Monitoring the application of Community law (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Frassoni, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the Commission's 23rd Annual report on monitoring the application of Community law (2005) .
Monica Frassoni
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the application of Community law is a key part of the 'better lawmaking' agenda launched by the Barroso Commission. For some time it has been a kind of Cinderella, lost amidst the fashion for impact assessments and cutting costs.
Today the Commission has started to rectify this, partly due to the pressure applied by Parliament. This is a procedure that, for years, has in many cases just been a kind of bureaucratic grind, where one infringement follows another without much ado, but it remains an absolutely essential procedure.
The numbers speak very clearly. To date, around 2 518 infringement procedures have been initiated in the most diverse sectors, particularly the environment and the internal market. In addition to this there are the hundreds, thousands even, of petitions that the Parliament receives each year and that often refer to specific infringements of Community law, against which citizens feel helpless and therefore turn to Parliament.
The question is: what chance do they have of receiving satisfaction? The infringement procedure is described by Articles 226 and 228 of the Treaty, and therefore there is not much scope for creativity. The rules in force condemn us to slow, muddled procedures where the most effective measure - a fine - is rarely applied and only after a very long time, decades even.
However, a great deal, a very great deal, can be done and I thank the Commission for proposing in the last two years, and then last September in a specific communication, a series of measures that are analysed and evaluated in my report, and on which I would like to make a few comments.
First, however, allow me to make a point that I believe is crucial in this debate, because enforcing laws can be a very political matter and can be a wonderful tool for improving the credibility and visibility of the Community institutions.
I would like to mention two specific examples of somewhat different behaviour by the Commission: the waste crisis in Naples and the Via Baltica motorway in the Rospuda Valley in Poland.
The waste crisis in Naples was a direct consequence of infringements, occurring year after year, of practically all the Community rules on waste. Indeed, very many infringement procedures had been initiated against Italy over the years and the Court had ruled against Italy on many occasions. However, only now, years later, when the situation has become intolerable for everyone and impossible to hide, has the Commission decided to bang its fists on the table. The Commission's visits are being followed with great interest, and citizens crying out against illegal tipping are announcing on television that petitions are being sent to the European Parliament. I wonder: could this not have been done before? Could we really not have taken a different attitude to prevent this situation arising? Yes, we could!
This is actually what Commissioner Dimas did in the case of the Rospuda Valley in Poland, which was in danger of being spoiled by infrastructure for the Via Baltica. For the first time, the Commissioner asked for a suspension order from the Court, and this was granted. This is a very important precedent that sends an extremely clear message: the Commission can and must be firm and thorough with Member States that act as if nothing had happened, and it must use all the tools the democratic system allows: the media and public opinion.
One of the most important innovations that the Commission introduces in the communication concerns a 'new' working method. We have expressed many doubts about this new working method, which mostly consists of sending complaints directly back to the Member State against which the complaint is being made, in order to try to solve the problem. We expressed these doubts and the Commission gave us a few assurances that I hope we will also hear today, but we will be keeping a very close eye on the matter and truly hope that, on the issue of infringement procedures, transparency, the ability to 'name and shame' Member States and the joint work with Parliament, will bring progress.
Mr President, at the end of the debate, I will speak again for two minutes to finish my speaking time.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office of the Council. - Thank you Mr President, ladies and gentlemen.
Mrs Frassoni, on behalf of the Council I would like to welcome your report on the Commission's annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, and the additional analysis envisaged in the Commission's communication 'A Europe of results - applying Community law'. In our opinion the report by the European Parliament is a very useful contribution to our common aim of securing the timely and correct application of Community law.
On behalf of the Council I would like to welcome the findings of Mrs Frassoni's report, which in our opinion are essential, namely that securing the positive effects of Community law on the everyday lives of the citizens of the European Union depends primarily on the efficiency of European Union policies and on the supervision and monitoring of the methods by which the Member States comply with Community law.
We have a positive opinion of the European Parliament's commitment to supporting the exchange of best practice among the Member States. In our view such exchanges would significantly contribute to a more efficient and unified application of Community law.
I must explain here that the Presidency of the Council cannot comment on most of the questions and proposals presented in this valuable report. As we know, the administrative implementation of Community law is principally the responsibility of the Member States in accordance with their constitutional regulations, and of the Commission, which, as the guardian of treaties, is responsible for monitoring the uniform application of Community law.
Günter Verheugen
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission is grateful for the opportunity to discuss these important issues with the European Parliament today, and I am very grateful for Mrs Frassoni's report and contribution, which contains valuable points. I can assure you, Mrs Frassoni, that the Commission takes your points very seriously.
The European Union is a community under the rule of law and as such it is unique in the world. Only the law can guarantee the freedoms that citizens are entitled to and only the law can shape the market economy in such a way that it works to the benefit of all.
The European Commission is the guardian of the treaties. Its role is to ensure that Community law is being implemented everywhere and that it is correctly applied in each location. Even the best law has no value as long as it exists only on paper. Each committee will find, therefore, that one of its most important tasks is to ensure that our law does not consist merely of empty words.
In the treaty infringement proceedings and the European Court of Justice, we have a powerful weapon. This weapon must be used when there is no other way to remedy violation of the law. It is not an end in itself, however, and it could become blunt through excessive use.
The Commission does not believe that the number of treaty infringement proceedings is a measure of the seriousness and determination with which it monitors how well Community law is being observed. Rather, the Commission believes that it is a matter of finding solutions to problems. The real measure is how many problems relating to the application of Community law we have solved, and how quickly.
Indeed, we have critically reviewed the way we work and arrived at the following conclusions: once identified, problems must be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Citizens and business people are entitled to speedy answers. Therefore, Mrs Frassoni, I will go back to the Commission with what you said about rubbish in Campania and this topic will have to be discussed. I fully agree that a rigorous, fast and determined approach is absolutely essential where Community law is being blatantly ignored.
In principle, an approach based on partnership is preferable to a confrontational one. The Commission therefore wishes to see more dialogue and more transparency in these issues. We also want to set clear priorities: deal with important matters first, and quickly, and do not use a sledgehammer to break a nut. We must also make the necessary resources available.
Allow me to make one comment at this point. If problems mount up in relation to the application of Community law to particular matters, that may be because the law itself is unclear or contradictory. We should not assume from the outset that the Member States have a bad attitude.
As a consequence of these considerations, we took a series of steps and I would like to say from the outset that we will continue to have recourse to treaty infringement proceedings and institute them immediately when the necessary information is to hand. However, we are suggesting a new way of working, with which we hope to obtain the necessary information more quickly.
This method is based on improving cooperation with the Member States before it gets to the stage of instituting official proceedings, except, of course - and this is very important, Mrs Frassoni - in the event that it is obvious from the start that, in all probability, a treaty is being infringed. In such cases our first step is not to talk to the Member States, but to act.
It is not a totally new process, but a preliminary procedure in which we require additional procedures or in order to achieve a solution more quickly without instituting treaty infringement proceedings.
All enquiries and complaints are answered directly and speedily and, depending on the facts of the matter, can lead to treaty infringement proceedings. That means that every submission is registered and processed. If it is formulated as a complaint, or can be seen as a complaint, it is treated as a complaint and the Commission takes the appropriate steps.
