany and much more besides. Nonetheless, we have managed to negotiate a sustainable compromise with the Council.
What now are the components of this compromise? We have set the scope at airports with over five million passengers a year, plus the largest airports of a Member State. At present that means that the directive applies to 69 airports in the European Union. We have introduced a compulsory procedure for regular consultation between airports and airlines and, at the same time, we have laid down a structured arbitration procedure with deadlines and, of course, set up the supervisory authority I referred to.
What do we now mean by fair charges? Airport charges should have a stronger cost reference in future, must be substantiated by transparent calculations and must refer to the agreed level of service. At the same time, there is a strict ban on discrimination. What this means in principle is that we have the same charges for the same services for every airline at the same airport, with the possibility of differentiation. What pleases me is that we have allowed this, first and foremost, for noise and pollution. Some countries will continue to have common charging systems for the aforementioned airport networks and for what are referred to as airport systems in towns and conurbations, but these too must meet the transparency requirements of the directive.
We have tried, by providing for pre-financing of infrastructure through charges, to respond to certain concerns of our colleagues from the eastern European Member States. This will be possible, even if difficult on the basis of national criteria, provided that ICAO standards are met.
What do we expect from the effects? More competition between the European airports, more competition between the various airlines at an airport, perhaps gradually falling ticket prices if the airlines pass the lower charges on to passengers.
The directive has to be implemented in two years' time.
My thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs for our successful negotiations and to the Slovenian President-in-Office of the Council and the Commission.
Antonio Tajani
Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Stockmann, for his excellent work: he has described very well the content of a text, a proposal for a directive, that we are about to adopt. It is a proposal that aims to include in Community law certain principles to which all Member States have already subscribed within the framework of the ICAO: non-discrimination, transparency and consultation.
The framework established by the directive will enable us to structure dialogue between carriers and airports for the setting and collecting of charges. For example, the directive will oblige airports to consult the airlines before taking decisions with regard to airport charges. I myself proceeded in a similar manner, consulting the airlines and airports before drafting this proposal, which has, in essence, been approved by both parties.
As Mr Stockmann mentioned, the directive introduces the idea of national independent supervisory authorities. These bodies will play an influential role since they will be responsible for ensuring that the basic principles I outlined are respected. These are, in broad terms, the aims of the proposal. I would like to thank the rapporteur again for the work he carried out at second reading in order to seek agreement with the Council. The result, it is true, has taken a lot of work, many meetings and a commitment from us all, but I believe that we have succeeded in producing a good document.
The results of the negotiations are to be found in a number of amendments that the Commission requires in order to subscribe to it in full. I am very pleased that the Committee on Transport and Tourism has also unanimously supported this agreement. I am, of course, ready to follow the debate carefully and to take note of all your comments.
Zsolt László Becsey
Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, in spite of the rain, this could be a nice day. I would like to congratulate both the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur since, by joining forces with the Commission, the Slovenian and then the French presidency, we have succeeded, following lengthy discussions, in achieving a good compromise. We, too, are taking a leap in the dark, and so I would appreciate it if Member States were to begin implementation of this directive as soon as possible, and not only after the two-year period that has been negotiated. This will allow us to gauge effectively what our legislative activity is worth, and to make the necessary adjustments at the time of the four-year review.
I hope that the Member States understand this and quickly complete the necessary institutional developments, where needed. I trust, as well, that the directive will result in transparent charges and moderate price increases, so that we can prevent predatory airlines from abusing their superior power to gain an advantage over their competitors by offering the same service for lower prices at airports crying out for customers. At the same time, we could also ensure airports do not arbitrarily raise their charges in an untransparent manner and, as is often done, by leaps and bounds. In both cases, the aim is to ensure that European consumers pay only for what they have actually used. This is another reason why we have not allowed the costs of security or of assistance to disabled passengers to be included in the charges. I consider it a good compromise that whether or not revenues from an airport's commercial activities may be taken into account is left to the discretion of the Member State in question. Similarly, a good result was achieved through the agreement reached regarding airport networks, whereby a common managing body is acceptable, but participants will be subject - as promised by the Commission - to the rules of competition when it comes to setting charges, even if there is a danger of market distortion with respect to nearby airports in other countries. The compromise regarding spheres of authority is a good one.
In addition to having airports whose annual passenger traffic is over 5 million and the airport with the highest passenger movement in each Member State, I myself would have preferred that smaller and possibly competing airports nearby had also been included. In order to reach an agreement, however, I abandoned this position, although at the next review I would like to examine this element as well. I accept, even if I am not happy, that we have confirmed in the recitals the possibility of pre-financing, referring to ICAO policies, although I would have preferred to see these in the main body of the text. I hope that gradual increases in charges, instead of sudden price rises, will be perceived by passengers in a more benign manner, but this too will need to be looked at upon review. The result is transparency in financing by the State or other public authorities. This is an important factor in the competition between airports, and so is taking into account the perspective of environmental protection. I see as the most significant result the fact that each Member State must establish a strong, independent national authority with considerable powers. I am proud that the principle whereby, in the event of disputes over establishing the charges, there should not be an endless process of conciliation, was accepted and included in the report. Instead, an interim decision should be taken, which can set in motion the conciliation process. Thank you very much, Madam President.
Brian Simpson
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, I welcome the report of my colleague, Ulrich Stockmann, and I thank him for his hard work on this difficult dossier.
All through the process of this report, the concern of my group has been to ensure that the system of airport charges throughout the EU is both fair and transparent, and that a detailed appeals procedure was in place in case of dispute. Often people think of aviation as a single industry but, when one examines issues like airport charging, it soon becomes apparent that the airport and airline sectors have different views and aspirations.
The report before us offers a balanced solution, favouring neither the airlines nor the airports. Whilst, personally, I would have preferred the scope to be based on a percentage of national passengers rather than an arbitrary figure, the rapporteur in his report has ensured that the figure is at a reasonable level of five million passengers - not the Commission's ridiculously low figure of one million - and the major airport of a Member State has to be included.
A key element in the whole of our discussions has been whether certain airports enjoy a dominant trade position. My group believes that, where this is the case, airport charges need to be regulated. However, many airports are in a competitive situation and airlines are free to choose where they fly into. In my region, Manchester Airport has 22 million passengers a year but faces competition from eight airports all within a 150-km radius. Clearly, in these circumstances, the market itself is a good regulator.
I therefore welcome that the UK will be allowed to maintain its present system of monitoring airport charges, because it has in place a regulatory framework that encourages competition and regulates charges through its own supervisory body only at those airports that have a dominant position. It may be that other countries could follow this regulatory framework as a way of delivering a fair and transparent airport charges system.
I hope now that we can agree this directive at its second-reading stage. This should help us deliver a directive that will put an end to secret meetings setting charges for airports in a monopolistic or dominant trading position. I seriously hope that airlines also recognise that we will now have a transparent system with a detailed appeals procedure, with full consultation, to end the constant complaining about airport charges and work with the airports to deliver a cost-effective, value-for-money service for users and passengers alike.
Arūnas Degutis
Mr Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that no one doubts the need for transparency and justifiability in the European Community's airport charges and costs if, for no reason other than the fact that some of the airports in the Community enjoy a natural monopoly. However, from the moment the document was first discussed, the European Parliament has considered very carefully the Commission's proposals and wishes to control more than 150 of the Community's airports.
When participating in the preparation of various documents, Members of the European Parliament often face the dilemma of deciding how much control and regulation is necessary before they become an end in themselves and paralyse the actual controlling activities.
This is especially relevant in the current crisis, when sensitivity in considering questions important to business is a true necessity.
I believe that in the document which is to be voted on tomorrow, the European Parliament has managed to find and defend a happy medium by establishing the number of airports which need to be controlled. I am pleased that the Council was also of a similar opinion and the Commission demonstrated the flexibility necessary to find a constructive compromise.
The other equally important matter was to find a balance between the main players operating in this sector, i.e. the interests of airports and airlines. I believe that here we also showed ourselves to be quite capable of satisfying the expectations of both sides. All the more so because any one-sided, unbalanced proposal would somehow or other affect EU consumers' opportunities to use the safest means of transport.
