Protection of animals used for scientific purposes (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Parish, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes - C6-0391/2008 -.
Neil Parish
rapporteur. - Madam President, firstly I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs who have been very willing to work with me on what is an incredibly technical and difficult dossier. By working together we have been able to come up with what I believe is a good compromise. I would also like to thank the Commission for their cooperation, and we look forward to working with them on this dossier in the future. I would also like to thank Patrick Baragiola from the AGRI secretariat and my adviser Dan Dalton.
Animal testing is a highly controversial area and involves a moral dilemma. Is it ever right to test on animals in order to potentially save the lives of humans? I believe that, as long as tests are properly justified from both the scientific and ethical perspective, then it is.
However, we must do everything we can to minimise both the number of tests and the amount of suffering imposed upon animals. The Commission report was a good start. It showed that the Commission is keen on moving towards an end to animal experimentation whenever possible. However, in many areas the Commission proposal was ambiguous and may have the opposite effect to that which the Commission is seeking.
The omission of definitions of a severity classification was a glaring hole in the whole proposal. The Commission was in effect asking Parliament to make a judgement on the rules surrounding the classifications without knowing what they actually were. In addition, some provisions, particularly the recommendations on the reuse of animals and on the proposed use of only F2 primates (second-generation primates) are likely to mean that many more animals will have to be used.
In the case of F2 primates, no feasibility study has been done to see whether it is possible to do what the Commission is proposing. Their impact assessment only looks at numbers; it does not look into the welfare implications. For this reason, Parliament urgently needed to amend the proposal: not to weaken it but to make it clear exactly when testing on animals should be allowed and under what circumstances.
I believe that the AGRI Committee report strikes a compromise between ensuring that research can continue in the EU and improving animal welfare. From an animal welfare perspective it is a step forward. It is all about promoting alternatives to animal experimentation through a financial commitment, more emphasis on the three 'R's and the strengthening of the role of ECVAM.
In addition I have also proposed regular thematic reviews of primate experiments to identify and phase out those experiments which are not necessary.
It is also a step forward for medical research. It will update the current outdated legislation and will allow medical research to continue as and when that research is scientifically and ethically justified. I believe that this is fundamentally important. We also want to see animal tests reduced. However, European citizens quite rightly demand that the best and more effective medicines are available.
Reliable European research and development is essential. Vaccines for polio, German measles, hepatitis B, diphtheria, measles, mumps, rubella and meningitis, along with combined therapy drugs for HIV, medicines to control asthma, life support systems for premature babies and deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease, have all been developed through experimentation on animals, and specifically primates. Many millions of lives have been saved or improved as a result.
Until we have alternatives in place, I believe that it would be unwise to outlaw these types of experiments, either directly or indirectly through poorly worded legislation. This directive will set out the framework to ensure that we can phase out animal testing as soon as alternative methods are available. It significantly improves the search for alternatives and puts us firmly on the path to one day phasing out animal testing altogether. We have a good compromise in the AGRI Committee. However, the Liberal group appears to be trying to drive a coach and horses through this agreement. I would urge them not to vote against this report, because it will set back animal welfare by several years and it would be completely wrong for them to take this action.
Stavros Dimas
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, I welcome the opportunity that we have this evening of debating the proposal to revise the directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Parish, and the three parliamentary committees that examined the report for their efforts and their comments. I am certain that the dialogue which ensues will be constructive.
Numerous Member States have long since adopted their own national legislation on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. As a result, there are different levels of protection in Europe. The review will achieve a harmonised level of protection within the Community and will safeguard the smooth operation of the internal market. The Commission's aim is to improve the legislation of the European Union governing animal experiments. On the one hand, this will both limit the number of experimental animals and, on the other hand, it will provide suitable care and treatment of animals subjected to experiments, as required under the Protocol on protection and welfare of animals added to the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Our aim is for this review to considerably improve the welfare of experimental animals within the European Union. The welfare requirements of animals are now officially included in the Treaty on European Union and must be taken into account when laying down policies in sectors such as the internal market. Experts and specialists in the animal testing sector, the research community, the industry directly interested and citizens were involved in formulating the proposal with transparent procedures and without exclusions. The proposal is also based on a carefully substantiated impact assessment. Moreover, numerous scientific agencies made a significant contribution to this procedure. A comparative analysis of the possible benefits and the costs of taking action against not taking action was carried out in order to draw up the proposal. This proposal strikes the necessary balance; on the one hand, it promotes competitiveness and research in Europe and, on the other hand, it takes full account of the welfare requirements of animals. The Commission has carefully examined the concerns expressed by various sides that the proposal would expel European research from Europe, due to the supposed administrative burden or the cost involved in specific animal welfare requirements. However, there is no evidence that there will be any such drain to non-EU countries. Several of the welfare standards contained in our proposal and many of the stricter licensing procedures are already being applied by Member States who lead the way in research globally. Furthermore, our proposal makes provision for measures to minimise the administrative burden. There is, in fact, no contradiction between the adoption of strict animal welfare standards and the promotion of a high level of scientific research. On the contrary, the two concepts are interconnected.
Under the Commission proposal, the licensing of research on animals who are still conscious will be accompanied by systematic independent ethical evaluation. This will put the principles of restoring, restricting and improving the use of animals into practice. These provisions are the fundamental objectives of the review. We shall be unable to achieve our objectives if we replace licensing by tacit agreement to every type of research or if we allow the ethical evaluation to be carried out by those with a direct interest in the research project.
Finally, the Commission wishes to avoid any possible interruption to scientific projects under way and to minimise the administrative burden. That is why it allows for flexible application and encourages the use of existing infrastructures in the Member States wherever possible.
Ladies and gentlemen, the recast proposal will restore the smooth operation of the internal market, improve animal welfare standards and promote research. The current legislation urgently needs to be strengthened and improved in a properly balanced manner and that is precisely what the Commission proposal achieves.
Marios Matsakis
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. - Madam President, it is a necessary evil of our times that, unfortunately, human and animal health research requires, as a must, animal experimentation. It is my firm belief that no true scientist enjoys experimenting on animals or does so when alternative means of research are available. Such research must of course at all times be as humane as possible to the animals involved.
To this end the directive under debate seeks - correctly, in my view - to improve matters significantly and decidedly. Important areas of note are the safeguarding of the principles of ethical review and authorisation as well as the concepts of enhanced national inspections and increased transparency throughout. It must be emphasised that the aim of the scientific and political world should always be to phase out the use of animals in research if and when alternative and effective methods not using animals are made available.