We are currently testing this new method of working in a pilot phase. Fifteen Member States are involved in the pilot project, which has been designed to ensure that we do in fact make progress. Naturally, we will inform Parliament of the results of the pilot phase and discuss any further steps with Parliament.
All the same, we are already in a position to be able to find a solution to 90% of all problems that come to our attention without taking the matter to court. However, we do share your opinion that this should be done more quickly. A move to a monthly cycle of decision making, which commenced in January, should help. This ensures faster, more efficient execution of treaty infringement proceedings.
Certainly, we are striving to make the whole process as transparent as possible while preserving the appropriate measure of confidentiality, as required of us by the European Court of Justice. The public will have online access to regularly updated summaries of all treaty infringement proceedings currently before the court.
In the interests of transparency and legal certainty, we also need to know how the Member States are applying Community law in their respective national contexts. Therefore, we need correlation tables - as called for in the report - that clearly show implementation status in each Member State.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we share the same goal. We want Community law in which EU citizens can have complete confidence.
Diana Wallis
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. - Mr President, in the minute I have on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, I would like to do three things. First of all, I would like to thank Ms Frassoni for her cooperation on this annual report, but, most of all, I would like to make clear the importance of the Petitions Committee in this monitoring and implementation procedure.
I think that importance has, at long last, been recognised by the Commission. I thank the Commissioner for that, because we should really have a partnership in this exercise between our two institutions, and particularly involving the Petitions Committee, which is really our eyes and ears, as legislators, through our citizens, who come to us with direct problems that they perceive.
But, in order for our citizens to be able to do that, I come to my second point. Commissioner, you talked about our law being living law. Well, in order for it to be living law, it needs to be understandable - comprehensible - to our citizens. I have had a long dialogue with your colleague Ms Wallström about citizens' summaries, so that citizens understand our law. She has, on many occasions, promised us that these will be forthcoming with every legislative instrument. We still await the real evidence of that happening.
Lastly, the Petitions Committee - and this I address to my own colleagues - needs much greater prominence and resources in our own House. It is not just an interfering busybody committee. It does a real job in connecting with our citizens in this area.
Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Commissioner, you are absolutely right: the rule of law is the foundation of the EU. You correctly point out that Community legislation is the way to achieve the goals of the EU treaties, as its byword is the interest of European citizens, who have the right to demand the implementation of this law.
The bulk, breadth and complexity of legislation are constantly on the increase. We MEPs from the European People's Party should like to express our satisfaction: through its 23rd annual report on monitoring the application of Community law and also through the announcement of the results in Europe, the Commission is demonstrating its desire to be the trustee of the treaties and to ensure that the legislation is implemented.
You are absolutely right in saying that we want the correlation tables, on which the Council made a decision today. The rapporteur cooperated extensively with you to draw up Mrs Frassoni's report, on which we had an interesting hearing in Parliament. Let us tell you that we also want Parliament to participate in the control procedure and wish to be kept informed about your activities. We want you to come to our committees, as you do to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. We wish to hear your progress report.
We certainly want you to take into consideration the petitions we receive, as you point out in your report. We should also like to stress that, as far as our decisions on immunities are concerned, we should like you to intervene to ensure that the national courts uphold them.
The implementation of Community law allows European citizens to hope that democracy, law and order will be strengthened, and that the EU authorities will become closer to them. Today, after the resolution on the new reformed Lisbon Treaty, we all wish for a better future for the EU.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
Mr President, one aim of Community legislation is the implementation of various EU political strategies. The application of this legislation should be a priority for all Member States which, while simultaneously subject to control and monitoring by the Commission, will guarantee that it has the desired positive outcomes for the citizens of Europe.
In past years the total number of proceedings dealing with violations of legal regulations instigated by the Commission was steadily rising, to reach a level of almost 2 700 in 2005. Despite EU enlargement by 10 new states, the years since then have not seen any overall rise in the number of violations. There is a danger, however, that this situation may have arisen from a lack of registrations of complaints, or from administrative problems in the institutions responsible for considering violations.
The report should be praised first and foremost in respect of its inclusion of detailed studies of instances of violations linked to petitions, as well as the information provided on the readiness for broad cooperation by individual Directorates General on such matters. We should also welcome the Commission's comprehensive communication 'A Europe of results - Applying Community law'. However, the questions of funds available for consideration of instances of violation, the length of proceedings in cases of violation, the restricted application of Article 228 of the Treaty and evaluation of the application of priority criteria still need to be fleshed out in more detail by the Commission.
The proposed new working method being introduced in 2008, as a pilot project involving several Member States and, aimed at conducting existing proceedings more efficiently, deserves acknowledgement. One stage of the procedure, however, namely the sending of a case to an interested Member State that is, above all, the party responsible for improper application of Community law, is a cause for concern: this may lead to a weakening of the role of warden of the treaties that rests with the Commission.
The creation of Community law should come to meet citizens' problems in such a way as to enable prompt answers to be found to their questions and complaints, which will make it easier for them to understand and make use of their rights, while at the same time effectively reducing the number of proceedings relating to violation of the law. Finally, may I warmly congratulate Mrs Frassoni on a very well-prepared document.
Diana Wallis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would like to turn my attention to our three institutions and to emphasise how important it is that each one plays a part in the implementation and monitoring role.
Clearly, here, we are looking at the Commission's report. Of course, the Commission has the prime responsibility for implementation and enforcement, and we would not wish to tread on its toes in that respect. However, I think the Commission can assume that, in future, we will be watching much more carefully.
We are grateful that many of the lessons that were thrown up by our report on the demise of Equitable Life have been taken on board. But, as we move into a new period, and perhaps try out some new ideas, we have to be very careful.
First of all, if we look at the Council, we still have to get agreed - and I was pleased to hear the Commissioner mention it - the idea of correlation tables in respect of each and every piece of legislation, so that everybody can see exactly what happens at Member State level and where each piece of law fits in.
The pilot project is an excellent idea. That is all well and good, so let us see how it works out. But - and here is the but - I am a little sceptical that so many Member States have signed up to it. I hope they do not perceive it as some sort of soft option and I hope the Commission will disabuse them of the idea that could, in any way, be the case.
Lastly, I come to our own Parliament. Clearly, post-Lisbon Treaty, we must have a much more important role in terms of monitoring. We cannot assume that, once we finish with a piece of legislation here, that is the end of it. Our committees will have to take on a much bigger role in checking. One or two implementation reports are already happening - that will increase - and we will have to take on our responsibilities, along with the other institutions.
Just as a postscript - but a very important postscript - we also have to turn our attention to the education of our judiciary in our national courts to make sure that they, too, know how to implement Community law.
Alyn Smith
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I congratulate my group colleague and group Co-President Mrs Frassoni for a timely and well thought-out report. I also echo Mrs Wallis's comments and agree with them absolutely.
Passing laws keeps us in business, but enforcing laws actually delivers for our people, and a failure to enforce laws, frankly, makes us look like fools. I congratulate the Commission on a number of steps that have been very positive. But we really must bring this closer to the top of our agenda in this Parliament because, certainly in Scotland, there remains a strong perception that there is one law for one country and one law for another. I am very aware that is not all the fault of the Commission, but we must all play our part in resolving that if we are one Europe.