All this was achieved thanks to the professional efforts of the rapporteur. Mr Stockmann has always distinguished himself as an impartial politician who listens to all sides. This is the fourth time we have worked together in the preparation of air transport regulation documents. This time, once again, he did not disappoint, only further enriching me with new experience. I would like to thank and congratulate Mr Stockmann and my other colleagues as we end the discussion of this document in the European Parliament. I would also like to wish the European Commission success, as it now has the difficult task of implementing and monitoring the effectiveness of this directive, and would like to wish all representatives every success.
Roberts Zīle
Thank you, Madam President, Mr Tajani, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Stockmann, and all the shadow rapporteurs on the compromise reached with the Council at second reading. In my view, the agreement concerning the directive's scope is also to be welcomed, since it will affect every Member State, by regulating at least their main airports. I hope that in two years' time, when this directive enters into force, it will no longer be possible in the European Union to have a repetition of such legally incomprehensible court decisions as the one recently handed down by a Lithuanian regional court against a Latvian aviation company and its main airport. Through this decision, the court of one Member State is seizing property belonging not only to another country's airport, but also to another country's aviation company in another Member State. The court's decision was based on unaccustomed discrimination on airport charges in Latvia's main airport. I very much hope that this directive will render such legally unclear interpretations impossible in the future, as they have a detrimental effect on the aviation business. Thank you.
Gerard Batten
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, this report is supposed to prevent individual airports from abusing their dominant position in the market, and to create a level playing field for operators and safeguard consumer interests.
How many times have we heard those kind of arguments before? If implemented, this harmonisation of airport charges is likely to be as successful as the harmonisation that brought us the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and the ever-increasing burden of EU regulation on businesses, which costs the UK at least GBP 26 billion per annum.
What it will do is require a completely unnecessary change in British law relating to airport charges and transport-related matters. It will require the setting-up of a supposedly independent supervisory authority that will add yet another layer of bureaucracy, and the inevitably increased costs that will follow.
There is, of course, existing price-cap regulation in the UK, designed to incentivise airport operators to achieve cost efficiencies. The objective of this continual torrent of legislation is to harmonise every aspect of life in the European Union and bring it under the ultimate authority of the European Union. Any other consideration is secondary or unimportant. What we can be absolutely sure of is that these measures will mean increased costs to the air traveller.
Georg Jarzembowski
(DE) Madam President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the previous speaker has simply not understood the dossier. What we are doing here is laying down rules for transparent provisions governing the levying of airport charges, the purpose of the whole exercise being to ensure that airport charges are set objectively and to reduce them for the benefit of users. That is our job.
There are in fact two different situations. Some airports are so dominant that airlines basically face a monopoly situation and possibly pay overly high airport charges. At other, possibly small airports, an airline can decide whether or not to use the airport on the basis of how low the airport charges are, which is a totally different situation.
I must therefore say that what Mr Stockmann has achieved in his report - and my thanks to him - is a good list of criteria for establishing correct, properly substantiated airport charges, which also have to be borne by passengers, with a national supervisory authority acting as the control body.
Mr Vice-President, you will, of course, have to ensure over the next two years that the national supervisory authorities truly are independent. This means that national supervisory authorities must not be linked to airports or married to airlines. We insist that the supervisory authorities strike a fair balance between airlines and airports for the benefit of users.
Secondly, using these new criteria, we also want to foster fairer competition between airports. In some cases, there are airports in two different Member States just a few kilometres from the border between them. We want to be sure that there is no unfair competition here. I believe that the new criteria are correct.
Allow me to close with a question to you, Mr Vice-President. I believe that nearly two years have passed since the Commission issued guidelines for regional airports. Over the last few months, you have been investigating whether there have been illegal subsidies at some airports, by which I mean state subsidies for specific airports that distort competition. We should all like to know what your conclusions were. We hope that you can promise us today that you will present the investigation on illegal or legal regional aid soon, because there is one overriding issue here: we want fair competition between airports for the benefit of passengers.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) I would like to congratulate Mr Stockmann for his efforts in achieving a common position for the Council with a view to adopting the directive which sets down common principles for the levying of airport charges at Community airports. For airport users, the proposed legislation now gives a framework for charge setting which involves them in making the decisions, which is transparent and which allows appeals.
The Council accepted Parliament's proposal to limit the scope to airports with more than 5 million passengers annually and the largest airport in each Member State. Differentiation in airport charges has to be based on transparent, objective and clear criteria. In accordance with the common position, airports need to operate on a cost-efficient basis and incentives will be allowed for new routes to disadvantaged and outermost regions. However, these incentives must be granted on the basis of transparent criteria.
We support the idea, according to the information from the Commission in accordance with Community legislation, that Member States can authorise an airport managing body to apply a common, transparent charging system to airports which serve the same city or conurbation, provided that each airport fully complies with the requirements on transparency set out in the directive. In addition, environmental criteria will become grounds for adapting airport charges. The airport managing body will publish decisions on modifying the charging system at least two months before they enter into force.
With regard to pre-financing airport investments, Member States should refer to ICAO policies or establish their own safeguards. Parliament considers that it is necessary for independent supervisory authorities to be able to delegate to other independent supervisory authorities, at their entire responsibility, the application of the directive's provisions, subject to compliance with the same standards.
Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski
(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, I would also like to join those congratulating Mr Stockmann on the result of his work. The issue we are discussing needs regulation, and such regulation does not disturb my liberal spirit, nor do regulatory institutions. We can see now, after the financial crisis, that the free market should work and does work, but we must create systems which are capable of regulating in a modern economy the mechanisms that occasionally get stuck or go beyond the usual mechanisms of economic competition, of pure free-market competition.
We are now debating the final draft of a certain document, of a work which we all realised right from the outset would be a long road, as regulating any natural monopoly - and airports are, for obvious reasons, usually subject to the rules of natural monopolies - is difficult. It is a step forward in the interests of our citizens, in the interests of the citizens of the European Union, who will once again receive something tangible which affects their life from this House and the work of the European Commission. I congratulate those who participated in its work and, hopefully, in the two years during which the system is implemented, Member States will measure up to the task.
Luís Queiró
(PT) Many of us here in this House use the Internet to book our flights and buy our tickets. However, I believe that most of us do not know how the airport charges that are paid together with the tickets are set.
As I know, however, that not all charges mentioned on the ticket are airport charges, I would ask you to humour me in a little exercise: if a passenger flies from Lisbon to Brussels, for example, by Brussels Airlines, the charge mentioned on the ticket is EUR 48; if he travels by the Portuguese airline TAP, the charge is EUR 2 less. However, in the other direction, this difference disappears and the passenger is treated to EUR 15 extra in charges per journey. Why?
However, if our imaginary passenger travels to London by Brussels Airlines, flying from Brussels to Gatwick Airport, the charges for a return journey are EUR 124, but if he uses BMI to fly to Heathrow, he only pays EUR 65 in charges. If he travels to Heathrow with BMI and returns with Lufthansa, he now pays EUR 70 in charges. Why these differences? Sometimes he pays one amount on the outward journey and another amount on the return journey. Sometimes airlines all charge the same amount for the same airport and sometimes they do not. In some cases, you might not even know how much you have paid.
The existence of different airport charges is not a bad thing, however. Different services must have different charges. What is not desirable is for the same charges to apply to different services and, conversely, for apparently identical services to be subject to different charges.
In particular, what we want is for these charges to be comprehensive and to be set according to clear and transparent criteria. That is our ultimate goal. We want to ensure fair and transparent competition between the major European airports and, in this way, not only help to refine the internal market, but also reduce the costs incurred by passengers when they buy their tickets. That is why, with hope in our hearts, we support this proposal for a directive.
Inés Ayala Sender
(ES) Madam President, I must firstly congratulate my colleague, Mr Stockmann, on his magnificent report, and particularly on his patience and tenacity in taking this forward.