Esko Seppänen
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (FI) Madam President, Commissioner, the report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is a compromise that takes account of the views of the parties in a balanced way. The Commission proposal has been amended in a way that the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy is also proposing.
As there are no alternative procedures for developing all drugs and vaccines, animal experiments have to be conducted. We are responsible to the citizens of the EU for ensuring that our fellow citizens, when ill, are comforted by the hope that the drugs needed to cure them are also developed in Europe.
At the same time, those who conduct animal tests are under an obligation to treat experimental animals well and cause them as little pain as possible. The directive is a clear improvement for animal welfare, and many of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Agriculture are the same or similar to what we, the Committee on Industry, proposed. Accordingly, the Committee on Agriculture's report should be adopted with as few changes as possible.
Elisabeth Jeggle
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Animal Testing Directive is based on the 3Rs principle. Our objective is the replacement, reduction and refinement of animal testing. In order to achieve this, we need to develop and promote alternative methods. Thirdly, we must find a compromise between animal welfare and research, while placing the emphasis on human health. Commissioner, you have also emphasised that we need to have the same standards in all Member States.
The current legislative proposal is based on the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals and on the animal health strategy. We want to ensure a high level of protection and high standards in the European Union and throughout the world. However, the complete abolition of animal testing without other methods being available as an adequate replacement would make the majority of the research based on animal experimentation in the European Union almost impossible. Research projects would move abroad, we would lose the huge amount of knowledge that we currently have and we would make ourselves completely dependent on other countries. Therefore, it is important to find a compromise and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has presented a good compromise. Admittedly it is not an easy balancing act, but for people who are ill it may be a matter of survival.
The result of the vote in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 31 March meets these requirements. We must support this compromise which was accepted by 72% of the committee. Therefore, I call on all Members of this House to reject all the more far-reaching amendments that have been submitted and to vote in favour of the amendments from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.
My warm thanks go not only to the rapporteur, but also to many of my fellow Members throughout Parliament.
Roselyne Lefrançois
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must firstly congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Parish, on the quality of his work and the importance that he placed on cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs.
Before we vote tomorrow at first reading, I want to go over the main lines of this report. Nowadays, the negative image that animal experimentation can have among the general public confirms the indisputable importance of this issue. Like me, you will have also received, over the last few weeks, a large number of letters from worried citizens.
However, while we have a duty to propose a text that takes account of the public's fears, we must not, for all that, neglect the demands of researchers. I must underline the fact that we cannot forget that researchers are not only legitimate representatives of this public opinion, but primarily people whose role is absolutely fundamental within our society.
You must be aware that, in the last 20 years, the number of animals used for scientific purposes has not increased, despite the fact that the number of scientific publications in the area of biomedical research has doubled every two years. In order to understand the challenges involved in revising this directive, I myself have met with many stakeholders representing the various opinions on this issue.
To my mind, the initial text proposed by the European Commission was really moving away from the fundamental aim in using animals, namely to make advances in research. It was therefore essential to put the issue of human health back at the heart of the discussions.
Clearly, the provisions on animal experimentation must be amended, but European research must not, however, suffer negative consequences from this new legislation. The strategy that I adopted, and which has been taken up by the rapporteur, therefore involved rebalancing this proposal to ensure that researchers are not harmed.
Based on the report adopted in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I believe that we can arrive at a coherent and reasonable text, which I hope will be broadly supported by Parliament.
Jorgo Chatzimarkakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Mahatma Gandhi said 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.' The welfare of laboratory animals is an important and delicate subject that many people would like to ignore. However, it is a very sensitive issue, in particular when it comes to research using monkeys and especially great apes. We know that this is the case from the public reaction.
The Commission was subjected to great pressure. I would like specifically to thank Commissioner Dimas. You have done some very good preparatory work and you have introduced important improvements in the welfare of laboratory animals, such as prior authorisation and follow-up checks for all tests. You have extended the directive to cover all animal species, not just mammals. The Commission has also effectively resolved the highly controversial issue of tests on non-human primates. These tests have been restricted to life-threatening illnesses and brain diseases.
Unfortunately, many details of the Commission proposal have been amended by the votes in the committees. For instance, the standards that I have just referred to have been turned on their heads by the vote in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. To give just one example, following the vote in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, tests will be automatically authorised if they have not received official authorisation after 60 days. This is an indefensible situation for us in Europe.
This is why I am calling on my fellow Members to read through what you are voting on tomorrow and not just to follow your voting guidelines. I am grateful to the rapporteur for being prepared to make some compromises at the last minute. I am pleased that Mr Parish plans to introduce an oral amendment tomorrow to ensure that the rules on the authorisation period for projects are made clearer.
However, it is a pity that Article 15 has not got through. Article 15 gives some Member States the option of retaining stricter standards, as is the case, for example, in the Netherlands. Why do we want to lower the standards which are currently very high in the Netherlands? Our joint aim must be to find a balance between high levels of animal welfare and intensive research. I have had enough of the knock-out argument, which is always trotted out, that research will move abroad. This is not necessarily always true.
Schopenhauer said 'Any stupid boy can crush a beetle, but all the professors in the world cannot create a new beetle.' We must provide a set of values, because that is our job.
Kartika Tamara Liotard
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) I am pleased that the Commission has taken the initiative to revise the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Both the use and the suffering of laboratory animals must be substantially reduced, and this can be done by encouraging the development of scientific methods that are equivalent or more efficient, but without unduly hindering the development of medicinal products.
Something I have difficulty with, however, is the fact that several amendments have been tabled that could considerably weaken the proposal. We must not lose sight of the objective of the proposal. This is about protecting laboratory animals and not about business profits. The most important thing is to ban procedures categorised as 'severe' in which laboratory animals may suffer prolonged pain. These procedures are unethical and barbaric.
Finally, the use of non-human primates in experiments must be phased out completely - and rapidly. Parliament adopted a written declaration on this back in 2007, and I think that it is now time to match words with deeds.
Bastiaan Belder
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, high animal welfare standards are an expression of civilisation and of respect for one's fellow creatures. Where good alternatives to animal testing are available, these must be used, as we want less animal testing. This also goes for good procedures that reduce animal suffering or require fewer laboratory animals, as we want less animal suffering.
I think that the proposed compulsory ethical review is progress. Naturally, the objective of this directive cannot be to compel Member States to accept testing on human embryos as an alternative. Member States must take their own ethical decision on this.