So, in congratulating my group colleague, I am glad to hear that many of those points will be taken on board by the Commissioner. I would like to make one more point, particularly in relation to environmental legislation, where many of the conflicts arise: many of the very worthy aims of individual pieces of legislation do conflict, and we must face up to that in preparing them. There is scant guidance in terms of application for local authorities as to how they should deal with the often very worthy aims when they do conflict. We were promised a review of that in the energy package, so if our Commissioner could give us some light on that process, which is ongoing, I would be very grateful.
Bert Doorn
(NL) Mr President, I, too, wish to compliment Mrs Frassoni on her report. We have now had a number of reports on implementation, and a distinct common thread can be seen in those reports. This means more attention to implementation, including on the part of the European Parliament. We now have recourse to implementation reports. In July I myself shall be presenting a report on the implementation of the eighth directive concerning the supervision of accountants. It is good that Parliament is also taking a serious look at the transposition of legislation in Member States.
I should like to focus on the issue of supervisors in this regard. We are talking about transposition by the authorities in the Member States and about the judges who apply the law. However, many Member States also have independent supervisors who apply and elaborate legislation. In practice, wide divergences have arisen among the various Member States and among supervisors. Increasingly often, businesses operating internationally in several Member States are being faced with differing requirements from different supervisors from different Member States. This is extremely inconvenient, and inhibits the operation of the internal market.
I should like to discuss one more point. We cannot, in addition, avoid a further examination of the legislative instruments used in Europe. Up to now, we have mainly been working with directives where harmonisation is concerned. Commissioner Verheugen has already said on certain occasions that in future it may make sense to make more use of the regulation instrument for internal market legislation, in order to avoid all kinds of problems such as cherry-picking and gold-plating during the transposition of directives. I know that in the national parliaments too, particularly the Dutch Parliament, the realisation is slowly but surely sinking in that implementation involving gold-plating and cherry-picking can be detrimental to the operation of the internal market and also to the domestic economy. That being the case, the step towards a regulation, where possible, is no longer so very great.
Manuel Medina Ortega
(ES) Mr President, we are aware of the importance of your mission to monitor the application of Community law. We are talking about relations between a supranational institution and national governments. National governments are strong entities, with a great deal of power, they are public authorities. Normally the Commission is the guardian of EU law and for citizens, in many cases, it is the only guarantee that they have that the law (because Community law is law) will be applied correctly.
The report by Mrs Frassoni is aimed at strengthening what I would call the backbone of the Commission, so that the Commission is aware of the importance of this task, and so that, even if we want a prior phase of negotiation with governments on the difficulties that may arise, at the moment of truth the Commission acts as the citizens expect, with strength and vigour, and applying Community law.
It is a concern that, following enlargement, we should have the impression that the Commission is applying less strict criteria to the new Member States than it applied to the old Members. This would have a negative impact on the consolidation of the European Union and on the reputation of the European Union itself in those Member States. Having followed many of the Commission's infringement proceedings, I can assure the Commission that, when it intervenes, citizens, and even the public authorities, feel strengthened by the action of the Commission in this area.
In other words, I think that the European Parliament report, the proposal put forward by Mrs Frassoni and also the opinion of Mrs Wallis are aimed at strengthening the Commission, so that the Commission does not consider itself to be alone and defenceless against the governments, but rather has the European Parliament to strengthen this role of overseeing and monitoring that the Commission has in relation to the application of Community law.
Margrete Auken
(DA) Mr President, the citizens of Europe are decisively important for the EU's legislation. They are not simply sacrifices for the infringements, as in Naples for example. In many environmental issues they have often been key players. As guard dogs, they maintain a watch to ensure that the laws are implemented correctly in all corners of Europe, and in many cases they are the only ones to do this. Because of this, the EU should also support citizens by securing them a strong position. When they draw attention to infringements of Community legislation, their complaints should be handled seriously and with respect. I sincerely hope that this is not an attempt on the part of the Commission to put a stop to many of these complaints, as this would be bad practice. I would therefore like to thank Mrs Frassoni for drawing attention to these threats. Her excellent report will now become an important general step in the right direction. EU citizens will gain a stronger position through the Treaty of Lisbon, but if this is to be anything other than a pointless decoration, their contribution to the EU must be taken seriously.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
(PL) Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate Mrs Frassoni on an excellently prepared report. I would also like to say how pleased I am that, according to the statistics presented by the European Commission concerning the number of proceedings relating to cases of violation of EU law, the accession of 10 new Member States has not had an impact on the number of violations recorded. The statistics do not, however, tell the whole story. One of the most important mechanisms enabling us to check how well the application of European law is really going is the system of pre-judicial references, the aim of which is to assign to national courts the potential to provide a uniform interpretation of the application of European law in all Member States. The fundamental problem in this procedure is the time one has to wait for an answer from the Court, which is still very long (about 20 months). The main reason - the time taken for translation - accounts for about nine months. It is a matter of concern that in many national parliaments we hear voices demanding a cap on the budget specifically for written translations.
The European Commission's recommendations for Member States and candidate countries are based on the assumption that EU law will be effectively introduced when suitably qualified staff are employed and suitable funds are set aside. I do not entirely support that view. The number of staff and the amount of funds available is not the right yardstick. Also needed are determination and involvement in the matter of introducing European law. Proper execution of the tasks facing Member States and candidate countries requires three factors: knowledge, competence and readiness. The first of these factors - that is, possession of knowledge - is not a problem today. The second factor - the capacity to introduce the Community's achievements - is linked to the provision of suitable funds and the engagement of additional employees. The Commission is currently placing the greatest emphasis on this particular aspect. The third factor - the readiness of those whose task it is to introduce and apply European law - is the most underestimated.
Readiness to apply Community law in practice depends on the institutions and the system of procedures, incentives and restrictions. Success or failure in the introduction of EU law will eventually be decided by the specific institutional model. Knowledge and funds are not everything. A good will to act is also needed.
Reinhard Rack
(DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President, in your introduction you pointed out that the Commission does not want to launch out blindly but sound out whether something should be done, by discussing it with the Member States. Now, within the Commission itself - which is, after all, a collegial institution - there is not always a clear, unified position on certain issues.
In the area of transport I currently see a topic that will become more and more problematic for us in the coming years - and probably within the Commission too - and that is the concept that money should be redirected to more environmentally friendly modes of transport by way of cross-subsidies from money that is earned in a less environmentally friendly area - road tolls, parking fees, etc. That is, in effect, a subsidy. Has there been any discussion about this, and how does the situation look?
Katalin Lévai
(HU) Thank you, Mr President. As has already mentioned by several speakers before me, success in achieving the objectives set out in the Treaties and legislative acts will depend on how effective the Member States are in applying Community law, and on how they transpose it into the national setting.