It is a text that will help us to create a common airspace and prepare, with particular emphasis on transparency and non-discrimination, for what will become the great leap into the single European sky.
Through this common system for the collection of user charges, we will be able to maintain the necessary conditions for fair and transparent competition. We will also be preparing for the future due to taking account of environmental criteria in the modulation of charges and also due to excluding charges for assistance provided to passengers with disabilities. In this respect too, we are preparing for the future.
I must also highlight the consideration given to the need to avoid an excessive burden on small airports, through the setting of a minimum limit of five million passengers per year.
Finally, we are delighted that the management of airport networks by a single body has been recognised, given that this has been proven to work well - as in the case of the Spanish airports authority, AENA - and that other ways of controlling and setting charges subject to legislative scrutiny have been taken into account - which is also the case in my country - in addition to through the independent supervisory authorities. I am therefore pleased that these proposals have been taken into account.
I must also congratulate the rapporteur on having set firm deadlines for the publication of decisions. This will avoid legal uncertainty and offer guarantees to users as to when these decisions will be implemented. This is also positive because parliamentary scrutiny is taken into account in these deadlines and decisions.
Fiona Hall
Madam President, I welcome the increased transparency introduced by these new rules on airport charges. Too often, airports are secretive about the deals they strike, even when they are owned or part-owned by public authorities. The public has a right to know how such airports are raising and spending their money. But I am disappointed that the threshold for greater reporting has been set at five million, with no reference to percentage national market share.
This threshold will hit particularly hard regional airports such as Newcastle. With six million passengers a year, Newcastle comes above the threshold, yet it is a minnow compared to the giants of Heathrow and Gatwick. Since regional airports compete mainly with their nearest neighbours, it would have been fairer to have had a system which treated all small and medium-sized airports in the same way.
I therefore regret that the Council did not pursue the option of confining the scope of the directive to airports with over five million passenger movements per annum and over 15% of national passenger movements. Such a threshold would still have ensured that Europe's big airports could not dictate airline charges behind closed doors. I hope that, when the Commission reviews the directive, it will look carefully at whether regional airports like Newcastle are suffering from market distortion.
Emanuel Jardim Fernandes
(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by congratulating Mr Stockmann on his openness and readiness to compromise during the preparation of this excellent report, which will directly apply to airports with over five million passengers and, in particular, to the airports of Faro and Lisbon in my country.
This proposal must be adopted by this Parliament and by the Council because it guarantees non-discrimination in airport charges, except where necessary and compatible with the Treaty. A compulsory procedure for consultation between airport managing bodies and airport users should be put in place. Any differences in charges will be transparent and based on clear criteria. Airports will levy the same charge for the same service, although discounts may be granted to airport users based on the quality of a service used, provided that all airport users can benefit from this discount under public, transparent and objective conditions. Discounts may also be granted to users who open new routes in accordance with competition law. A national independent supervisory authority should be established which will intervene in the event of disagreement over a charging decision. Incentives should be permitted for the launch of new routes linking the least-favoured and outermost regions. Finally, Member States should be able to authorise the managing body responsible for an airport network to introduce a charging system common to this network.
Madam President, with this new directive, future airport charges levied at our airports, and even in outermost regions such as the one that I come from, will guarantee universal access for all to air transport. This is particularly important in a region such as mine where air transport is the only way of arriving or departing. That is why I hope that this proposal will be adopted tomorrow and that the Commission and the Council will duly accept it.
Robert Evans
Madam President, I echo the thanks of my colleagues to Mr Stockman for what I think he described as a workable compromise in the interests of 69 European airports.
I also share the words of Mr Becsey, and indeed of my colleague Brian Simpson, about fair and transparent competition. I am happy that this report, as it is presented now, is a good deal, not just for London's three airports of Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, but for the airports of the rest of Europe, whether it is Mr Zīle's Latvia, Mrs Ţicău's Romania, or Portugal, and indeed for the Commissioners - Italian airports, and I believe there are airports in Germany as well, although not many people go to them.
But I think, also, it is a good deal for Europe's passengers and, of course, airports are nothing without the citizens, the passengers. They are our priority, as - equally - is the environment, which I think is addressed by this report.
Mr Batten, my London colleague, in what could best be described as his hit-and-run contribution (because he has gone away), suggested that there were going to be new bodies set up and all sorts of other scaremongering. But those bodies - the Civil Aviation Authority - exist already. So I think that is a misunderstanding on his part - to be polite to him.
And, to Fiona Hall, I am not sure that Newcastle is in direct competition with London. There is a good distance between the two of them, and anybody who chooses to go into London rather than Newcastle has still got a tremendous distance to go. So I think you are not comparing like with like there.
I think that this is a good, workable compromise. I think all the original concerns that we wanted to address have been covered and, as a package, it does provide the balance - in the interests of airlines and in the interests of passengers - that we were looking for, whilst allowing the airports sufficient freedom to operate in a competitive environment.
I live in hope that, as a result of this, we might one day - you never know, colleagues, you never know - we might just get a decent service into Strasbourg. It is a long shot, but you never know - and it is worth working for.
Bogusław Liberadzki
(PL) Madam President, I would like to start by voicing my thanks to Ulrich Stockmann, our rapporteur. He has got through a great deal of work, starting with the draft directive, which he approached in an innovative way, as he wanted to properly prepare the report in collaboration with the Commission and the Council, in which he was successful. Above all, I would like to emphasise his initiative in refining the definition of airport charges, and secondly the airports we are covering, and the service levels of airports and their correlation with the obligations of airport operators. Of equal importance, especially for the new Member States, is the funding of new infrastructure projects. We are delivering a draft directive which, from the passenger's viewpoint, will allow those of us in Europe who use, run or pay for services to know how much we will have to pay, why, and where the money is going. This is a major step towards creating a real European system and European airlines network. I thank you for this, and deeply believe that this draft directive will serve civil aviation well.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Smoothly functioning airport services are important to the functioning of the internal market of the European Union. Both passengers and airline companies criticise the lack of transparency and sometimes also the excessively high airport taxes which add to the cost of travel to an unjustifiable extent. We are finally responding to this with the passing of this directive at its second reading. The regulations will oblige airports with more than five million passengers to make their fees transparent and to justify their costs. It will also simplify disputes between airport users and airport operators. I firmly believe that this will lead to a reduction in charges and that it will improve the competitive environment. I am delighted that the Council has also recognised the opening up of the bidding process, which will contribute to the opening of new routes to disadvantaged and more out-of-the-way destinations, and that it has been possible to arrive at a common definition for the networks of airports which will be operated by the same management bodies. I congratulate the rapporteurs on these results.
Mieczysław Edmund Janowski
(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Stockmann deserves our gratitude. This is indeed a good compromise. I congratulate him.
Today we are finalising work on airport charges. In short, in two years' time, we will have a consolidated system for levying these charges throughout the European Union. It will affect airports with more than five million passenger movements per annum, and the largest airports in a particular country. They may still be debatable, but I believe the figures are good. As far as I am aware, this will affect some 80 airports in the European Union.
A particular virtue of the regulations adopted are their transparency, which will help the supervisory authorities. Airports in unfavourable regions will be able to apply the relevant preferences. It also considered the environmental aspects and the situation of disabled people. I hope that the directive will provide not only fair competition at airports, but also result in increased passenger safety, and protect passengers from excessive take-off or landing fees.
Antonio Tajani
Madam President, I think the debate has shown that Parliament and the Commission have done a good job, and the praise directed at Mr Stockmann serves only to confirm that he has taken the right course. I would like to thank him publicly once again for his work and cooperation with the Commission in finding a successful compromise solution which, as far as I can see, has been appreciated by all those who have taken the floor.
I believe that the proposal for a directive that we are examining, and which I hope can be adopted by this House, as Mrs Ayala Sender said, is non other than a step towards achieving the single sky, a goal that, in my view, the Commission, with Parliament's support and then with the backing of the Council, must be pursued in order to send out a strong message before the end of this parliamentary term. I endorse all the choices and judgments made on the establishment of the independent authority, which already exists in many countries of the Union. I think that we should pursue this; it is a positive choice we have made together.