The Commission's ultimate aim is to abolish animal testing completely. Although we share this aim, it is an unfortunate fact that we cannot yet do without animal testing, nor are we yet in a position to say definitively when this will be the case. Already giving a final deadline for banning animal testing would be ill-advised and perhaps even hazardous to human health; I agree with the rapporteur on this.
Françoise Grossetête
(FR) Mr President, our fellow citizens are calling for more research, particularly in the biomedical area, in order to find new treatments for diseases for which we do not yet have a cure. This is the case, among others, with all the neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. We also know that we need animal experimentation and that this animal experimentation has fortunately reduced in recent years because we have set ourselves the goal of finding alternative solutions.
However, unfortunately, we know that, in some cases, these solutions do not exist and we still need to use animal experimentation, particularly on non-human primates. In this case, we must do absolutely everything we can to ensure that European research remains in the territory of Europe so that we can offer maximum protection. Taking into account an animal's pain during an experiment offers every guarantee that this experimentation will produce good results.
Therefore, let us keep our research and, in particular, let us also keep animal experimentation. Let us particularly make sure that this research is not relocated outside Europe.
Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, using animals for scientific purposes is a very sensitive matter that gives rise to controversial and irreconcilable emotions, if viewed from one side only. It is impossible to discuss this issue solely from the perspective of protecting the interests and rights of animals. It is also impossible to discuss this issue looking solely at the interests of science or using a logic of obtaining results at the lowest possible cost.
No one can be indifferent to the suffering of other living beings, even less so in the case of animals as close to us as primates. However, our sensitivity is even further heightened when we are faced with the suffering of human beings caused by accidents, war or disease. In order to combat pain, we cannot refuse science the instruments that it needs, including the use of guinea pigs.
This report sets out a possible balance between the contradiction of values and emotions with which we are faced, and it reveals an effort to compromise which can only ennoble this Parliament and its most committed Members. I therefore congratulate those with whom I dealt most in this discussion - the rapporteur, Neil Parish, and the shadow rapporteur of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Roselyne Lefrançois - on their excellent work and the consensus that they managed to achieve on such a difficult and controversial issue.
My political group, the PSE Group, will therefore vote for this report and the amendments with which we tried to further improve it, in the belief that we will therefore help to reduce the suffering of animals, without compromising scientific progress for the benefit of human health and the viability of European research.
Zuzana Roithová
- (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am concerned about the suffering of laboratory animals as well, but at the same time I know, as a physician, that we must do everything we can to make vaccines and medicines available to our patients as soon as possible, for the treatment of new and old diseases. I would like to thank our fellow Members, who have succeeded in finding a truly balanced compromise which respects and honours ethical principles applying to the treatment of animals while at the same time making it possible to carry on with research projects. First and foremost this directive sends a clear political signal that we want our scientists to look for alternative methods of verifying research into new medicines, in order to minimise the number of animals and the number of tests, while naturally complying with all of the possible ethical principles so as to avoid the suffering of animals. I would like to thank you all for this outcome.
Caroline Lucas
Mr President, I cannot hide the fact that this report has been a serious disappointment to those of us who thought that a rapporteur who was also the president of the animal welfare intergroup might have reflected that concern for animals rather more diligently in his report.
It is therefore essential that some crucial amendments are adopted when we vote on this. In particular, the scope of authorisation must apply to all projects, not just to severe and moderate ones. If we fail to ensure that, it will mean that many procedures causing pain, distress or suffering would no longer be subject to a centrally monitored ethical review and that in turn would effectively undermine the enforcement of many of the measures set out in the proposal as a whole.
But, if our amendments are passed, it will mean that there will be renewed effort going into research and the alternatives to animal testing, which is particularly critical in basic and medical research. Current efforts are concentrated on regulatory testing, which accounts for only 10% of animal use. For the sake of both the animals and human health, it is essential that more modern, effective non-animal tests come into use as soon as possible.
Stavros Dimas
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Mr President, I should like to thank all the speakers for their very constructive contributions to this evening's debate. Allow me to formulate some brief comments on certain amendments. The Commission can accept numerous amendments in full, in part or in principle. These amendments include proposals to improve the confidentiality of data relating to installations and staff working with animals. They also include proposals for regular review of the use of non-human primates at European Union level.
Concern was also expressed about the criteria for severity bands. I am in a position to announce to you that, before the summer recess, the Commission will convene a working party of experts to examine the definition of appropriate criteria for use in the European Union. Without doubt, we will need to maintain the balance struck, as a result of detailed consultation with those directly involved, between the needs of industry and the promotion of research, on the one hand, and animal welfare, on the other. Consequently, the restrictions on the use of non-human primates must be retained, as must the principle of licensing and independent ethical evaluation of all forms of research, which are basic elements in this proposal. To recapitulate, the Commission is able to accept 83 of the 202 proposed amendments in full, in part or in principle. I shall send Parliament's secretariat a list with the Commission's detailed positions on the amendments.
Finally, I should like to say that, over and above this proposal, which is very important and for which we must maintain the balance between the needs of scientific research and improving human health, while at the same time using methods which are not hard on animals, I must say that the Commission, all the while I have been Commissioner, has taken numerous measures to protect animals. I would remind you of our previous debate on seals, of the very drastic measures and reaction in connection with whale hunting, of the issues relating to unsustainable hunting, especially in spring, and of the measures which we took for the first time as the Commission, with safety measures to prevent precisely such cases.
I truly cannot understand how practices such as fox-hunting or bullfights or cockfighting can be compatible with today's culture.
Neil Parish
rapporteur. - Mr President, I should like to thank Members very much for their views and the Commissioner for his views.
We are right to have this review of this legislation. It is right to refine, reduce and replace animal testing wherever possible. We are right to keep the momentum going. Both industry and animal welfare organisations believe this is necessary.
This is an issue which I believe goes well beyond politics and is very much a moral issue that we must get right. I for one am very disappointed - if he were here I would say it to him clearly - that Graham Watson has made a personal attack on me in my own region, making this a highly political issue. This is regrettable because we need to come forward with a sensible proposal in the end.
A lot of technical expertise and work has been put into this report. We do not deliver this report lightly. We have put serious work into it and we have good compromises. I have sought to bring all sides together to deliver a report which is right for Parliament, right for research and industry, and right for animal welfare. I would urge all to support it because, if we do not get it through, we face delaying the report for a couple of years, and this would be detrimental to the industry and to animal welfare. So I would urge all Members to support it.
If there are groups here that decide to vote against it, I think in the long run all it will do is delay what is a good proposal, one which will help to make sure there is research available in the European Union to help with disease control and new medicine while at the same time reducing the number of animals we need to use and actually strengthening ECVAM in looking for alternatives. So I would urge all Members to vote for it because we want a really resounding result in the morning.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday, 5 May 2009).