If they fail to apply the legislation or enforce it properly, or are unable to comply fully with the goals it contains, then we will have a problem. In recent years the tendency has improved in terms of compliance with the legislation, and I think compliance by the ten new Member States is good. I hope that this is not just because the Commission is more lenient towards us, towards the new Member States, but because we are putting genuine effort into fulfilling criteria and meeting expectations.
Unfortunately, navigating the bureaucratic jungle is still far from easy; we know how enormous the number of legislative measures is, and transposing these into national and regional law is often exceedingly time-consuming. Enabling the simplification of bureaucratic language and more widespread use of impact assessments would be very important, as would ensuring that as little time as possible is taken up with conducting complaints procedures. Thank you.
Wiesław Stefan Kuc
(PL) Mr President, the implementation of Community law by individual Member States is one of the basic principles of the European Union. This is why monitoring and the elimination of deviations is the goal of numerous actions. Checking of individual states and publication of the results of the checks would make it possible for citizens to play a part in the introduction of EU legislation in states.
Meanwhile, it continues to be the case that Poland, for example, still applies national imposition of value-added tax, VAT, despite the Sixth Directive and court rulings. The same thing applies to double taxation on earned income. There are known cases of duty being applied to vehicles purchased by Polish citizens in EU countries, despite rulings by the Court of Justice, and of delays in refunding wrongly calculated charges that have been paid.
One particular oddity is that our citizens are held on remand for years on end without any sentence having been passed. The citizens of Poland are impatiently awaiting the European Commission's reaction to the examples provided and a curbing of the unlawful actions perpetrated by our government.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere congratulations to Mrs Frassoni; it is just a pity that this report concerns a rather remote past, and it would have been nice if it had been about 2007.
Jens-Peter Bonde
(DA) Mr President, comitology is a study of how to limit democracy without the electorate realising. Firstly, power is transferred from the electorate and the popularly elected representatives to government officials and lobbyists behind closed doors in Brussels. Voting is then made subject to complicated rules that no-one can remember, no journalist can write about and no textbook author can explain. The essence of this is simply that the non-elected in the Commission will decide, unless a qualified majority can be established against the Commission. It is legislative power that is being turned into executive power; it is transparent legislation that is being turned into secret decrees; it is a majority democracy that is being turned into a minority government. It is not an absolute autocracy, but it is heading in that direction with a hint of Mussolini's corporate ideas.
With the new interinstitutional agreement, Parliament can put a matter back on the agenda, but only if the right and left wings of the House are in agreement and can produce an absolute majority of members in favour. Scrap the mixing of autocracy, however, and govern with shrewdness and corporatism! Introduce democracy in all legislation! As a fundamental principle, let us see that a majority of the popularly elected representatives are behind every law, either from national parliaments or here within the European Parliament! Legislation by government officials and lobbyists should be a thing of the past, yet it is unfortunately being cemented into place in the Treaty of Lisbon. It is therefore another good reason to make the Treaty the subject of a referendum.
Janez Lenarčič
President-in-Office of the Council. - On behalf of the Presidency I would like to stress in a concluding comment that the Presidency is aware of the fact that efficient monitoring of the application of Community law is essential if the law is to be universally respected and if the general legal principles on which the running of the Community is based are to be safeguarded.
Primarily, however, it is important for ensuring legal certainty among European citizens. It should not be forgotten that they have an important role in the implementation of Community law. This role is also reflected in the number of complaints made by citizens about infringements of Community law.
During the debate, which I followed very closely, several people were astonished that the number of infringements, or at least perceived infringements, has not increased since the enlargement of the European Union. Several speakers suspected that the Commission is not as strict with the so-called new Member States.
I must stress that the Presidency does not have any reason or evidence to support those doubts. However, there is at least one possible explanation I can offer. When it comes to the so-called new Member States, it must be taken into account that they became Members after many years of intensive transposition of Community law into their internal legal system, since when they have found it easier to continue the process on a smaller scale. This is just by way of a comment on the suspicion that the Commission is not equally strict with all the Member States, but I think it would be appropriate for the Commissioner to comment on this matter.
To finish, I would like to stress that the Presidency attaches great importance to the common responsibilities and aims defined in the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking. Finally I would like to encourage all institutions and Member States to fulfil their obligations in the transposition and application of Community law.
Günter Verheugen
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have already said that today's debate should not be without consequences, and I want to re-emphasise that. I will brief Mr Jung on the content of this debate and Parliament's input, and make suggestions too, as several very important suggestions have been made during this debate, which the Commission should take seriously.
Allow me to make another comment based on the philosophy of law: a community of nations under the rule of law is based on trust. It can function only if those who participate can trust each other. This is why, in a constitutional state, legal proceedings must take place in public and it is also the reason why I agree completely with what Mrs Wallis said. Information is vital here, and transparency is imperative.
There can be no policy of secrecy in applying and interpreting the law. Everything must be open and public. That is what I take from this debate, anyway, and I have always been convinced of it. I agree with what Mrs Wallis said about the role of the Committee on Petitions. As her customer, in a manner of speaking, I freely admit that this sometimes requires a great deal of work and effort, but citizens are entitled to expect us to make this effort. In addition, the petitions we receive teach us a great deal about how our citizens perceive our law and our policies.
Mrs Frassoni, Commissioner Wallström has already promised that, in future, we will create a citizens' summary. Since then, the Commission has also passed a formal resolution on this, so it is going to happen, and I am quite sure you will find ways and means of making very sure that we do it. It has been decided and it will happen.
Many Members have pondered the question of the new Member States and how it can be that, despite growth in the number of Members, there has been no growth in lawsuits for infringement of treaties.
The Commission has a very clear opinion on this, and that is that there are two reasons: firstly - and here I feel rather self-conscious, for I really ought to say that this is due to the good work of the previous Enlargement Commissioner - it has to do with the fact that the new Member States prepared so exactingly for their acquis that, at the time they joined, they met the requirements more precisely than the old Member States. I can only confirm this. It is the absolute truth. We would never have been able to conclude the accession treaties if the acquis had not been fulfilled.
The other reason is perhaps somewhat more practical, however: citizens of the new Member States need to learn, gradually, that they can complain, and how to do so. I therefore assume that the number of complaints will increase.
Mr Smith mentioned that the law must also be straightforward and applicable, particularly in regard to environmental legislation. As we know, the Commission is working on reviewing all Community law by the end of next year in order to ascertain where and how it can be simplified. Just a few days ago, as part of our presentation of progress on this 'Better Regulation' project, we promised that this whole process would indeed be completed by the end of next year.
Mr Medina, you do not need to worry that the Commission is sweeping complaints under the carpet. From my own experience of more than eight years as a member of the Commission, I can assure you that I have had to put the brakes on overzealous Commission departments far more often than I have needed to urge them to fire up the heavy artillery of the treaty infringement process. Far more frequently, I have to say to them: 'Hang on, just slow down, talk to them first and see if this can be resolved peaceably'. The risk of Commission departments tending to brush things under the carpet is almost nonexistent. I am certain that it does not happen.
As far as Mr Rack's question is concerned: decisions on treaty infringements, be it the lead-up or the conclusion or any individual step in between, require a formal decision by the College of Commissioners. That is how it is organised. I am unable here and now to answer your question about the specific problem of cross-subsidies, but I will make sure that you receive an answer before the end of this week.