Before I conclude, I would again like to thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate, and to answer the question asked by Mr Jarzembowski. There are seven regional airports being considered. The proceedings, lasting 18 months, were opened in July 2007. I therefore do not expect the results to arrive before the end of this year or the beginning of next year.
Naturally, the results will be made public, but it would be unfair and improper of me to make any comment before the work is completed. However, as soon as it is, and as soon as the Commission has made a decision, Parliament will be informed and then Mr Jarzembowski will have a full answer, in addition to the information I have been able to give, relating to the Commission's proposals for the seven - I would emphasise this, the seven - cases being examined.
Ulrich Stockmann
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, I should like once again to thank all my fellow Members for their truly constructive cooperation and for our exciting discussions. I am counting on a great deal of support tomorrow. It is late and enough words have been exchanged. Let actions follow tomorrow. I would be delighted if we could complete the legislative procedure at second reading.
(Applause)
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday 23 October.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Corina Creţu
in writing. - (RO) A European framework for regulating airport charges is of major importance in terms of reducing the cost for people travelling within the European Union and therefore, of increasing workers' mobility, especially those who are highly qualified.
Worker mobility is actually a key element in an effective labour market, in the context set out in the relevant chapter of the Lisbon Strategy, aimed at economic growth and increasing the number of jobs. Furthermore, facilitating the movements of highly qualified workers would lead to an increase in information flow and in useful knowledge in the production areas with high added value, in keeping with the aim of the Lisbon Strategy to transform the European economy into the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.
Christine De Veyrac
Ladies and gentlemen, a compromise has been reached between the Council and our institution, thus making it possible to conclude this matter at second reading.
I am delighted with this agreement, which should in particular prevent abuses of a dominant position and facilitate the balanced development of the European airport sector.
This directive on airport charges is a real step forward: by making relations between airports and airlines more transparent, it will enable what are often opaque and conflictual relationships to be enhanced and improved.
Moreover, the introduction of an independent authority is going to make it possible to resolve any conflicts between the partners objectively.
The beneficiaries of these new rules should, ultimately, be air transport users, and I am delighted about that.
Thank you for your attention.


Toy Safety (debate)
President
The next item is the Commission statement on toy safety.
Meglena Kuneva
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank Parliament for its continued interest in product safety issues, and for this opportunity to give you a short presentation on the first results of the product safety stocktaking, released on 22 November 2007. I attended the IMCO Committee meeting on 26 November and I am now pleased to address the European Parliament meeting in plenary.
My three starting points and principles are still valid and can be confirmed: there can be no compromise on consumer safety; we believe in open markets and fair competition; and we want to work in international partnership with the Chinese and the Americans.
These stocktaking results indicate that the regulatory framework is fit for the purpose, if and when it is properly applied. In particular, the rapid alert system RAPEX is working efficiently and ensuring that dangerous products are recalled from the market throughout the European Union.
The stocktaking report nonetheless identifies certain scope for improvements, in preventive actions and international cooperation as well as in enhanced enforcement.
Some envisaged improvements are already at an advanced stage towards becoming concrete actions, as is notably the case of the revision of the Toy Safety Directive.
I intend to propose to my colleagues in the Commission that we adopt a temporary measure to require that warnings be given on magnetic toys, pending revision of the standard, to address the risks that these toys could pose. We have this right under Article 13 of the General Product Safety Directive. I hope that this measure will become effective soon, but I am also aware that it is just a partial stop-gap solution until the relevant standard addresses the risk associated with magnets comprehensively.
The Commission is assisting the Member States' market surveillance authorities to identify and share best practices with a view to improved market surveillance. In October 2007, Member States reported on initiatives for better cooperation with economic operators and on specific surveillance campaigns on toys. The Commission intends to publish comparative enforcement capacity data on the Consumer Scoreboard in the first quarter of 2008.
The Commission also continues concretely to reinforce the market surveillance capacity of the Member States by participating in the financing of well-designed joint market surveillance projects (which in 2007 will receive EUR 1.3 million in Community funding).
The protection of consumers against dangerous products requires a consistent level of protection not only within the Community, but also at the EU external borders. In addition to actions to improve protection within the European Union, various actions are under way to strengthen protection at borders. Recent major changes to EU customs legislation will help in identifying high-risk consignments for control. Secure customs exchange mechanisms will also enable rapid action to be taken when information becomes available on new types of dangerous products.
Cooperation between these two networks, in practical terms, is being stepped up through regular exchanges of alerts between the RAPEX system and the customs authorities' 'risk information form' system. The latter draws border inspectors' attention to specific, potentially dangerous, cargo.
The Commission has highlighted traceability, which is a very important area for further improvement. Statistics show that products of unknown origin notified through RAPEX were down for the first time in October 2007, standing at 3% as compared to 17% in 2006. The Commission is currently assessing, with the help of the Member States, how to ensure that this improvement is not just temporary.
The Commission has already included, in the 'internal market for goods' legislation package, a provision requiring economic operators to have available the identity of their supplier, which should be helpful for market surveillance interventions once this legislation enters into force.
The Commission has also asked what China could do about traceability, and welcomes the initiatives in China to require the bar-coding, at factory level, of certain categories of high-risk product.
The Commission also consistently highlights the responsibility of economic operators for product safety. I welcome the commitment from the industry to work on measures to build consumer confidence. We have agreed on what I call a 'safety pact'. I will also send experts to carry out a study of business safety measures in the supply chain, and report further on this in the first quarter of 2008, because in the era of globalisation we are only as strong as the weakest part of our chain.
I also find it important to communicate with the citizens of Europe on product safety issues, and to listen to their concerns. This is essential because both you and I want to respond ever better to their queries and needs. I found my recent web chat under the topic 'Have a Safe Christmas' (which I very much enjoyed) most enlightening and engaging, and answered nearly 50 interesting questions.
Finally, our product safety concerns were communicated to the Chinese leaders at the EU-China Summit on 28 November 2007. The leaders on both sides shared the view that a high level of product safety is key to consumer confidence and reciprocal trade. To this end, the competent authorities have established a comprehensive cooperative relationship. Both sides are willing to continue and deepen the dialogue, regularly exchange information and aim at measurable, continuous improvements.
Likewise, the Commission has agreed with the United States Government, in the context of the Trans-Atlantic Economic Council, to enhance our cooperation on import safety issues.
I believe this report to you has shown that I and all my colleagues in the Commission have taken the necessary steps to enhance consumer product safety, in association with all the relevant actors, in the most effective, proportionate and committed manner.
I would like once again to thank Parliament for our many inspiring debates on this issue.
Marianne Thyssen
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is no coincidence, of course, that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has called for this topical and urgent debate just before Christmas, particularly as this issue was discussed back in September, surprising as it may be. The PPE-DE Group also wants this debate to send out a clear political signal and has a political objective in mind. We want to go all out for a high level of consumer protection, and want attention to the smallest, most vulnerable consumers - children - to remain high on the agenda.
Commissioner, I welcome your statements here. We note that you have already done a particularly large amount of work in the Commission, and we should of course like to see Member States, too, being inspired to take on their share of the work. After all, they, too, must continue to be committed to tightening up supervision of their toys markets. We also know, Commissioner, that you personally have spared no effort when it comes to consumer protection. We particularly value these efforts, and also agree with you that, when it comes to toy safety, we should not be devising the umpteenth new approach, but rather closing the gaps in the existing system.
There are a couple of points on which I should like further clarification: you have said - and you also referred to it just now - that the Chinese authorities are particularly hard at work too. Some time ago, you announced that they were going to set up a kind of Chinese RAPEX system. Perhaps you could elucidate this further.
Secondly, I also wonder whether any specific agreements have actually been made with the toy industry, or whether each Member State has its own way of doing things? I should also have liked to hear how it is that we are still awaiting the new Toys Directive, or the Commission proposal for amendment of the existing Toys Directive. We had expected this round about now. There has obviously been a delay. Perhaps you could explain the reason for this? In addition, you are absolutely right: the internal market is also there for consumers. If consumers have no confidence in it, they will not make sufficient use of it. This is a most particularly important dossier.