Written statements (Rule 142)
Šarūnas Birutis
in writing. - (LT) The draft Commission report strongly supports the development of a more animal welfare friendly approach to the issue of the use of animals in scientific experimentation. This demonstrates the Commission's commitment towards the end goal of the abolition of animal experimentation.
The European Union should be working towards this goal. The European Parliament has made its belief clear that more should be done towards the final objective of removing animals from scientific experiments altogether.
However, whilst this remains the end goal, we are not yet in a position to end animal experimentation altogether. There remains a huge gap in the development of alternative, non-animal testing methods. Whilst this remains the case, it would be unwise and potentially disastrous for human health to mandate a date beyond which animal testing or testing on certain categories of animals, such as non-human primates, can no longer be carried out. Public opinion polls tend to support this approach and they cannot be ignored.
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
I would first of all like to congratulate the European Commission for its proposal to revise Directive 86/609/EEC, but I am sorry that the rapporteur did not put forward more ambitious objectives.
I think that we must invest more in carrying out research into finding alternatives to using animals for scientific purposes. We must oblige laboratories to resort to the use of animals for scientific experiments as little as possible, especially those taken from the wild.
I strongly oppose the use of non-human primates for biomedical research, except only where there is a need to use them exclusively in experiments involving life-threatening or debilitating conditions.
From an ethical standpoint, there must be an upper limit of pain, suffering and distress above which animals must never be subjected in scientific procedures. With this in mind, carrying out experiments which result in severe pain, suffering or stress, and which are likely to be prolonged, must be banned.
I am aware that public health is of paramount importance, but we must not allow animals to be subjected to extreme suffering in order to test treatments.
I also support the amendment stipulating that the directive must not restrict Member States from applying or adopting more stringent national measures, aimed at improving the welfare and protection of animals used for scientific purposes.


Dual-use items and technology (debate)
President
Τhe next item is the report by Mr Leichtfried, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology - C7-0062/2010 -.
Jörg Leichtfried
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when I took on the task of preparing the report on the control of exports of dual-use items and technology, although I had some idea of the scope of this report, I did not realise quite how extensive it was.
This report is essentially about a practice that somehow always ends up in the shadows of reports, but which, on the other hand, safeguards jobs and, in my opinion, must be regulated throughout Europe.
It is essentially about facilitation of export licences for products that can be used for both military and civil purposes. These include everything from chemicals to nuclear fuels, weapon parts, computer components and ultimately - and we debated this very intensively - even software and software components.
In my view, it is important that the different regulations that we currently have in the Member States are brought into closer harmony, that they are made more precise, more specific and also more transparent, and, above all, that they can attain transparency at European level.
With this report, it was probably possible to see the consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon for us in the European Parliament properly for the first time. The Commission originally put this proposal to the Council in the belief that the matter would perhaps be settled by the time the Treaty of Lisbon was concluded. That was not the case, however. Thus, it has also come to the European Parliament, and I think it is good that it is being debated in this House, because we see some things, which I will now come to, in a different way to the Council.
We have succeeded in overcoming certain legal complications that arose as a result of the method employed by the Commission. I would like, in particular, to thank the representatives of the Commission for the fact that we have succeeded in regulating the matter in such a way that, from a legal point of view, we are now on a safer footing. Finally, just a few key problems remain.
In this House, we are essentially in agreement on everything, with one exception, and in that regard we are not in agreement with the Council, either. It concerns the question of whether exports should be authorised after they have taken place or before they take place. In this regard, it is sensible, for reasons of safety, oversight and transparency, to ensure that someone asks first before something hazardous is exported and does not retrospectively apply for authorisation after these products have already been exported, as we will then probably not be very successful in prohibiting this export. That is the familiar ex post - ex ante debate: in my opinion, it would make more sense for authorisation to be granted first and then for the products to be exported.
Where we are all in agreement - although not with the Council - is on the subject of transparency in respect of the reporting obligation. I think that the European Parliament should ultimately be informed - how that is achieved from a technical point of view can be discussed - of what, where and how much has been authorised, because we are clearly the body that has to ensure that everything is carried out properly.
It is also important for us to discuss how we should deal with exports of devices that could possibly be used in violations of human rights. I think that such exports should not be permitted. We must ensure that that is the case. I now look forward to the debate.
Cecilia Malmström
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, every day, European businesses have to compete in an ever-changing and more competitive environment. The questions of dependability and timely delivery are as important as those of quality and price. Exports of dual-use items create particular challenges in this regard, as such exports are subject to authorisation requirements.
Dual-use items are not niche goods. They are very much items legitimately used in a broad variety of industrial sectors - the space industry, the telecommunications industry, aviation, the chemical industry and many others. The goods are controlled because they could also potentially be used for military purposes.
Many Member States make special export facilitations available to their exporters. These facilitations take the form of general licences and allow businesses in certain Member States to export dual-use items with the minimum burden.
Following an analysis of these national facilitation measures, in 2008, the Commission put forward its proposal aimed at extending these national facilitations to exporters throughout the Union. The proposal for a new EU general export authorisation is designed to allow exporters in all Member States to reap the benefits of simplified export procedures for certain dual-use items to certain destinations. In this way, participation in international exhibitions and fairs will become easier. Exporting items after they have been repaired will also become simpler, and exports of telecommunications equipment and certain industrial chemicals will be simplified. On the other hand, Member States will be able to concentrate their limited resources on transactions that actually do pose a risk.
The Commission regularly receives complaints from industry that certain exports are being prevented from entering one Member State while identical transactions are given a green light in other Member States. The proposal in front of you is a first step towards eliminating these inequalities within our Single Market. Many other countries are taking similar steps to prioritise their work on export control, and we should not be left behind.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Leichtfried, and other Members for their very constructive work on the proposal. The report presented by you and your committee is definitely a step in the right direction and is broadly consistent with the Commission's view.
Reinhard Bütikofer
Mr President, Commissioner, before us we have a subject that affects trade and security to equal degrees. Dual-use items are products with two uses. That means that they can have both a civil use, as well as a perfectly sensible or downright dangerous, but in any case security-relevant, use. Some parties, for example, the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, claim that these are - and I quote - 'non-critical items'. That is incorrect. This Parliament has previously taken a more responsible position in its committees.