Regarding Mr Kuc's remarks on the length of detention while awaiting trial, I admit that this would be a scandal if it occurred, but it is outside the jurisdiction of the European Union. The European Court of Human Rights is the competent court for such cases.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for all your suggestions and the constructive spirit of this debate. I am fairly sure that we will have made further progress when we discuss it again next year.
Monica Frassoni
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank my fellow Members, the Commissioner and the Presidency for their participation in this discussion which, as Commissioner Verheugen said, does not end here.
Just a few points quickly. I would like to comment on the issue of defining priorities, which Commissioner Verheugen spoke about. I believe this could actually be a risky exercise. However, it has never really been done until now. I have always been rather sceptical about the possibility of really defining priorities. Anyway, if you really want to go along this route, take the risk of being transparent, and why not even debate these priorities? Otherwise the suspicion could take root that the priorities have been chosen because you want to get rid of the inconvenient infringements. I do not think this would be a good thing.
The second comment is that despite the fact that the Commission denies that it needs more resources, particularly human resources, to deal with infringements, the reality is that in almost all the meetings I have had with your fellow Commissioners, everyone has told me that they do not have sufficient resources, sufficient people, to deal with this matter.
In the debate the question came up of the number of infringements in the new Member States, and what the Commissioner and the Presidency said is probably true. However, we should also know that, for example, on environmental matters, there are only two or perhaps three officials dealing with all ten of the new Member States, so obviously there is certainly a human resources problem.
Lastly, the issue of Parliament's role. We are discussing internally various ways of making our role as co-legislators more effective, by following up the application of the directives we approve. I believe there are two things we absolutely must do: the first is decisively, through a political decision, to strengthen the role of the Committee on Petitions, which as Mrs Wallis said, is our window on the world; the second is that we should systematically organise application sessions, which do, however, require the open cooperation of the Commission. Because if we organise sessions where we discuss the application of directives and the Commission official who attends remains silent or tells us things that are of little interest - perhaps because he cannot say what we really want to know - then the whole exercise becomes pointless.
Anyway, thank you and we will undoubtedly speak about this again.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.


Framework Agreement on prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the motion for a resolution by Elizabeth Lynne and Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the EMPL committee, on the proposal for a Council directive implementing the framework agreement on prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector concluded by HOSPEEM and EPSU.
Elizabeth Lynne
author. - Mr President, there are over one million preventable needle-stick injuries on healthcare workers each year across the whole of the EU. Many of those who are injured, and their families, face an agonising wait to find out whether they have contracted a blood-borne infection such as HIV or hepatitis C.
The risks of infection following an accident are not insignificant. Experts tell us the chances of infection are one in three for hepatitis B, 1 in 30 for hepatitis C and 1 in 300 for HIV. Take the case of Juliet Young. Juliet was a nurse who died in 2008, seven years after contracting HIV while taking blood from an infected patient in a London hospital. Juliet accidentally pricked her thumb on the needle after it slipped when she was taking a sample. Or the case of a dental nurse working in a prison who was pricked by a needle that was used on an inmate who had hepatitis A, B, and C and was HIV positive. Imagine the agonising wait that she had; she has now discovered that she has contracted hepatitis C. This nurse, and many others like her, are continuing to campaign on this issue.
I first became involved in 2004 when I visited a hospital in my constituency at the instigation of Health First Europe, and then on World Aids Day on 1 December that year I hosted an exhibition with Stephen Hughes in this Parliament. Healthcare workers from across the European Union visited us, visited the Parliament, desperate for our help. Those of you who had the opportunity to meet with those nurses and other healthcare workers could not have failed to have been moved by their plight, and in 2006 we passed a Parliament resolution on protecting European healthcare workers from blood-borne infections due to needle-stick injuries. This resolution called on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal to amend Directive 2000/54/EC on biological agents within three months. This proposal never came, but Stephen Hughes and I did not give up the fight.
I personally have amended many reports and resolutions calling for action, spoken in plenary on this issue a dozen times and tabled countless parliamentary questions. Following meetings with Commissioner Špidla, we were told in 2008 that a proposal was being prepared by the Commission and we were on the brink of achieving this. However, at the last minute, this was blocked as the social partners promised they would try, at long last, to reach an agreement, much to our frustration.
A comprehensive agreement on the necessary requirements was eventually reached by the social partners in the summer of 2009. My resolution supports the agreement wholeheartedly. The Council must adopt the proposed directive urgently so that the Commission can ensure that it is implemented effectively and without delay. Healthcare workers across Europe are depending on us. Our healthcare workers cannot wait and should not continue to be placed in danger. It is really time now to act decisively.
Stephen Hughes
author. - Mr President, this is an important piece of health and safety legislation. Liz has outlined some of the background to it. It has been a long time in the making - six years from the first meetings we had, as she has mentioned. It is good to see Commissioner Andor here this morning, but it is a pity, in a way, that Commissioner Špidla is not here. We have often criticised him here in this Chamber, but we could have congratulated him this morning for eventually taking the initiative to bring forward this proposal on needle-stick injuries, sharps injuries.
We took a while to persuade him to act. His services, in fact, were the people who kept advising that he should not act, that the directive agreed in 2000 on the protection of workers from the risks arising from exposure to biological agents, combined with the risk assessment elements of the 1989 framework directive, were enough to prevent these sorts of injuries, but eventually we persuaded those services that, with one million injuries per year, clearly something was wrong. We needed specific legislation to address this problem, as they have in the United States and in parts of Spain, and it works there very effectively.
Eventually the Commissioner agreed to act and in 2008, as Liz has said, did draft an amendment to the 2000 directive, but then HOSPEEM and EPSU, the public service unions, signalled their desire to formulate an agreement. They formulated that agreement. I am glad that they have. It is a good agreement, but it is a little ambiguous in certain parts. This is why I have tabled an amendment which has been agreed in the Employment Committee, to seek the publication by the Commission of guidance to accompany the directive to ensure the smooth and uniform transposition of this directive into law in all Member States.
We fully support the Commission's proposal for a directive, and we understand that the agreement from the social partners cannot be touched. We cannot amend it. Council cannot amend it. It is their agreement. However, the most important part of the agreement, clause 6, which covers elimination, prevention and protection, unfortunately includes some ambiguity regarding risk assessment and precisely which preventative elements need to be implemented by employers and when.
If this ambiguity is not clarified, then we risk seeing dramatic variability in the application of the directive. It is for this reason that we are requesting that the Commission produce implementation guidelines to aid employers' understanding of the risks and necessary preventative measures to ensure a consistent application of the directive.
Needle-stick injuries are the most common and most dangerous form of medical sharp injuries. Whenever a hollow-bore needle is used on a patient there is a risk of a needle-stick injury that could lead to a serious infection of a healthcare worker because the hollow-bore acts as a reservoir for the patient's blood or other body fluids.
There is a huge body of independent evidence that has proven that the introduction of improved training, safer working practices and the use of medical devices incorporating safety-engineered protection mechanisms will prevent the majority of needle-stick injuries. All of these things are necessary, not just one or two - all of those things are necessary.