Evelyne Gebhardt
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, many thanks for the briefing you have given us today once again on the progress of discussions.
We have definitely made progress already, but this is still not enough for me, of course. Various matters still lie ahead of us. One of them we have already repeatedly discussed: the European Union must carry out the preliminary work itself. I am also rather sorry about the fact that the amendment of the Toy Directive has still not been tabled. When I heard we would be getting an amendment in December, I assumed that it would be in December 2007, not December 2008. We are now in December and we know we shall not have it. I hope it will be available not in December 2008, but by this January at the latest, because it is urgent.
The second matter, Commissioner, is that the Member States also have to fulfil their obligations. They must make much more efficient and more consistent use of RAPEX. That is one thing. They must also, however, take market monitoring, for which they are responsible, much more seriously. We also have to move matters further forward here so that we can also actually achieve the necessary security.
It is not just governments or their agencies that are being interrogated in this regard, however; toy manufacturers are being interrogated too. They themselves also have to ensure that the quality of their products is appropriate. They cannot continue simply shifting responsibility on to others. We cannot let them go to China and say: yes, we want toys, but they must not cost more than so much. This will be at the expense of quality, which they must know. We must not let manufacturers off the hook, but must demand that they do this, too. As we have said, however, supervision is even better and this is what we have to achieve.
I hope that you will manage to move this forward in real terms in the safety package you have been addressing.
Marios Matsakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, for some families, this Christmas will be a period of tragedy - tragedy because of the loss of a child. What makes such tragedy even more painful is that (a) it could have easily been prevented and (b) that it was caused by a gift of love - a joy that turned into a murder weapon. Yes, a murder weapon. Because those that produce unsafe toys know full well that those toys can and eventually, perhaps, will kill a child. Therefore putting such a deadly toy on the market constitutes, in my view, the committing of murder and consequently those that through their omissions fail to prevent such a crime from taking place are accomplices to the act.
Madam Commissioner, we all know who are the culprits that, in this respect, kill or injure our children. They are the cheap Chinese toy manufacturers. And what protection have you to offer our citizens? Not enough, I am sorry to say. You are happy, it seems, that in 43% of cases reported in the latest RAPEX-China report corrective action was taken, but, Madam Commissioner, how about the 57% of cases where no corrective action was taken? And how about those potentially dangerous toys which were not reported at all?
You have said that 'in this world you cannot given 100% guarantees' but 'you can make sure the system is fit for purpose'. What purpose, Madam Commissioner? The purpose of cutting safety corners in order not to upset the Chinese Government?
There is only one way of dealing with this problem, Madam Commissioner: ban all imports of Chinese toys till the Chinese Government can give a 100% guarantee that no dangerous toys will be sold in Europe. Only then will you be fulfilling your most important function of truly protecting our children from death caused by Chinese toys. And remember, Madam Commissioner, mere progress from China is not enough, because even one child's death is one too many.
President
Mr Matsakis, I apologise for announcing that you had one minute's speaking time. It was our mistake and you did, indeed, have two minutes. I always give extra time to people who speak in a language other than their own. Your English is wonderful!
Roberta Angelilli
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there can be no concessions on toy safety and the mass withdrawal from the market of toys from China has put consumer safety back at the centre of the debate, particularly the safety of our smallest consumers, who often do not have the voice or the strength to defend themselves.
There is, in fact, a very profitable market in products that are a health hazard, a market that makes staggering amounts of money each year and that finds endless routes and subterfuges for legalising what is in reality illegal and harmful. For this very reason, we welcome the Commission's proposals to strengthen the application of checks on the safety of products, especially toys.
In particular, we believe cooperation with China and the United States is of fundamental importance in blocking the flow of dangerous products heading for the European market. A number of actions, such as an overall examination of safety measures and the safety pact between producers and importers, must be prioritised in order to restore consumer confidence.
As regards the Member States, it is fundamentally important to improve cooperation between customs and the authorities responsible for controlling the markets. A revision of the toy safety directive is essential, so that there are definite rules for planning adequate checks at the production and customs stages.
I will finish, however, by saying that China absolutely must play its part and the Commission must demand that it does so. China must give guarantees, and must engage in a hard and uncompromising fight against illegal practices, otherwise the European Union will have to take serious measures and close the door on counterfeiting and unfair and unlawful competition.
Hiltrud Breyer
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, this debate criss-crosses the Directives. Commissioner, you are confusing the Product Safety Directive with the Toy Safety Directive! We do in fact have an implementation problem with the Product Directive, whereas we have a legislative deficit with the Toy Safety Directive. Greater supervision does not help us here because we have safety loopholes, namely that dangerous chemicals, for example, are not banned.
Two months ago Commissioner Verheugen guaranteed that the Toy Safety Directive would be presented this month. He said that toys containing lead should not be entering the European market. In the first case there is no sign of the review of the Toy Safety Directive.
In the second case, Commissioner Verheugen has admitted to me in writing that he was wrong when he said that toys containing lead were banned in Europe. This is not right either. You are confusing the Product Safety Directive and the Toy Safety Directive. It is therefore very odd when you say we need a bar code for particularly dangerous products. Hopefully you do not mean that for toys! Dangerous products have lost nothing in children's hands!
We need the principle of prevention. Nor are there any warning messages here about magnets. What about warnings on toys that contain carcinogenic substances? In Europe we have polyaromatic hydrocarbons. We shall be banning them in car tyres, but they are permitted in toys even though these are carcinogenic substances. This debate is absurd because you are criss-crossing both Directives.
Please concentrate in your second answer on the Toy Safety Directive and answer the questions on when this Directive is finally to be submitted and when - as we proposed in our resolution - the legal loopholes are to be filled, and please do not continue to mix them both up. Supervision is good; laws are better.
Eva-Britt Svensson
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (SV) Mr President, it is of course entirely unacceptable that children should be exposed to toys which pose risks to their health. Pretty well all of us think that we can buy CE-labelled toys in the EU with peace of mind. Anything else is unthinkable. But in reality we involuntarily buy toys which contain carcinogens and lead. It beggars belief that these substances are used in toys, which children often stuff into their mouths! The safety of children demands immediate action by the Commission. The profit interests of manufacturers, suppliers and importers must never take precedence over children's health. A single dangerous toy is one too many.
Malcolm Harbour
Mr President, I wish to thank Commissioner Kuneva for coming to the Chamber today, at our suggestion, and congratulate her for being very positive and strong in the action that she has taken. Since we had the original debates back in September, she has been to China. We have seen the results of that. She has also been absolutely clear in stating that 'there can be no compromise on consumer safety'. We all firmly believe that to be the case.
Turning to the practical aspects, a number of colleagues have already made the point that this an extremely complex issue in which many players are involved. I therefore welcome Commissioner Kuneva's reassurance that she will be working with the Member States to reinforce their capacity to inspect, to test and also to stop dangerous consignments, which can be properly identified because flows of information have been established. Let us be realistic. We are dealing with a very large number of manufacturers and a very large number of products.
However, one of the last things we want to do is to demonise those toy manufacturers who are already doing an outstanding job and producing attractive, well-designed, good-value toys that are valued by consumers and their children across the European Union and which, as we all know, are very important in children's development. It is entirely wrong to single out the Chinese, as our colleague from Cyprus did in what was a very emotional and illiberal speech. There are many other countries that are sourcing products. The most important thing is to ensure quality of design from the outset, and that the engineers responsible work with their suppliers to see that all the controls are in place. Believe me, there are many companies producing toys in China to outstanding quality standards. We want everyone to do that and we want that to happen now. This is because the key decisions being made now, before Christmas this year, concern the toys that will be in the hands of children next Christmas. That is what we are talking about, that is why we are working ahead and that is why it was very important that the Commissioner was here tonight.