I speak as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. In these committees, we have taken a very clear position. We believe that it would be extremely negligent not to take certain control mechanisms into consideration. I would therefore like to appeal to my fellow Members to follow the recommendations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence and, in particular, the recommendations of the rapporteur, who has just spoken, with regard to the question of ex ante control. This is the one major controversial issue that we still face with regard to this matter.
To perform checks only after the event would result in less security. However, we want more security for EU citizens and also more security for our partner countries and trade partners. We do not want the principle of ex ante control - which the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Foreign Affairs have followed - to now be replaced by the principle of ex post control. That would place trade interests above security interests. Many Member States, the Netherlands for example, have expressly warned against this. It would therefore undoubtedly be in the interests of our citizens for the plenary to confirm what the committees have drawn up.
Elisabeth Köstinger
Mr President, Commissioner, the Dual-Use Regulation under debate provides for the acquisition of general authorisations for non-critical items and technologies that are exported to third countries and fulfil a dual purpose. However, these general authorisations are also intended to enable European exporters and small and medium-sized enterprises to plan reliably. This regulation is intended to represent a relaxation for our European exporters in order to spare them time-consuming individual authorisation procedures and, above all, also to enhance their competitiveness. I therefore think that detailed registration procedures and the additional requirements imposed on exporters will not result in a relaxation, but rather additional expenditure.
There is no doubt that we must ensure that exports that fulfil dual purposes are also used in a safe manner and cannot present a danger, but, in any case, we also have to question the excessive and unnecessary additional expenditure. I could give the example of a medium-sized enterprise in the field of mechanical engineering that offers a 24-hour service for repairing machines and supplying machine parts. These services must also continue to be possible despite more stringent export provisions.
The same applies in the area of cyber attacks and the involvement of stakeholders. If we do not have clear criteria and framework conditions for these areas, and if the wordings are imprecise, then I have to question the additional expenditure and the generalisation here too. Although it is extremely important to involve stakeholders in decision-making processes, this must always be done with a view to the practical and sensible implementation of the decisions. Here, too, there is no question that transparency and security are essential.
Finally, I would like to stress once again that this regulation is intended to contribute to a facilitation of the procedure and a reduction in bureaucracy. Against the background of the safe use of products and technologies, it is intended to strengthen our European economy and simplify the associated administration.
George Sabin Cutaş
Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague for the exceptional work he has done on this report, which is so technical, but which entails real implications for the security of Europe's citizens.
The European Union has been enforcing export control measures on dual-use items for nearly 15 years. The adoption of preventive measures such as export licensing requirements and customs registration enables the European Union to take care to avoid the proliferation of weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction. However, the European Union's dual-use regime needs to be more transparent and democratic. A secure system must be set up where notifications about exports involving items which can be used for both civil and military purposes will be collected, transmitted and stored to prevent the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
I also welcome the rapporteur's proposal calling on the Dual-Use Coordination Group to submit an annual report to the European Parliament to help the latter fulfil its control function. It is the duty of the European Commission, in turn, to inform Parliament about the implementation of the regulation's provision on setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technologies and to submit an impact study for the measures being proposed.
Last but not least, the European Union's representation in international export control regimes needs to be improved. Unfortunately, the lists of items to be controlled are updated by the international regimes and transposed into European Union legislation without the European Parliament being able to participate in this process. This is why I call for better control from Parliament and for its legislative role to be facilitated, as assigned by the Treaty of Lisbon.
Niccolò Rinaldi
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for time immemorial, if there is one trade that is difficult to control, it is the arms trade. There are various ways to make this control difficult. One is to trade in apparently harmless weapons or techniques that can easily become a weapon, and that is why we are concerned with dual use in the regulation. Another difficulty is the plethora of rules that make any control system ineffective.
When we started working on this case, the Commission asked us to amend a regulation dating from 2000. Meanwhile, this has been revoked and we were called on to amend the more recent 2009 regulation on the basis of the same obsolete proposal. We have just entered trialogue and we already have a new legislative proposal from the Commission, again to amend the regulation. The first request is therefore to establish clear, simple and transparent rules for European exporters having a consolidated text.
Four points on the position of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). With regard to shipments of low value, we in the ALDE concur with the Council in being very sceptical about this system. Parliament has already limited the maximum value from EUR 5 000 to 3 000 and imposed various other criteria. The list of destination countries is very limited. This is something that small and medium-sized businesses legitimately want, but our main message is that we want security above all, as well as trade, and we must go back to work on this in the trialogue.
We support the policy of ex ante notification and the obligation of registration by Member States. Finally, we demand the maximum degree of transparency to ensure that the regulation provides a mechanism which informs stakeholders, such as human rights or peace monitoring and trade unions organisations, of the various stages that made up the decision-making process, including through a report to the European Parliament
Helmut Scholz
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Leichtfried, for his work on this report and, on behalf of my group, I wish him every success in the undoubtedly difficult negotiations with the Council, which is unfortunately not present at this debate.
However, I would like to mention two aspects. The amendments tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) are not helpful to the rapporteur, but undermine the negotiating position of Parliament defined in the Committee on International Trade. The amendments seek to make life easier for arms exporters. Therefore, my group will not support these amendments.
Secondly, I would like to state that my group has considerable problems with the use of the dual-use list to block the access of developing countries in particular to high technology. This relates, in particular, to restrictions on the export of high-performance computers. We have seen the potential for the political abuse of the dual-use list, particularly in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. For this reason, we have drawn up Amendment 47, and I would ask for your support for this amendment in the interests of the developing countries.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Mr President, nuclear fuels, chemicals and computer programmes can be used for peaceful purposes, but they can also be used for military purposes. Some Member States have been supplying Libya with weapons and even with torture equipment for years. The most recent arms export report - more like a list of sins - clearly shows that Italy, Malta and Germany supplied the most weapons to Gaddafi. France, on the other hand, was the front-runner with regard to supplies to the Arab region. Others - like my country, Austria - abide by the restrictions. We must combat this imbalance.
All Member States and the entire weapons industry in the EU must observe strict controls and transparency provisions. However, the system must also be kept up-to-date. Particularly with regard to software, IT and smart phones, it needs to be considered whether these will not be of benefit to democratic movements, as we have recently seen in the Arab region, of course. We therefore need more discriminating analyses with regard to the potential uses and the dubiousness of the recipients.
Christofer Fjellner
(SV) Mr President, the number of products covered by this legislation that can be used for both civil and military purposes is far greater than we first thought. It includes everything from lorries to aeroplane jet engines and telecommunications equipment. I therefore think it is important to point out that the direct reference to the weapons industry in this regard is often misleading. It also makes this legislation important in terms of simplifying and harmonising the way in which we handle products in Europe that can be used for both civil and military purposes. It must be stringent, predictable and clear, but also harmonised. Every time I hear about a Swedish company that is denied the chance to export to another country for reasons relating to EU legislation, only to then discover that a French company, for example, is perfectly able to export the same products, it is clear that the EU has failed.