Studies have also demonstrated that failure to implement any one of these three elements results in a significantly reduced impact. Similarly, attempts to implement safety-engineered medical devices only in certain areas or on certain patients would be neither practical nor effective.
In those countries where there is existing effective legislation such as America, Canada and parts of Spain, it is clearly mandated that all three of these elements must be implemented to prevent needle-stick injuries. It is no coincidence that all are the same in this respect. So that is the ambiguity in clause 6 that we are seeking to overcome through the publication of guidance.
Liz has mentioned the trauma that people affected by needle-stick injuries face. I have met people during the six years that we have worked on this subject who have suffered needle-stick injuries, and I would really emphasise that trauma. I met a doctor who gave up medical practice because of a needle-stick injury. I met a person who has HIV as a result of a needle-stick injury. I have met people who turned out not to be infected, but only after months of uncertainty as to whether they were infected or not. I have also met garbage collectors and prison officers who have suffered needle-stick injuries. They are not covered by this agreement. That is another area that we need to think about for the future.
Nevertheless it is a good agreement, and I think if we have good guidance to accompany it to ensure uniform application across the European Union, we will all have done a good job and hopefully we will radically reduce that figure of one million needle-stick injuries per year.
László Andor
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank Parliament for its work on this issue. In particular I want to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Lynne, for her excellent work in drawing up the motion for a resolution on the Commission's proposal and for her efforts over a number of years to improve health and safety at work for workers in the hospital and healthcare sector.
I am aware that this is a long-standing concern of this House. Parliament's resolution of 24 February 2005 on promoting health and safety in the workplace called for a revision of Directive 2000/54/EC on biological agents at work. Again, in July 2006, Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive amending that directive.
In response to the European Parliament, the Commission initiated a two-stage consultation of the European social partners, in accordance with the Treaty provisions. In response to this consultation two European social partner organisations acting in the hospital and healthcare sector, the European Hospital and Healthcare Employers' Association and the European Federation of Public Service Unions, negotiated with success a framework agreement in July 2009. As you know, the Commission proposal aims to implement this agreement.
We all know that injuries caused by needles and other sharp instruments are one of the most common and serious risks to healthcare workers in Europe, in particular in certain departments and activities, such as emergencies, intensive care and surgical operations. I am more than happy that your resolution recognises that the Commission's proposal incorporates the major points in Parliament's resolution of 6 July 2006. It was indeed the Commission's wish to have these points in the agreement.
I also agree with you that the entry into force of this agreement will represent an important contribution to the protection of workers active in the hospital and healthcare sector. With this agreement, and hopefully the forthcoming adoption by the Council of the proposed directive, workers in the hospital and healthcare sector will benefit from an integrated approach, establishing policies in risk assessment, risk prevention, training, information, awareness-raising and so on. Such measures, which are also minimum requirements, are not only much welcomed but above all absolutely necessary.
Let me just conclude by thanking you once again for supporting the Commission's proposal, which I hope the Council will adopt very shortly.
Raffaele Baldassarre
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as has already been said, needle-stick and other sharp injuries are among the most common risks faced by healthcare workers in Europe, and they therefore represent a serious problem both for the healthcare sector and for society in general.
The aim of this Commission proposal is to allow the Council to implement the framework agreement signed by the European Hospital and Healthcare Employers' Association and the European Federation of Public Service Unions.
The main aim of the agreement is to ensure greater protection for workers against the risk of injuries caused by all sharp or pointed objects used in medicine. This agreement therefore represents an important step towards an increase in safety within the hospital sector. As we all agree, the consequences of sharp injuries can be extremely serious and can cause the spread of diseases such as viral hepatitis and AIDS.
That being said, I must stress the need for an integrated and, at the same time, realistic approach to this problem. In this respect I believe that the administrative, financial and legal constraints deriving from the agreement should not be excessive and therefore should not be such as to harm the development of small- and medium-sized enterprises operating in the healthcare sector, or else these enterprises could have serious difficulties in complying with the terms of the agreement.
Just as commendable, moreover, is the anticipated - to 'anticipated' I would add 'desirable' - option for the Member States to adopt more effective provisions and measures than those contained in the agreement with the aim of protecting workers.
Lastly, I call on the Commission to oversee the application of this agreement and to regularly update Parliament, which often focuses on this issue, so as to ensure that the agreement is monitored properly and that the need for any future amendments is examined in depth.
Alejandro Cercas
Mr President, I would like to begin by also congratulating my colleague Mrs Lynne for the excellent work she has done in our committee, for her ability to reconcile all points of view and for the work that she has carried out over such a long time.
I congratulate Commissioner Andor. It is your second day Commissioner and you have made a good start to your job faced with your responsibilities. Furthermore, there is now also a second directive relating to microfinancing which has been of concern to this House for some time. You will also have the honour of resolving two problems in two days' time which will open up great possibilities for many Europeans. I also thank Commissioner Špidla for the help he has provided on this matter.
You have already been made aware, and I am not going to waste too much time in reminding you, that the framework agreement is a very important legal instrument for health workers. They are affected by more than one million accidents each year, which also implicate serious health risks, such as viral infections, hepatitis C, AIDS and so forth. However, this is not only of significance to health workers but also to hospital patients and their families. Essentially, millions of Europeans will be better protected by this instrument.
Thus, we have achieved this following a long journey which this House embarked upon by knocking on the doors of the Commission and the Council, and we must remember the excellent work done by Mr Hughes throughout this long process.
Perhaps I can briefly explain why the socialist MEPs are very pleased today. I feel that today is a day to mention a few things.
Firstly, the importance of health and safety in the workplace. It is crucial to create a work environment which is as safe as possible for workers, for families and for citizens. In human terms, we have already referred to all the implications of these types of injuries for workers and for citizens, but there are also implications in economic terms. A few days ago in this House, the Bilbao Agency spoke to us about some of the campaigns it is carrying out to promote health and safety and it even revealed economic studies which demonstrate that in Australia, for example, accidents and illnesses account for more than 6% of GDP in the national economy. What is the price paid for a lack of social security? What is the price paid for a lack of hygiene and safety in the workplace? It is therefore an investment in human capital, but also an investment in civilisation and economic terms.
Secondly, the importance of prevention, as prevention is better than cure. Action must be taken before incidents occur so as to prevent them. Prevention, which is a complex issue, requires increasing awareness, information, training and supervision in relation to each of these tasks.
Thirdly, it is vital to also mention at this stage the importance of social partners, the importance of trade unions. Without them this framework agreement would certainly not exist and neither would there be any kind of prevention. Sometimes people criticise trade unions and say that they are a cost to society but they forget the huge benefits which they provide, as they are the ones behind the introduction of such important policies in the workplace such as those within the framework agreement.
Finally, I must mention the importance of this House, which must defend its position before public opinion and before other Community institutions, because without Parliament this framework agreement would not exist, and the importance of Parliament's cooperation with the Commission and the Council has also been exemplary. I appreciate the Spanish Presidency's support and I hope that this will serve as a good precedent for a new phase of cooperation between our institutions.