Arlene McCarthy
Mr President, the objective of tonight's debate and the Commissioner's statement must, of course, be to send a very strong signal to consumers and to China - and those who supply toys from other third countries - that we are determined to rid our markets of toxic toys. We have seen that numerous toy recalls in the run-up to Christmas mean that we have to keep up pressure for action. And I want to add, Commissioner, that in recent raids in my own region - in Manchester - over 20 000 illegal and counterfeit toys were seized, with a value of EUR 150 000. They were clearly destined to fill the gaps as a result of the toy recalls.
Therefore, we need the legitimate toy suppliers and manufacturers to meet the highest safety standards if children are not to be put at risk by dangerous counterfeit toys. So, let me be clear, as chair of Parliament's Consumer Protection Committee, what we are calling for you to do with our support, Commissioner. We want an urgent review of Europe's toy safety laws, to tackle the problems of new problems from third countries, Chinese imports and, of course, new and dangerous toy designs, such as magnets, which have emerged since the original directive of 1995. It is out of date, and it does need to be reviewed. We need to fill that law with stronger, intelligence-led enforcement and surveillance, to make sure we crack down on poor producers.
Commissioner, I personally give you my support, and I will continue to do that, to go as far as banning dangerous toy imports from China if necessary. But it has to be said that your action has got results; we have now seen 93 bans from China itself and, since July, 184 more investigations, which means that we are seeing less dangerous toys leaving China's borders. We need to step up that action and give you support; but importers, too, must bear the responsibility for the import of dangerous toy products, and I therefore welcome the supply chain review to close the gaps left by manufacturers.
Commissioner, we are not prepared to make any compromises on toy safety; warnings may not be enough. We can see, for example in the US, that we have bans for under-threes on some toys and we have warnings for over-six-year-olds; they complain that they are importing our dangerous toys from the European market, so perhaps we need to follow the US model in this area. So let us get swift and effective measures to restore the confidence of our consumers in the toy market. I pledge, Commissioner, that my committee will work with you to achieve that.
Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk
(PL) Mr President, in speaking in the debate on toy safety, I wish to draw attention to several more general matters.
Firstly, the liberalisation of trade carried out under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation, making the European market increasingly accessible, is not only bringing benefits to consumers in the form of lower prices for many goods, but is also bringing dangers, and an eloquent example of this is the matter of dangerous toys that we are discussing today.
Secondly, South-East Asian countries are competitive in the European market because they do not cover the full costs of manufacturing the products. They often fail to bear environmental protection costs, costs linked to observing employee rights or costs linked to the safety of goods, to name but a few.
Thirdly, it is therefore necessary for consumer and competition protection institutions in EU countries to make use of the instruments they have available to them to react more rapidly and effectively to such situations and eliminate from the market not only hazardous products, but also their manufacturers or importers.
Fourthly, and finally, the European Union, in ongoing negotiations under WTO auspices concerning expansion of access to the European market, must demand of third countries that they observe the rules of fair competition, and particularly the inclusion in product prices of the full costs of manufacture, counted using European standards.
Heide Rühle
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I have already stated in committee that we appreciate your efforts and that we thank you for those efforts.
Nevertheless, some of these things highlight where something is in a bad state. If you want to provide warnings about magnets, for example, this just shows that the Toy Safety Directive is not adequate. The Toy Safety Directive is unfortunately based on the new approach. The new approach implies that the equivalent standardisation committees are active. Unfortunately, the standardisation committees have not been active regarding magnets, just as they have not been active as regards carcinogenic substances. Only three carcinogenic substances are currently banned; the rest are not. We must check as a matter of urgency when we are revising the Toy Safety Directive whether this new approach really is the right way or whether it is not considerably more important for European legislators to lay down standards right now in the toy sector, because toys appeal mainly to children and children must be given special protection. I appeal to you to check once again whether the new approach really is the right way here or whether we in fact need a different approach when revising the Toy Safety Directive.
I should also like to point out that we have underlined the responsibility of importers when revising the product package. These importers must take their responsibilities seriously. I hope that you and the Commission will also be supporting this in the trialogue. Importers must be held responsible in the same way as manufacturers.
One final point: the Member States. Here it can be shown that the Product Safety Directive has simply been too weak. The Member States must be forced to monitor it and they must also be forced to actually phase out certain products. Unfortunately, not all of them have actually been phased out.
Iliana Malinova Iotova
(BG) Mme Commissioner, There are several reasons for my question today. The firt one is your answer during the discussion on this issue at IMCO Committee, which was too general, in my opinion. The second one is the question in writing which I have already asked and I hope to receive an answer together with the other answers today. And the third reason is the following: I would like to specially draw your attention to the Christensen Report adopted in 2005 on the integration of the new Member States in the consumer protection system supplementing the internal market regime in the European Community. The report contains recommendations to the European Commission to draw special attention to the new Member States, which includes also my country.
I would like to express my personal opionion that, notwithstanding the efforts made by the Commission in this sphere, only three percent of the Bulgarian citizens feel protected as consumers. Therefore my specific question goes as follows: what has the European Commission done to guarantee the safety of the Chinese toys distributed during the Christmas and New Year holidays on the markets of the new Member States, given their relatively weaker consumer protection system?
Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, without being dramatic, we are dealing with a problem that affects the whole of the Union. To give just one example: every day 40 000 goods containers enter Spain; many thousands of those containers carry toys.
We wonder whether the authorised economic operator system, which will be introduced from 1 January 2008, will really facilitate effective measures to tackle the commercial actions that endanger children's health, and which have been condemned so many times.
In its resolution of 26 September on the safety of products and especially toys, the European Parliament urged the Commission and the Member States to take measures to ensure that consumer goods sold do not pose a risk to health.
It is time to speed up the adoption of the necessary measures in order to implement the European Parliament resolution. We need to improve the control and monitoring of the markets that we have mentioned. At a time of globalisation, toys are not just another type of goods. Without controls, we will see repeats of the incidents that have been repeatedly reported; time and time again there is a relapse into commercial dumping, as well as a possibility of seriously affecting the health of consumers, especially children.
Meglena Kuneva
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me start by responding to Ms Thyssen on what we are doing to enhance our positive influence on the Chinese market. If we are to achieve success, Europe should develop its role as a standard-bearer, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. RAPEX-China gives the Chinese authorities access to details of risks found in Chinese products sold in Europe, and this is a very valuable source of information for them.
China is currently setting up its own national rapid-warning system, copying the European one. This really represents a great success for product safety at world level. It ensures that information is spread swiftly to local offices for action, and this should start by the end of the year. If this continues to develop as envisaged, Europe will be able to congratulate itself, by the end of the year, on a major success, as it has established the pattern for the Chinese authorities.
I would like also to highlight that next year will be a very intensive one for me in respect of elaborating a new memorandum of understanding with China, owing to the fact that the current memorandum, which has been in effect since 2006, will expire at the beginning of 2009. This will be a matter for very concrete work by the Commission.
Many of you have referred to the Toys Directive. I cannot comment on something which comes under the responsibility of Vice-President Verheugen, as the Toys Directive is part of his portfolio, although we enjoy excellent cooperation. However, you should be aware that a revision of the Toys Directive is in the pipeline and will be presented very soon. Before my meeting with you, I checked with the services of Commissioner Verheugen, and with him in person, and know that this directive will soon be discussed by the Commission. I am sure that his services are working flat out.
There is no mixing of our two approaches - the industry approach, which includes the Toys Directive and the approach on which I base my activities, which includes a general product safety directive. I can assure you that the distinction within the Commission is really very clear.
That is exactly what we are trying to do through the new approach - to keep these two sets of checks parallel to each other. One set concerns requirements on toys as industrial goods, and the other one, over and above those efforts, concerns checks at any given point on how safe the toys are for our children. One good example is the magnets used in toys. These now come under the General Product Safety Directive, and we are able to carry out checks, ban dangerous products and ask for a new standard, with the toys in the mean time being covered by a warning, and then we will come up with a proposal. There will most probably be standardisation, and a ban on certain uses for magnets. This approach is based precisely on filling the gap on safety, through a true General Product Safety Directive. This is an excellent example of why we need to keep the two approaches together.