We must remember that trade is essentially a good thing. I am thinking of telecommunications equipment, for example, which is incredibly important for democracy movements around the world. This proposal must not make civil trade more difficult and subject to more bureaucracy. I am therefore opposed to the proposal to introduce an ex ante declaration. Modern, just-in-time delivery systems, service agreements and so on make it extremely difficult for fully legitimate products that we want to export and see more of. Most companies know exactly what these products are. Even if they apply an ex post notification, they know that they will be penalised if they export anything. I think it is important to simplify trade. We need to ensure that the legislation is stringent, clear and harmonised, but also simple. This does not fit well with having an ex ante check of everything that is exported. For example, it makes it more difficult to send important telecommunications equipment to countries that need it.
Janusz Władysław Zemke
(PL) Mr President, I would like to thank you very much, if I may, for giving me the floor. Our problem concerns the fact that not all of the EU's Member States apply the same criteria with regard to the export of dual-use items. I therefore think that we should aim to ensure that all EU Member States apply the same high standards in respect of the export of civilian products which can be used for military purposes.
I believe that this regulation should, in particular, highlight the need to prevent the unjustified and undesirable proliferation of technologies and their software, since the number of attacks involving modern technologies and software is increasing. I think that this would be an effective way to combat cyber-terrorism.
Ioan Mircea Paşcu
Mr President, the topic of the report is doubly sensitive, both politically and economically. On the one hand, the EU wants to prevent dual-used goods to be used for military purposes and/or against people. On the other hand, it has to consider the economic interests of producers and users. The regulation is therefore inevitably bushy, having to cover for both existing intentional loopholes and anticipate for others in the future.
Moreover, while for some, the regulation would appear too strong, for others it would appear too weak, requiring constant revision. As a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I fully support the need for a more transparent and stricter regulation. I am therefore totally in favour of authorisation before export and not vice versa. Particularly after Lisbon, Parliament can only help, and this is exactly what it is doing here and now. Consequently, its role should be strengthened, not overlooked.
Peter Jahr
(DE) Mr President, when it comes to the export authorisation for dual-use items, we are probably all agreed that we need uniform rules in the European Union so that the Member States do not all follow different practices, which would lead to distortions of competition and achieve precisely the opposite of what we actually want.
Of course, it sounds logical when we say that exports should be authorised and approved in advance. We want more transparency and we want this to be monitored so that we can learn from it. In this regard, I would like to express my support for Mrs Köstinger, who said that we obviously need a system that is bearable for our small and medium-sized enterprises and one with which they can cope. The world market is not only for large concerns, but also for small and medium-sized enterprises.
That would also be my appeal to the rapporteur, namely, to ensure that the conditions and requirements laid down are also bearable for, and capable of being implemented by, our small and medium-sized enterprises.
João Ferreira
(PT) Mr President, the problem with using civilian products and technologies for military purposes is that there is no approach to it that does not become tied up with controlling exports of what are known as 'dual-use products and related services'. This control of exports is important, and should be carried out in a rigorous manner, which does not adversely affect developing countries' access to the products and technologies required for their development. It is important to increase the transparency of the relevant processes and to enable democratic scrutiny of them.
However, there is also a need for consistency in this area between other European Union policies and the objectives of this regulation. For example, we recall the research projects financed by the Seventh Framework Programme, especially those being engaged in with the participation of the Israeli aerospace industry, which manufactured unmanned aircraft used in the attack on the Gaza Strip in 2008 and 2009, causing the deaths of dozens of people. There is also a need for a rigorous assessment of possible dual civilian military use of the results of these programmes.
Cecilia Malmström
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, on behalf of Mr De Gucht, I would again like to thank the rapporteur and his committee for the work they are doing. The Commission very much shares the views in their report and on the two remaining issues where they propose one ex ante system. The most important thing for the Commission is that it is the same system, because we have to avoid all kinds of double standards and over-complications here.
We also agree with you that some kind of reporting mechanism is necessary - without, of course, posing an exaggerated burden on small and medium-sized companies in particular. However, some kind of reporting mechanism would be necessary, and I hope that you will be able to reach a conclusion with the Council on these remaining issues later. Thank you again for this debate, Mr President.
Jörg Leichtfried
Mr President, I wanted to use the last two minutes to appeal to the Council. However, there are only empty seats where the Council is supposed to be. I am not sure whether it is sensible to conduct debates without the Council. I think it would be appropriate to inform the Council that, if it wants something from the European Parliament, it ought to come here and listen to the relevant debate in this House.
I know that this matter concerns a large branch of industry. It concerns a lot of items and it concerns jobs, particularly jobs in small and medium-sized enterprises which produce high technology and which are incredibly important. For them, it is extremely important that there are uniform regulations in the European Union and that we do not have a situation where - as Mr Fjellner mentioned - one country meets its obligations, but another does not, and, in the end, the ones that lose out are those that abide by the rules. That should not be the case.
It is therefore important for us to find a solution quickly and also for the Council to accept that not everything is as it perceives it to be. This is also important. With this realisation, we will quickly reach a solution in the interests of European industry, European jobs and the protection of human rights and the preservation of security and of freedom from injury outside the European Union. This report is intended to facilitate this.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote on the report by Mr Leichtfried will take place tomorrow at noon.


Amendment of the single CMO Regulation (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Parish, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the amendment of the single CMO regulation - C6-0314/2008 -.
Neil Parish
rapporteur. - Madam President, we are tonight talking about the single CMO on wine. We actually very much support the idea of bringing all the common market organisations together into one organisation. However, we are concerned that we can identify exactly where the chapters on wine are, that we can access them properly and that, in the future, when we are dealing with wine and Member States are dealing with wine, that you do not open up the whole 20 odd chapters - which are included in the whole single CMO - at the same time.
We have now had many meetings with the Commission to get reassurance on this. At the moment, you are probably at the stage of bringing all these CMOs together. We are seeking reassurance that we will be able to get the information we need. The industry itself, of course, is also concerned that it will be able to identify the rules within the single CMO.
There is no doubt that the Commission is telling us that this will mean a reduction in bureaucracy. We very much welcome that, but we want reassurance that this is exactly the case. We have been told that the technical organisations that give information on wine to the Commission will be the same as they were previously and this will now work within the single CMO, so - provided this is the case and that we can actually go on to a computerised system in the future and identify all the regulations - we welcome this proposal. But we must be assured, at the end of the day, that this will actually be beneficial for the whole industry.