Elizabeth Lynne
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I was not going to take my speaking time on behalf of the group but I thought I could actually split it and come in afterwards but apparently, on a resolution, that is not the case; so I was informed this morning that I was coming in now. It does give me the opportunity to thank all the shadow rapporteurs whom I did not thank before; also to again thank Stephen Hughes, because it was Stephen and I in 2004 that actually went round the hospitals with John Bowis, who was a Conservative MEP. The three of us from the political parties went out to the hospitals to find out for ourselves, and I think that was what was so important.
In this place we have to be driven by what is actually needed by the people on the ground and by listening to nurses and doctors and healthcare workers, it was important to take their views into account. Stephen mentioned implementing guidelines, and I would like to find out really whether you do know whether the Commission is thinking of bringing forward any implementing guidelines for this; I think it is very important that we have these. Also, I was wondering whether you knew of the timetable that the Council was thinking of because it is absolutely important that we get the timetable through very quickly because after all those healthcare workers have waited so many years.
We do not want any more needle-stick injuries unnecessarily during that waiting time. We have had too many over the last few years. Also the point which has already been made that although this is for the health sector only at the present moment I would like to see it extended to other sectors like the prisons in particular. I think it is very important that prison officers are protected as well. There are so many things that are important for those particular workers but one of the key things for this is recapable needles. I think along with all the other issues in the resolution it is very important that those healthcare workers are not subjected to unnecessary needle-stick injuries.
Jean Lambert
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I too would like to thank Stephen Hughes and Liz Lynne for their work on this and indeed to welcome this action, although we would like to have seen it earlier. As has been pointed out, the USA has had legislation in place since 2001. We can now see such legislation in certain parts of the European Union, and at last we are catching up, but, of course, not before many people will already have been affected by this problem.
In terms of the risk, the World Health Organisation estimates that, while 90% of exposures to this risk are in the developing world, 90% of reports about occupational infection occur in the United States and the European Union. We know that there is a major issue of under-reporting sharps injuries: estimates range between 40% and 75% and that is huge. Therefore I think we should welcome the fact that, in the social partners' agreement, clause 11 talks about the duty to report under a no-blame culture.
But I think we also need to ask why people are not reporting. Presumably part of it is that they do not understand the risks or that they fear the consequences - not least, perhaps, to their future employment - of reporting such an injury. Indeed in some places we have reports of ineffectual follow-up, in other words, even where people do report, nothing very much happens.
Certainly they are not getting even the medical support that they need, let alone the emotional support - or indeed, in some cases, alternative employment, if it is considered that, when they have contracted something like HIV, there may be a risk to patients. We have research which shows that health workers working outside hospitals are more likely to be dissatisfied with the response of employers.
People have spoken about the scope of this action. Of course it covers the healthcare sector, and we are very pleased that the agreement covers trainees and subcontractors. I am not entirely sure whether that includes cleaning staff, and I would welcome some clarification on that. But it does not yet cover workers in other professions at risk, so we hope Member States could look at that.
The training obligations are extremely important, and I hope Member States will take this seriously: both the giving and receiving of training should be mandatory, as should induction for all new and temporary staff - because I think there is a feeling that if you train people once you never have to look at that issue again. At the moment there is a lack of training even where employers have training policies in place.
An issue was raised about the cost. There are estimates that training and preventative measures, including safer devices, account for about a third of the cost of dealing with sharps injuries. That is an important saving in cash-strapped times, as well as being an important issue both for the people concerned and employers, who may indeed find themselves at risk of legal action if they are not taking action to prevent such injuries.
Oldřich Vlasák
Ladies and gentlemen, the agreement on prevention from sharp injuries is historically the first agreement between sectoral social partners. In view of the fact that there are estimated to be more than one million cases a year of sharp injuries in hospitals in Europe, we do not need convincing here that this is a step in the right direction, as it should be possible to prevent these injuries through proper adherence to the agreement. In practice this will help to create a safe working environment and to protect health workers from blood-transmitted infections caused by sharp injuries.
Although we can see certain ambiguities in the examples or in the definitions, I believe that all steps will be taken to obtain as much information as possible from the social partners, all of the provisions have been clarified and the Council has therefore adopted the agreement as a whole.
I would like to emphasize at this point that the agreement between employers and employees is in its way a completely unique European legal instrument, which at national level has no parallel in most Member States. This form of self-regulation, where those affected by a given problem themselves agree in the form of a legal regulation on its resolution, is in my view a model example of European regulation. It is not the same situation as with CO2 emissions, tax harmonisation or the standardisation of public services, where companies and their employees must passively comply with whatever we and the Member States throw at them, and at great cost too.
Jiří Maštálka
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking both rapporteurs for the magnificent piece of work they have carried out in preparing this document. I am also delighted as a doctor that here in the European Parliament we are aware of the urgency of the need for health workers to be better protected from injuries caused by sharp objects and that the regulation responds to this.
I am very uneasy, of course, about the very slow progress of the Commission. Five years have passed now since the European Commission was first informed about this important issue and almost four years since the European Parliament adopted a resolution requiring a legislative solution to the question of proper protection for health workers in the European Union from blood-transmitted infections.
As a member of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs in the previous parliamentary term I worked together with my colleagues Stephen Hughes and Elizabeth Lynn and others on this resolution and I am disappointed that there has been such a long delay. I recommend that the measures proposed in the directive are adopted as quickly as possible. I would like to call for the greatest possible levels of protection and prevention for health workers to be guaranteed as soon as possible.
Elisabeth Morin-Chartier
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Lynne, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to tell you how delighted I am this morning that we have agreed this proposal for a directive on the prevention of sharps injuries. We have here a real health issue, which we must regulate as quickly as possible. We all know the importance and the dramatic consequences of this type of injury. I feel I must let you know, Commissioner, that I am confident you will provide a rapid solution for this agreement, which will take us several steps forward on this issue.
I should like to thank Mrs Lynne for all her work. I should like equally to thank Mr Hughes, because it is our responsibility as MEPs to see to it that our fellow citizens are protected. They are healthcare professionals, of course - we have spoken a lot about them. They are cleaners - you have mentioned prison officers - but I should also like to mention people working in the school environment, in all areas of medicine in schools. However, well beyond this, I consider that it is a question of educating all our fellow citizens, who must not make healthcare workers or those workers that subsequently handle blunt objects take unnecessary risks.
I must say that, along with the rapporteurs who have taken up this issue, we in the European Parliament will be ready and willing to ensure that these texts are implemented by all Member States, and we shall need to have a regular update on their implementation. This is truly our commitment, our responsibility, and it is something that should be really popular and shared by all.
Sylvana Rapti
(EL) Mr President, I should like to thank the older members of Parliament - as this is my first term of office - and my fellow members Mr Hughes and Mrs Lynne and the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs, because I have come in on the tail end of work on an issue which, in a way, also concerns me personally.
My husband is a doctor and, a few years ago, he was infected by a needle. So I know full well the anxiety experienced by the family of a hospital worker injured by a sharp object. The days spent waiting for the results were extremely difficult.
I should therefore like, once again, to say thank you for the work which has been done and to express my satisfaction at the fact that, for the first time, we are seeing an association of employers and an association of workers joining forces and agreeing, thereby enabling us to arrive at this motion for a resolution.