I started to respond to Ms Rühle concerning magnets. The College will consider my proposal to adopt a targeted measure to require specific warnings on magnetic toys, and this would fill the gap until the relevant standards properly address this risk. As you know, this process is a little long, but that is not up to the Commission. This is legislation which we are simply executing concerning the way we implement on our standards.
I would like to dwell for a second on the opinion expressed by Mr Matsakis. My line is quite simple, because I believe that Mr Harbour answered in a very consistent manner. I do not think that dangerous toys have a passport, and we should address the danger from wherever the danger comes. Let me just remind you that although 50% of the dangerous toys in Europe come from China, I am surprised that we have not discussed at all where the other 50% comes from. I have to tell you that 30% of dangerous toys come precisely from Europe. That is why I really insist on safety, regardless of passports. We must consider again how important confidence is to our markets. I am not going to outsource that responsibility.
Article 1 of the General Product Safety Directive states that all producers should only produce safe goods, and that whoever places a good on the market for the first time - be it the importer, the retailer or the producer - should check the safety of toys, for which he is liable.
With reference to Ms Iotova, I would like to answer in Bulgarian because it was in that language that she put her question.
(BG) My answer was very specific according to the standards of the Commission. What we have done over the last year is intended to improve legislation. Yes, part of this legislation relates to industrial goods and it is within the portfolio of another Commissioner but we work together on a number of issues. Some of the questions asked relate also to the REACH Directive that is not in my portfolio either but, again, we are doing what is necessary to ensure the safety on the basis of the existing legislation.
Many meetings have been held with all stakeholders in the process - manufacturers, competent national authorities, retailers, and numerous non-governmental organisations.
Besides, I would like to tell you that we make no judgments and do not divide countries into old and new Member States. The safety of goods is equally important for new and old members alike. I would like to reassure you that there are some old Member States, prior to the accession of the twelve new countries, which have their serious problems and I have no intention to abandon them. Of course, the responsibility of the Commission with regard to the implementation of the legislation, especially in the new Member States, is something which, undoubtedly, stands very close to my heart. Therefore what I am doing in the new Member States is talk more to the authorities, insist more on a national budget for the development of market surveillance authorities.
I can tell you, Mme Iotova, that the Bulgarian market has 180 inspectors. Yeasterday, actually it was earlier this morning, I had further talks with all participants in the safety chain and we concluded "the Christmas Pact", involving manufacturers at the European level, as well as traders and government authorities in Bulgaria. After the insistent talks I had with the Ministry of the Economy in Bulgaria, inspections increased four times. Therefore I shall continue to work along these lines and, as I had the pleasure of doing it last time, I would like to renew my invitation from this plenary hall to do it together. I am confident that we shall be more successful in this way.
I would like to end where I started, which is to say that all our actions should be proportional and based on solidarity and subsidiarity, which will give us additional strength to tackle this very important problem.
I have listened carefully to all of you, to your kind words and to your calls to step up our work. If at any point there are specific cases which you would like to discuss with me, I would be more than happy to continue doing this.
President
I should like to thank the Commissioner and all colleagues who spoke in that debate.
I wish to make one little observation: some years ago my elder daughter was given a present of a rubber doll made in China. The head came off and inside was a little rubber knob to put the head on, and whoever made this toy had put a little face on it; but it was not a smiley face, it was a very sad face, and whoever did this was trying to get some sort of message out about the conditions in which they working. So I am glad to have this opportunity of making it public tonight.
The debate is closed.


2. Women's rights in Saudi Arabia
President
The next item is the six motions for a resolution on the rights of women in Saudi Arabia.
Adam Bielan
author. - (PL) Madam President, referring again to the October 2006 incident, while at the same time bearing in mind the lack of legal protection for women in Saudi Arabia, but above all on the basis of facts that have again been demonstrated by expressions of social condemnation of the voice of rape victims attempting to bring about a public debate on this subject, I call on the Saudi Arabian authorities to cease this type of practice forthwith.
Madam President, I would like to stress that the European Union should not remain silent in the face of the scandalous violation of the rights and personal liberties of women in third countries. A state responsible for protecting its citizens may not resort to breaches of principles of the rule of law under the pretext of standing guard over maintenance of the principle of independence of the courts, as happened in the case of the sentence passed on the woman from Qatif. I am therefore calling for a redoubling of efforts on the part of the government of Saudi Arabia in the matter of observing women's basic rights.
Eva-Britt Svensson
author. - (SV) Madam President, I have to say that it is immensely sad that abuse of and violence against women never seem to cease. This applies to both this Resolution and the next one. I want to thank all who have helped to bring this Resolution into being. It is almost inconceivable that women in Saudi Arabia are, in 2007, still deprived of all human rights.
It is apparently not enough that women have to be subjected to degrading and scandalous gang rapes. They also have to be punished by the authorities, while the perpetrators go free. I think that all of us, both women and men, must do all we can in the name of solidarity to ensure that human rights apply to women in Saudi Arabia too. We call on the Commission and the Council and of course all the Member States to raise these matters in contacts of all kinds with Saudi Arabia.
We have a multitude of international conventions and we have had pronouncements from the EU in many contexts. Sometimes it is frustrating that we talk and talk and this violence just goes on and on. Thanks to everyone who took the initiative and helped in the work on this Resolution.
Charles Tannock
author. - Madam President, recently King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was afforded a controversial state visit to the United Kingdom. Our Deputy Foreign Minister praised the shared values of the UK and Saudi Arabia. I found this sycophancy absurd, as my values of democracy, human rights and gender equality are alien to Saudi tradition.
Of course, the EU's relationship with the House of Saud is based on regional stability and on important commercial ties, in particular oil and arms trading. In fact, the relationship is so important that a three-year UK inquiry into alleged bribes paid to Saudi ministers by an arms contractor was killed by orders of Prime Minister Tony Blair on the grounds of national security.
Worryingly, Saudi Arabia's brand of fundamentalism, Wahabi Islam, is being exported globally. In London - my constituency - textbooks at a Saudi-funded school were found to contain hate-filled passages about Christians and Jews.
This case of the Qatif gang-raped woman sentenced to 200 lashings has horrified the world. Parliament's joint motion for a resolution expresses revulsion and repudiation of the Kingdom's values. Twenty years ago a British TV documentary similarly recounted a story of a Saudi princess who was publicly executed for adultery.
The EU and Saudi Arabia have shared vital foreign policy interests, such as supporting the Middle Eastern peace process, encouraging the Saudis as Sunni Muslims to contain expansionist Shia Iran and supporting the Saudi fight against al-Qa'ida, many of whose adherents, unfortunately, come from Saudi Arabia originally.
But we also need to hold the Saudis to their UN Convention obligations to remove discrimination against women, who cannot even drive a car or vote in their limited local elections. But let us not kid ourselves that we share values with this fundamentalist and medieval regime.
Marios Matsakis
author. - Madam President, I will speak in a personal capacity on this matter. Saudi Arabia is governed by a ruthless dictatorship which is, to a large extent, shamefully legitimised in most of the Western world, including many EU countries, because Saudi Arabia is immensely rich in petrol dollars, some of which it uses in Western states in order to bribe them into pretending not to see, not to hear and not to understand what is going on in that country.
But even schoolchildren know that the comical rulers of Saudi Arabia, consisting mostly of the family of one man, His Most Royal Excellency godlike King Abdullah, are imposing on their people a brutal repression. One obvious example is that they treat women as slaves or as pieces of domestic furniture yet, as mentioned just now by Mr Tannock, Mr Abdullah and his six plane-loads of entourage were given a lavishly glorious state welcome in the UK and the Vatican only a few weeks ago. And not a single word about human rights managed to escape through the honourable lips of the Queen of England, or the UK Prime Minister, or the Pope. So much for hypocrisy and double standards, one might be tempted to say.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
author. - (ES) Madam President, back in 2005 we had the opportunity to talk about the situation of women in Saudi Arabia, and in that context we did so in relation to the municipal elections and the fact that women were unable to vote.