I think there will be Members tonight who will be seeking that reassurance from the Commission. We look forward to the Commission giving us these answers. I actually think that the way forward is to reduce bureaucracy in the Commission and in Europe. What we seek now is those reassurances. I welcome the single CMO. I am sure there will be other Members here who have comments to make. What is absolutely apparent is that we must get this voted on now so that Parliament gives its opinion and the Commission can come forward and conclude this. I therefore recommend this to the House.
Janez Potočnik
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur and Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Parish, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture, for the report.
I could be very short and just reassure you but I have to read the speaking points.
We have been working very hard at simplifying the common agricultural policy (CAP). A single common market organisation (CMO) covering all agricultural sectors is a keystone of this effort. It allows for streamlining legislation across sectors whilst taking into account the specifications of particular products. It has also substantially reduced the volume of CAP legislation.
This Commission proposal aims at completing the single CMO project by integrating the wine sector also. Without wine, the single CMO would simply remain incomplete. We would stop part way through the process and lose many of the benefits of the projects.
We have always intended to include wine. Indeed, both the initial single CMO proposal and the recent wine reform were drafted and adopted on that basis. I am glad to say that the European Parliament has always fully endorsed the single CMO project, including the integration of fruit and vegetables and wine after the completion of the reforms in those sectors.
The single CMO, and its management committee, has been working very well for other sectors and there has been no particular criticism of it.
The proposal for integration might seem complex at first sight. But this is inherent in the nature of amending legislation. After incorporation, consolidated versions of the single CMO will become available, which will show very clearly the wine provisions.
The integration of the single CMO will not make any substantive changes to the policy decided in the wine reform. The services of my colleague, Mrs Fischer Boel, will work hard with the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that this is the case. We did this very successfully during the integration of the equally complex fruit and vegetables sector.
I would therefore ask you to help the Commission, to help my colleague, to continue her and our simplification work and give a positive opinion on this proposal.
Christa Klaß
Madam President, Commissioner, I must say that I am disappointed by your remarks because we have entered into discussions with the Commission on the basis of what Neil Parish has said.
I had hoped for something more concrete than simply the constant repetition of the fact that it will become simpler. It will not become simpler. A common market organisation for wine will be the 21st market organisation in an extensive series. The objective of making things simpler by reducing bureaucracy is not something that I or the wine growers of Europe are able to recognise. In future, everyone who wants to find out something about the wine sector must search through a long regulation, the common market organisation for all the agricultural products, which previously consisted of 204 articles and an appendix that is twice as long, to find all the points which refer to wine, across 98 articles with 21 headings and the 10 accompanying appendices.
This is not a reduction in bureaucracy, Commissioner. This is bureaucracy in its purest form. I call on the Commission to at least simplify the technical applications, because it is possible to do so. Younger colleagues of mine, such as Anja Weisgerber, tell me that it must be possible. Please could the Commission consider this? A technical simplification would include, for example, a search tool on the Commission's website which would allow people to download and print only those parts of the common market organisation which are relevant for their particular agricultural products. Neither wine growers nor milk producers are interested in the special regulations on fruit and vegetables or hemp, and vice versa.
We must make use of these technical possibilities in order to make things simpler. In future, whenever a change is made in one agricultural area, there is the possibility that changes will be made in another area. This means that when an amendment is made in the milk sector and the single CMO is modified, all farmers and wine growers must make sure that a change has not been quickly pushed through in their area.
I would like to ask two specific questions, Madam President.
Commissioner, in future who will be the monitor? ...
(The President cut off the speaker.)
Rosa Miguélez Ramos
Madam President, the single CMO Regulation has been in force since December 2006. The Commission describes this as an essential component in the plans to streamline and simplify the common agricultural policy.
Some people, myself included, regard this statement as highly debatable. However, I do not believe that this is the time or the place. We had a debate at the time and yet, despite this Regulation having only been in force for a few months, we are now voting on its amendment.
Today we are adding even more pages by incorporating Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine. This Regulation will be repealed by the present proposal and its substance will be fully incorporated into the single CMO Regulation.
This sector has conveyed to us, myself included, its concern about the wine CMO articles being scattered among the various chapters of the single CMO Regulation and about the risk of this diluting the specific nature of this product.
We believe that this incorporation is actually inevitable and we have all had the opportunity to read the letter sent by the Commissioner to the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Parish, assuring him that this legislative measure will not fundamentally alter the rules in this sector. This should be solely a technical incorporation which will in no way affect the content.
As a result, while understanding and sharing some of the misgivings, I can only support Mr Parish's report.
Vladimír Železný
Madam President, we are actually voting here for a provision which will incorporate winegrowing legislation into the provisions for the common organisation of agriculture on a principle of 'scattered tea'. Wine legislation, despite its fundamentally specialist nature, must, in other words, be randomly sprayed between lamb, cereals, goats, fruit and vegetables. The Federation of Winegrowers from the Czech Republic has pointed out that a small producer from South Moravia with an output of perhaps 2 000 litres of wine will find it hard to deal with the enormous, impenetrable and widely-scattered body of legislation applying to his wine. I have received requests for help, not only from our 20 000 strong federation of winegrowers but also from the federations of winegrowers in Spain, France, Italy and Germany which belong to the Assembly of European Wine Regions (AREV). The Commission, however, has had the temerity to turn a blind eye to this. The DG AGRI insisted that it knew nothing and that winegrowers were happy. And now that Commissioner Boel has conceded that winegrowers are not happy, she tells us that nothing can be done. Something can actually be done, however, because we are the Parliament. Let us either create a transparent chapter for wine within agricultural legislation or reject the report. We must not allow arrogant officials to burden the lives of winegrowers, who themselves, through their taxes, help to pay the wages of the same officials.
Esther Herranz García
(ES) Madam President, the European Commission has presented this amendment to the single CMO Regulation, saying that this will now include wine in a new presentation that supposedly tries to avoid paperwork and red tape.
However, producers tell us that it will create more confusion, that it makes them concerned about a lack of legal certainty, and that it will not change the basis of the wine CMO (as laid down by law, this could not actually happen without passing through this House, even if only for the purpose of consultation).
In any event, it must be said that the wine CMO is more than a market CMO. It involves other requirements, such as the labelling issue. Therefore, if milk is not the same as vegetables, and vegetables are not the same as cereals, and clearly cereals are not the same as wine, why are we putting them together as if they had some connection?