I feel that the European Union really is achieving its objectives and is now taking decisions with its citizens, for its citizens. I remember something which other members have repeated, but I think it is important for us to say it and to always remember it: that a million sharp injuries occur each year.
I cannot overemphasise the role played by the European Parliament, which has been working earnestly on this issue since 2005. Given, on the other hand, the lack of staff, a lack which is particularly acute in Greece, I would point out that we really must ensure that this resolution, this directive is applied very quickly.
This is a decision that will also make a practical contribution to the social objectives of the European Union, which include increasing employment. I would remind the House that the European Commission recently told Parliament, through its re-elected President, that one of the sectors in which it aims to invest are white-collar jobs.
So let us save lives both literally and metaphorically, by creating valuable jobs in these very difficult economic and social times.
To close, I should like to wish the new Commissioner every success in his job and, if I may, say the following: our honourable and experienced colleague, Mr Cercas, said earlier that he hopes that you will enter and proceed with the 'right' foot. I hope that you will enter and proceed with the 'left' foot and I say that because the approach which will wear the social face of Europe on the outside is very important.
We need to focus on the workers, the European people need that.
Licia Ronzulli
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too will share a personal experience. I have been working in hospitals for 15 years, and for a time I was in fact a healthcare worker in a critical area: the operating theatre.
I myself have been pricked by potentially infectious needles and instruments. Therefore, as Mrs Rapti was saying, I can still remember the anxiety I felt when awaiting my test results, but above all how I went through the so-called 'window period' between the potential contamination and the hypothetical outbreak of disease.
Precisely because of this experience, I believe that we must vote in favour of this resolution, which finally gives legal force to the agreement in safety and protection terms by establishing minimum standards for all healthcare workers.
The healthcare sector accounts for 10% of the European Union's labour force and, to be more precise, there are an estimated 1.2 million cases of accidental sharp injuries each year, with the result that healthcare workers gradually become demotivated and very often leave the healthcare profession. Moreover, the World Health Organisation estimates that 2.5% of cases may seroconvert to HIV and in 40% of cases to various forms of hepatitis B and hepatitis C.
Precisely because of the numerous serious risks that are presented all too often on a daily basis, the healthcare profession is considered unattractive, so much so that it has suffered from a shortage of staff in recent years. Moreover, as has already been mentioned here, the cost for the individual healthcare services that have to deal with the stressful situations to which healthcare workers are subjected during the various monitoring periods, and of the diagnostic tests which, as a protocol, last for at least six months from the time of the accident, is considerable, and then there are the costs associated with the professionals who have unfortunately contracted the disease.
To conclude, in order not to underestimate the problem, when the risk of an accident can be avoided or reduced, it is necessary and right to take every preventive measure available. In particular, it is the employer's duty to introduce these measures, and it is the worker's duty to comply with them.
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Mr President, we are talking about a problem which has, indeed, grown to be one of the most significant in the area of healthcare. I will mention some statistics here. In the European Union, around a million of these unfortunate sharp injuries occur annually. In the United States, it is estimated to be a matter of around 380 000, but the Americans themselves say this figure is an underestimate. Of course, we must stress that this mainly concerns healthcare workers, but there is another aspect, too: we are also talking about patients who are also at risk from this. In these cases, and we have to be honest here, we are faced with the problem of the huge sums which hospitals are having to pay in compensation. It is clear, as other speakers have already said, that prevention is of absolutely fundamental significance here. For prevention is always significantly cheaper than treatment.
The resolution, in my opinion, is fully deserving of support. It is an answer to expectations expressed by the healthcare sector, and its importance is enhanced because the problem is growing. The problem of compensation is also growing, and claims are being made by healthcare workers as well as patients. Indeed, the financial aspect is not insignificant, either. My political group, on whose behalf I speak, supports the motion for a resolution. We think this is how we can respond to what is, in fact, a certain challenge of our time, and also meet the needs of consumers and workers in the healthcare sector in the countries of the European Union.
Georgios Papanikolaou
(EL) Mr President, I take the floor today to thank all the rapporteurs and everyone who brought about this debate.
Sometimes we say that Europe needs to get closer to its citizens. With this debate, we have certainly managed to do so. I was talking to a friend of my own age, a newly-qualified doctor, and when I told him about this debate, he said to me, with a great deal of pleasure, that this was absolutely crucial and that we should try and explain exactly what we were doing to everybody in Europe. It is important to prevent and to inform those working in hospitals about the risks they run. It is indeed crucial that we explain to everybody that, when they work such long hours, when spaces are sometimes confined, when patient numbers are very high, it is crucial for these people to be able to take, at the very least, the most important measures needed.
We need healthy staff in hospitals so that we, as patients - at some point - can benefit from their care and the best possible treatment.
Karin Kadenbach
(DE) Mr President, the objective of our policy should be to create an environment which guarantees the highest possible standard of living for the citizens of the European Union. One key challenge that we face in times like these, therefore, is maintaining and creating jobs. However, we should not be able to neglect our duty to ensure that these jobs do not make people ill or put their health at risk. That is why prevention, healthcare and job security are essential.
I strongly believe that the implementation of this directive, which is actually long overdue, will create the right conditions for making jobs safer in every area of healthcare, where staff are confronted with these risks on a daily basis. I think that it is in the interests of all European citizens that we make this a reality as soon as possible.
László Andor
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to say I am glad that this proposal enjoys such broad support in Parliament. I regret that the process lasted longer than many of you expected, but I would like to say that I am absolutely convinced that social dialogue has to play a role: we have to respect the opinion of the social partners. This not only enhances the legitimacy of a decision, it also helps with its implementation, because those who participate in the creation of a new rule are more interested in its success. This is very important.
We are already aware that there is a working document between the social partners concerning clarification of the framework agreement and also its implementation, so we hope - and I think that we can trust - that this will play a significant role in finalisation in the Council: this will be an answer to some of the concerns about implementation. Apart from that there is also an interest in the longer term follow-up. This is also very important in order to monitor how successful this new directive will be.
I would like to draw your attention to the text which says that the signatory parties shall review the application of this agreement five years after the date of the Council decision if requested by one of the parties to the agreement. In other words, it is very important that the monitoring of implementation and of changes in the occurrence of such injuries should be the starting point, should any of the parties wish to use this opportunity.
Finally, let me say, on what is just the second day of the new Commission - as a few speakers highlighted in their messages - that it is indeed very important that the Commission pays more attention to the forgotten people in Europe, those age groups or professions which cannot easily speak for themselves: they have been sometimes ignored or sidelined in earlier times.
The healthcare sector is clearly an important sector; we have to give it a lot of devotion and attention. It is not only that workers in the hospital and healthcare sector are exposed to sharp injuries and infections, we all know that they also work very long hours. So we have to take a kind of comprehensive approach when considering groups like this, which are very important, especially in times of crisis when the expected fiscal consolidation will affect the conditions these people work in. This is why this should be very high on our agenda, as it is on my personal agenda.
President
Thank you, Commissioner. I am sure we are all grateful to the initiators of this debate. Let us hope that things improve.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 12.00 today.