As well as this discrimination in terms of political rights, however, there are many other types of discrimination that have been reported in various media, recently and continuously, which motivated this second resolution that we are debating today.
The trigger was certainly the incomprehensible sentence passed against a women, known as 'the Qatif woman', who was sentenced to 200 lashes for having been found in a car talking to a man who was not part of her family. Not only are the alleged crime, and hence the sentence, unacceptable, but they are also aggravated by the fact that the convicted woman was unable to receive adequate legal advice.
Unfortunately this is not the only case in which one can deplore clearly discriminatory sentences for crimes and the failure to defend women in the legal system. This is, unfortunately, more the norm than the exception. How can a system be considered fair, for example, when it finds the victim of a rape guilty of that atrocity?
Structural change is needed in Saudi Arabia, and the European Union needs to help those who are working both outside and within the country to achieve this. There are no relativisms here that carry weight. Human rights, which include women's rights, are and need to be universal and defended in any context.
I therefore join in the request made by Mrs Svensson, and I ask the Commission and the Council once again to take any opportunity they can to ask the Saudi authorities to make the appropriate structural and institutional changes, in order to eliminate any form of discrimination against women, including recognising all their rights, in both private and public life, and more specifically, in the political, legal and judicial spheres.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
author. - (PL) Madam President, Saudi Arabia is a country in which the law is put into effect according to Wahabi principles, this being the most radical Sunni trend in Islam. Political, social and religious freedom is significantly restricted, and punishments by flogging, the amputation of hands or feet or the death penalty are meted out on a daily basis.
In a country that has been called 'a human rights desert' by Human Rights Watch, it is mainly women who fall victim to numerous forms of discrimination in private and public life. The identity of women was only formally recognised in 2001, by issuing them with identity documents containing a photograph. Before that they would prove their identity using a family identity document bearing a photograph of their husband or father. Even if they can afford a car, they are not allowed to drive it. They may study, but lectures given by men are watched by female students on video. They are deprived of the right to vote, and decisions on divorce and child care are the exclusive prerogative of men.
Women are repeatedly the victims of unjust and offensive court verdicts. The instance of the girl from Qatif concerns a 19-year-old gang-rape victim who was condemned to 200 lashes and six months in prison for being alone with a strange man at the time of her abduction.
Despite having signed it, Saudi Arabia does not observe the obligations arising from the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. The authorities must start by lifting all restrictions on women where freedom of movement is concerned and take steps towards gradually increasing the involvement of women in political decision-making on an equal footing with men. Women must have general access to employment at all levels of administration and the opportunity to carry out all public functions.
The introduction of a total ban on the use of flogging and other degrading corporal punishment must also be demanded, as this is a violation of international law and the UN Convention against Torture, to which Saudi Arabia is a signatory.
Paulo Casaca
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) Madam President, I should like to add my voice to those of all the other members who have spoken and in particular to point out that we are celebrating the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All, and equal opportunities, by definition, can have no borders, and we simply cannot remain indifferent to what is happening to women in Saudi Arabia and also in the rest of the Middle East as a whole.
I should like in particular to take up a question raised by Mr Tannock concerning specifically the right to drive a car. The Committee of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars was set up in Riyadh on 27 September. On 6 November the committee commemorated the 17th anniversary of the demonstration against this ban, it has already collected a thousand signatures, and it has enormous strength. It is led by four Saudi women. I should like to call on the whole House, in particular the Presidency, to lend full support to this Saudi Arabian initiative and I should also like to remind you that, in addition to Saudi Arabia, there are at the moment even more serious situations in Iraq. I would remind you of the execution this year in Basra of 40 women for failing to respect the dress code currently being imposed in Iraq, a country where women had the vote before the women of Portugal did, and where today the most barbarous fanaticism is being introduced. We cannot remain indifferent to that situation either.
Toomas Savi
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, when addressing the issue of women's rights in Saudi Arabia, there is something that we need to keep in mind. This is that in Islamic societies there is no separation of religion and state. The state is the religion and vice versa. The lack of regard for women's rights derives from Islamic law, and by comprehending and taking into account this simple fact we might move a step closer to improving the situation.
We cannot impose our values, which have gone beyond our Judaeo-Christian traditions, but we can open a dialogue calling for mutual understanding and preparing the ground for a reform, as several conceptions that do not correspond to our worldwide view are now being disproved.
Having said that, the situation of women in Saudi Arabia is dreadful, and something needs to be done urgently. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this report unanimously.
Koenraad Dillen
(NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the discussion we are holding here today on Saudi Arabia, particularly the dreadful situation regarding women's rights, should actually be extended to cover a large part of the Islamic world. Only a few, such as the Dutch citizen Ayaan Hirsi Ali, dare come out with it. The discrimination and subjugation of women is rooted in the holy texts of Islam itself.
Discrimination against women in Saudi Arabia and almost throughout the Islamic world has its basis and justification in the Koran. This is a fundamental truth that we must dare to acknowledge in this debate. It was demonstrated just recently in Sudan, where a 54-year-old teacher was sentenced to 15 days' imprisonment for calling a teddy bear Mohammed, until being pardoned thanks to pressure from international diplomacy. In Saudi Arabia, a 20-year-old woman fell victim to gang rape but was herself convicted. It does not get any more symbolic than that.
However, Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US, of course, and can get away with that bit more. After all, like China, Saudi Arabia is a rich country and we can venture to be rather more flexible when the noble principles we have been discussing so often this week are at stake. Europe should thus also call on Washington to throw all its weight behind improving the situation in Saudi Arabia.
Günter Verheugen
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission is extremely grateful for the opportunity to be able to say something today about the situation regarding women's rights in Saudi Arabia.
The case underlying your resolution gives us cause for the greatest concern. A young woman was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months' imprisonment after being gang-raped by seven men. The EU dealt with this matter immediately. The EU Troika made representation to the Saudi Arabian Government in Riadh and expressed the EU's dismay at the verdict of the court in El Katif. The verdict is not only clearly in breach of Saudi Arabia's international obligations, particularly against the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, but also turns the principle of guilt upside down by declaring the victim to be guilty.
This case brings under the spotlight a country in which discrimination against women is unfortunately part of everyday life. The European Parliament has justifiably asked the Saudi Arabian Government on several occasions to remove the limitations on women's free movement, including the driving prohibition. This request also applies to the restrictions on women's access to employment, on their legal personality and on their representation in judicial processes. I unreservedly share Parliament's concerns about the situation of women in Saudi Arabia.
At the same time Saudi Arabia is bound as a member of the UN Human Rights Council to protect and promote human rights. Saudi Arabia is a contracting party to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Admittedly it has ratified the Convention with one reservation: in the event of a conflict between the clauses of the Convention and the standards of Islamic law, the Kingdom is not obliged thereafter to comply with any clauses of the Convention conflicting with this law. The European Union has repeatedly called on Saudi Arabia to lift its reservations on this UN Convention - particularly with regard to granting equal rights for women and men in relation to the nationality of their children - and will continue to do so.
Human rights issues such as the situation of women are regularly the subject of representations by the European Union to Saudi Arabia. The European Union is reminding Saudi Arabia of its obligations according to international human rights standards, is broaching the issue of the need to treat women and men equally and to combat violence against women and is asking Saudi Arabia to protect and promote women's rights.
Two recent changes that we have observed could - I say this very cautiously - could perhaps be a sign that Saudi Arabia is, making some progress.
The Saudi Arabian National Society for Human Rights produced its first report on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia in May of this year. Violations of the rights of women, prisoners and workers are published in this report, as are court judgments. The results and recommendations of this report should be acted on and followed up without fail by the Saudi Arabian Government
Furthermore, in October King Abdullah announced a fundamental judicial reform, reinforcing the independence of judges and simplifying fact-finding according to Sharia law supervised by the Supreme Court.
For a country like Saudi Arabia, these are encouraging steps. We should therefore not only be drawing attention to human rights violations in Saudi Arabia where necessary, but also be welcoming and supporting the reforms that have recently been discreetly emerging.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at the end of the debates.