I believe that this proposal has some technical shortcomings which, as I have said, have been denounced by producers. I wonder what will happen now if, for example, a proposal is made to amend part of this single CMO Regulation. Will this open the door to all the other sectors? Will it be possible to amend a sector without us realising? Will the door be open to the amendment of each and every one of the sectors included?
I believe that we cannot move a motion of confidence in the European Commission if the Commission does not guarantee that, firstly, there will be a search engine - as requested by Mrs Klaß - guaranteeing producers security, speed and confidence when searching the Regulation and, secondly, if the Commission does not guarantee that there will be legal certainty so that a door cannot be opened or left open constantly to the amendment of any CMO which is included.
With this proposal, the European Commission is presenting a fait accompli, but they cannot say that we did not warm them that this would be a mistake and that it would not, in any way, avoid paperwork or red tape, but that it will actually create more paperwork and red tape and also more legal uncertainty, which is what is worrying producers most.
Astrid Lulling
(FR) Madam President, under a pretext of simplification, the European Commission is relentlessly pursuing integration of all CMOs for all products, from wheat to chicken, from fruit and vegetables to tobacco, into a single CMO. The result was a large tome amounting to several hundred pages, in which one could seek the pertinent information in vain.
As has already been said, the wine sector, because of its extremely specific requirements, has been subject to very detailed regulation, which differs from that pertaining to other products and which ensured clarity and transparency. Because of this, it was understood that the wine CMO would remain separate.
However, today it appears that the wine CMO has been swallowed up in this large volume. The Commission does not wish to let go of this issue, as wine and wine products are the last to remain outside this tangle that is the single CMO. If it is legally impossible to take a step backwards, and if we must submit to this for reasons that are not entirely reasonable, Madam President, I would at least like to see Mrs Klaß's suggestions followed.
Mairead McGuinness
Madam President, I really will not take a minute because, being from Ireland, I have not been lobbied by wine producers.
I think there is a general concern about the pulling together of so many different sectors in a single CMO. We really will not know if it works until it is done. I will therefore listen to the concerns of those who know more about the wine sector, while realising that we do have to move this process on. I hope that we will get better reassurances from the Commission because we do need to listen to the concerns of the producers.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Madam President, we are including wine market regulations in a general regulation covering all markets, which had been adopted at an earlier date. Will this be better for wine producers? Let us hope that it will represent a true simplification and reduction of the existing administrative burden imposed on farmers.
The common agricultural policy health check adopted today is also intended to limit controls and reduce the administrative burden on farmers. The consolidation of regulations relating to very specific markets into a single regulation was also a debatable point, but has been agreed. It would be worth considering whether we really need to include in it the wine market, which is a highly specific market functioning according to an individual formula in terms of production, processing and traditions.
Christa Klaß
(DE) Madam President, you have just switched off my microphone and therefore I am taking the opportunity of using the 'catch-the-eye' procedure to reformulate my questions.
I wanted to ask the Commission specifically, who in future will be monitoring existing legislation when the common market organisation is amended and who will be making sure that nothing is pushed through in other areas, for example in the area of wine when we are talking about milk?
My second specific question is as follows: Can the Commission put in place the technical requirements to simplify management of the system, on the internet or in a portal, to allow users to access each market area separately, such as wine, milk, fruit and vegetables?
Those were my questions. Thank you, Madam President.
James Nicholson
Madam President, we are all well aware that the creation of the single Common Market Organisation is an attempt to improve transparency and to streamline and simplify legislation on the Common Agricultural Policy. Most sectors have already been successfully incorporated into the CMO.
Like Mrs McGuinness, I do not come from a wine-growing area, so I will be very careful what I say - thank you Mrs Lulling. I support Mr Parish's view that the wine sector should now be included in the amendment, and while I understand the concerns expressed by some colleagues, I feel we should be aiming to complete this technical process, which will ultimately mean a reduction in red tape for farmers. That has got to be good. For wine-growing farmers, it will be a bonus at the end of the day.
Janez Potočnik
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, first of all I would like to thank all the contributors to this debate.
I would like to reiterate the importance of this proposal in the simplification of the CAP.
The concerns you raised seem to be quite similar to those expressed at the very start of the single CMO project. But I think that experience has been quite reassuring. The single CMO is currently working really well.
The CMO for wine was never simple, to be quite straightforward. On the contrary. What we are proposing is, in fact, bringing more clarity and credibility - to the extent, of course, it is possible - on the basis of a very complex existing text of the wine reform itself.
No substance changes to the CMO wine reform will be done. We are talking about technical - and only technical - adjustments. There will be separate chapters. There will be issues unique to the wine sector which will be kept intact in the appropriate place of the single CMO, like those on production potential, support programmes, designations of origin, GI and traditional terms, labelling and presentation, oenological practices. But there will also be issues which are common to wine and other sectors, such as the provisions on trade with third countries or state aids, which will be combined into a single simple provision.
I would also like to add that the possibility of using our search engines was mentioned. EUR-Lex has a search engine that allows extraction of all provisions from the single CMO that mention the word 'wine'. But, of course, from a technical point of view, it is not yet possible at this stage to provide for a consolidated electronic version of the whole wine CMO extracted from the consolidated single CMO. Of course, however, this should be possible when completed.
I should also mention in the context of the questions of the honourable Members of Parliament that there is no possibility that wine issues would get mixed up in reforms with the other sectors. This is not a realistic prospect, simply, in practice. It is hard to see why a proposal on, for example, the dairy sector should somehow attract the attention of wine policymakers. In any event - from a purely legal point of view - integration into a single regulation does not change the situation. What would matter would be the substance of any changes proposed, not the precise legal framework in which they were proposed.
To finish, I think we need to take the final step to complete the single CMO. I would therefore like to underline that the determination of the Commission to do so is very strong. But it is truly about simplification; it is truly about transparency; it is nothing more than that.
Neil Parish
rapporteur. - Madam President, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, so we look forward to the Commission actually delivering on what it is saying, because we will need this in an electronic form in the future so that we can access it.
The Commission is promising that it will bring everything together in the one CMO, meaning that when we want to look into wine, we will be able to do so and will not be accessing the milk CMO at the same time, thereby reducing bureaucracy. We have had all these assurances tonight, and most of us will vote in favour tomorrow because we have had those assurances. As I said, we then look forward to checking what happens. We take the assurances of the Commission in the good faith in which they have been presented tonight, and look forward to working together on these CMOs - or rather on the one CMO - in the future.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 20 November 2008.